Yeah we would have launched nukes. The tense situation was that russia had nukes in cuba and they were pointed at us. We forced them to disarm. If they would have launched you can bet your ass we would have launnched back. Thats in our US goverment procedure book.

Dont nukes fly into space? If they do wouldnt there be a way to stop/slow/destroy them while they are up there???

Yeah, they are getting so they can do just that. The Us is or has developed a system of intercepting them before they get here... A missile Defense system.

Originally posted by Mike

---

No we're not having shortages on gas when its 2.69 per gallon

and on water? your kidding me...look up how much the world consumes in water in a day, or year, and look at our clean water supply

---

Your an ............. nvm.

Ok mike, well fyi the price is high cuz the damn arabs want it like that. They have what we like to call a monoploy on oil. Interesting eh? They have this council called OPEC. They raise the price becasue they are greedy. Good story eh? And when the oil dries up they will be the economic s*** holes they were before oil.

here is an example
http://www.wtrg.com/prices.htm

Also its the libs in washingtons fault. We wouldn't have this problem if the...... idk........ energy bill would have been passed? Or maybe if people wouldn't pull a ted kennedy and say they want something like an oil refining plant so the prices go down but then they don't want it anywhere near them. Interesting.....

Well there is an old saying that goes a little like. "God helps he, who helps himself"


And the missle defense system is a good idea. Its better to reasearch it now, before we really need it.

John, i dont see how anyone would like to talk to you...ever

Librals? your blaming the librals for gas prices...your a f***in idiot, you ruin the whole posting experience for me by saying that you f***in idiot

John a conservative remember. They cant afford to beheld resbonsible.. maybe. Whoknows who cares but do you think anyone is owning up to the rise in fule prices? Fule prices are determinded by the economy. Politics cant change that.

Originally posted by Mike

---

John, i dont see how anyone would like to talk to you...ever

Librals? your blaming the librals for gas prices...your a f***in idiot, you ruin the whole posting experience for me by saying that you f***in idiot

---

Mike, please then shoot a hole in my argument. We wouldn't have this increase to this level if we would have took preventitive measures. I'm being reasonable. And icewave that is false. Opec determines how much oil they put out. They put out less the prices go up. Which they are having a trend of doing.

Originally posted by John

---

if america would have invaded cuba, it would have been disaterous. Millions would have died. So we are all glad it didn't happen. yadda, yadda, yadda.

But if push came to shove they would have used them. I'm sure the commies would have used them to stop the us marine invasion.

But now a days a lot of missles could hit us. north korea for example was the capabilites of launching biohazerdous, and nuclear warheads at us and hitting us on the west coat. fun fact eh?

---

wasn't cuba invaded by a small force? and isn't that invasion known as 'bay of pigs'?

like nukes can stop an invasion? THEY'RE OFFENSIVE WEAPONS! defending a country with nukes is pointless, you'd nuke your own land and people...

Originally posted by neojazex

---

Originally posted by John

---

if america would have invaded cuba, it would have been disaterous. Millions would have died. So we are all glad it didn't happen. yadda, yadda, yadda.

But if push came to shove they would have used them. I'm sure the commies would have used them to stop the us marine invasion.

But now a days a lot of missles could hit us. north korea for example was the capabilites of launching biohazerdous, and nuclear warheads at us and hitting us on the west coat. fun fact eh?

---

wasn't cuba invaded by a small force? and isn't that invasion known as 'bay of pigs'?

like nukes can stop an invasion? THEY'RE OFFENSIVE WEAPONS! defending a country with nukes is pointless, you'd nuke your own land and people...

---

Yea, but that was a different incident where the CIA sponsered a bunch of cuban exiles and they invaded cuba, and got slaughtered.

In this incident they had small tactical nukes that they could launch and destroy a landing party. It would have been very effective in stoping a full invasion.

I think there will be a big war in the near future, definitely, but I don't think it will be a World War.

The biggest conflict currently in the world today, as was pointed out earlier, is that in the Middle East. Since this conflict is at its most basic level a religious conflict, you can bet your ass that both sides of it would have no qualms about going to war, over and over and over again, until one side or the other is annihilated. The only thing stopping them is the interference of larger, more powerful nations, and the presence of level-headed individuals within the Middle-Eastern governments.

But say that those level-headed individuals get assassinated by, oh I don't know, a terrorist cell group. And say that those same terrorists also provoke the larger, more powerful nations with horrific attacks such as 9/11 and the London subway bombings. What you will most likely have then is a situation where nobody is willing to stop a war from happening. And that's when things get problematic. All it'll take is a major terrorist attack on one of the other superpowers, like China, for example. The war would be inevitable if that happened -- the United Nations would be powerless to stop a war if all the major superpowers were unanimous in wanting it, because the smaller nations who don't want a war would not have enough influence to prevent it.

Just because nukes are an outdated form of warfare doesn't make them any less effective, John. They still kill lots of people very quickly, and they also contaminate areas so that even the survivors lead lives of quiet agony for the remainder of their days. Nations like the U.S. might be reasonable enough to avoid firing them off, because they value life and don't want to be responsible for putting anyone through such suffering. But how reasonable do you think the terrorists are? Lives mean nothing to them if losing them helps achieve their goal. They don't care if the nukes blow them up along with their enemies. They regularly do that with normal bombs, remember?

So yes, I think a war is not just possible, but probable. But I doubt it'll be a World War, because like I said earlier, the smaller nations would be against it. A World War would require a conflict so immense that it would polarize the nations of the world into two groups, each with an equal number of superpowers and smaller nations -- like the Axis and Allied Powers of WWII. And then the two groups would have to battle one another until the conflict is resolved. But I don't forsee a conflict in the near future that would be so colossal as to cause such events to occur.

...But then again, this is all merely conjecture and opinion on my part, so you can feel free to ignore or rebuke it if you want.

Originally posted by Stoney

---

I think there will be a big war in the near future, definitely, but I don't think it will be a World War.

The biggest conflict currently in the world today, as was pointed out earlier, is that in the Middle East. Since this conflict is at its most basic level a religious conflict, you can bet your ass that both sides of it would have no qualms about going to war, over and over and over again, until one side or the other is annihilated. The only thing stopping them is the interference of larger, more powerful nations, and the presence of level-headed individuals within the Middle-Eastern governments.

But say that those level-headed individuals get assassinated by, oh I don't know, a terrorist cell group. And say that those same terrorists also provoke the larger, more powerful nations with horrific attacks such as 9/11 and the London subway bombings. What you will most likely have then is a situation where nobody is willing to stop a war from happening. And that's when things get problematic. All it'll take is a major terrorist attack on one of the other superpowers, like China, for example. The war would be inevitable if that happened -- the United Nations would be powerless to stop a war if all the major superpowers were unanimous in wanting it, because the smaller nations who don't want a war would not have enough influence to prevent it.

Just because nukes are an outdated form of warfare doesn't make them any less effective, John. They still kill lots of people very quickly, and they also contaminate areas so that even the survivors lead lives of quiet agony for the remainder of their days. Nations like the U.S. might be reasonable enough to avoid firing them off, because they value life and don't want to be responsible for putting anyone through such suffering. But how reasonable do you think the terrorists are? Lives mean nothing to them if losing them helps achieve their goal. They don't care if the nukes blow them up along with their enemies. They regularly do that with normal bombs, remember?

So yes, I think a war is not just possible, but probable. But I doubt it'll be a World War, because like I said earlier, the smaller nations would be against it. A World War would require a conflict so immense that it would polarize the nations of the world into two groups, each with an equal number of superpowers and smaller nations -- like the Axis and Allied Powers of WWII. And then the two groups would have to battle one another until the conflict is resolved. But I don't forsee a conflict in the near future that would be so colossal as to cause such events to occur.

...But then again, this is all merely conjecture and opinion on my part, so you can feel free to ignore or rebuke it if you want.

---

wow....... middle east? There is no power there! They are super technologicly advanced and they lack lots of things we have in abundnace. Prolly in some place like north korea. Who has thousands and thousands of missles and such, the largest tank force on the planet, and is currently at war and can go on a moments notice.

Originally posted by John

---

United States
10,455 - Warheads

Russia
8,400 - Warheads

China
400 - Warheads

France
350 - Warheads

Israel
250 - Warheads

United Kingdom
200 - Warheads

India
65 - Warheads

Pakistan
40 - Warheads

North Korea
8 - Warheads

TOTAL
20,168 - Warheads

---

It only takes one nuke to cause a massive catastrophe, John. And according to what you've told us, there are 290 of them in the pressure-cooker that is the Middle East. That's 282 more warheads than North Korea has, by the way -- again, according to your own information.

And even then, those are just the nuclear weapons we know about. Who here has any idea how many of Russia's weapons were "mysteriously lost" after the end of the Soviet Union? Nobody does. Do you know why? Because it would make them look weak and irresponsible if we did know the true number. And America is just as guilty as they are...do you honestly think the U.S. government has told us everything they know about this problem? Do you honestly think they trust us that much? Has it not occurred to you that if they did tell us everything, it would likely cause mass panic, rioting, and looting in the streets?

After the fall of the Soviet Union, many disillusioned ex-government employees (i.e. nuclear physicists), desperate for jobs, were forced into employment for whoever wanted their services. Who do you think wanted them the most and would thus pay them the most money? Don't believe the stereotype that everyone from the Middle East is automatically a camel-herding, low-tech, dirt-poor peasant. There are some very well-connected people over there who would pay good money for the negotiating power that a nuclear weapon carries. You're being naive if you think otherwise.

Originally posted by Stoney

---

Originally posted by John

---

United States
10,455 - Warheads

Russia
8,400 - Warheads

China
400 - Warheads

France
350 - Warheads

Israel
250 - Warheads

United Kingdom
200 - Warheads

India
65 - Warheads

Pakistan
40 - Warheads

North Korea
8 - Warheads

TOTAL
20,168 - Warheads

---

It only takes one nuke to cause a massive catastrophe, John. And according to what you've told us, there are 290 of them in the pressure-cooker that is the Middle East. That's 282 more warheads than North Korea has, by the way -- again, according to your own information.

And even then, those are just the nuclear weapons we know about. Who here has any idea how many of Russia's weapons were "mysteriously lost" after the end of the Soviet Union? Nobody does. Do you know why? Because it would make them look weak and irresponsible if we did know the true number. And America is just as guilty as they are...do you honestly think the U.S. government has told us everything they know about this problem? Do you honestly think they trust us that much? Has it not occurred to you that if they did tell us everything, it would likely cause mass panic, rioting, and looting in the streets?

After the fall of the Soviet Union, many disillusioned ex-government employees (i.e. nuclear physicists), desperate for jobs, were forced into employment for whoever wanted their services. Who do you think wanted them the most and would thus pay them the most money? Don't believe the stereotype that everyone from the Middle East is automatically a camel-herding, low-tech, dirt-poor peasant. There are some very well-connected people over there who would pay good money for the negotiating power that a nuclear weapon carries. You're being naive if you think otherwise.

---

Woah now bud, slow down a tick. Pakistan and Isreal are both our allies. Isreal really wouldn't fire on us, and pakistan would only fire on india. So yea.

You seem to be creating a lot of consperacies. Can you back them up? Any data? From a reliable source? Any? Please provide. Also i'm not talking about the people, i'm talking about the governments. And how our military is far more advanced than theirs. So yea. The only one who is up there is isreal.

So really, you are telling me all these things with out proof. I mean I know you think i'm nieve for not falling into your pit of fear.

I'm starting to think this thread is running it's course...

sounds like a lot of people speculating about things and not really knowing at all what is going to happen in the next 10 years.

the likelihood of a WW3.... small in my opinion....very small

There will be no war because no nuclear missle CAN hit. We would know way before hand for one. Even if the US missle defense system isn't ready yet they invented a new plan that can on 8 f-16 and the f-16 were slaughterd. I dunno about you but sure think that plane could shoot a nuke down easy. There are currently only 17 of these planes but 300 ae in production.



Gas prices is affected by politics and the economy and the araab prices. However the gas componies are recieving 400% profit from 2 years ago makeing it not the arabs.

The economy is sluggish but only enough to slightly raise gas prices. George bush needs to put his foot down because people are starting to have to go to food shelters because gas money took away from their food budget. So yes the goverment needs to step in.

We have more then enough gas to last. We only need about 10 years worth of our current gas consumption. Why? By the year 2009 cars made have to emit almost 0 pollution(This means that all 2009 cars with be all electrical or a natural gas car). No gas except for natural gas can be burned emitting no pollution. Thus the gas prices need to raise now because the industry will be dead soon enough.


The only time Korea could ever truely be a threat is if it launched all its nukes at once.

What do you mean they will have to emit almost 0 pollution?

Edit: The industry wouldn't be dead if this were to happen, cuz there is things like planes and military vehicals that would also use non-electrical/natural gas sources.

First of all I would like to say that MIkes last post was retarded. Because he's a noob if he lets john "Ruin the whole posting experience" I think what john was saying was we have massive oil reserves in alaska, texas, ok, off the coast of cal, and florida. We can't even drill or use 90% of the us oil because of the liberal laws.. SO yes John was right mike. We could produce and get gasoline much cheaper domestically.

I also heard somthing about not recieving oil for 2 years after its produced? Well the amount of oil being refined has a direct connection to the price of gas. Take that for what you will. I don't care about two years ago.

As for our defense against Nukes I think its already up. The gov. has so much stuff that the public doesn't know about its crazy. Not that I know. Just that people know that there are programs in existance. Like 4 billion dollars appropriated to a weather controlling machine. Stuff like this. I think since there are planes that can cloak and not be detected on radar its possible to do the same with a nuke. If it was low flying and disguised as an airplane it could even be launched from canada or mexico. I mean what if a CHinese sub off the coast of cally started shooting. Would we have time to fly a plane over there and stop it?

i garentee the US has a full highly detailed realtime satalite view of almsot any threat.


and john what i mean by that. If is the car emits more then X amount of pollution(its measured by whatever amount(my teacher said by 2009 cars have to have an emissions have to be 0) it won't be able to be sold(atleast in the US).

Yea the word is emissions i was just tired ebcuase i had only gotten 2 hours of sleep.

Yea but the let me put it this way. The prices of gas over there went up about 50%. The gas over hear went 400%. What part of that is right? Any president in their right mind would put their foot down.

The US is fighting Walmart over Walmart not actually buying the products they sell. Walmart wants companies to give them the product then if it sells pay them what they owe.

Yet a goverment cant fight the gas prices?


It'd be very hard to shoot a nuke underwater. Things go MUCH slower underwater. Theres also the most likely chance of it hitting a rocky bed and being damaged and explodeing before it reaches it target.

The missles wouldn't be torpedoes. They would surface probably ten miles out into the ocean where the sub would be.

I don't understand what your saying about walmart vs walmart. Or the pricing of gas. I guess I don't understand what john is takling about either. oh and just one more thing to say... WAR IS EMINENT BUILD YOUR BOMB SHELTERS NOW!!!

I totally agree that it is eminent too. Its going to happen and there is not a damned thing we can do about it... Suck i know but what are ya goinna do.