NOYB wrote:

Is it more humane to kill 100's per day times thousands of days...or doom
the same number of people in a matter of seconds? And which one has more
shock appeal to subdue the enemy by exhausting his will to fight? I know
how FDR chose to answer those questions.


And as your radioactive cloud circles the globe, creating 500 million slow
death cancer cases, any wonderful ideas about how we'll keep it out of the US
and the one or two other nations on the globe still friendly toward us?

Gould 0738 wrote:
NOYB wrote:

Is it more humane to kill 100's per day times thousands of days...or doom
the same number of people in a matter of seconds? And which one has more
shock appeal to subdue the enemy by exhausting his will to fight? I know
how FDR chose to answer those questions.


And as your radioactive cloud circles the globe, creating 500 million slow
death cancer cases, any wonderful ideas about how we'll keep it out of the US
and the one or two other nations on the globe still friendly toward us?

Nobby thinks he and his will be safe down in Buttfock, Florida, where
they live.



--
We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the
son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of
them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and
incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah.

What, me worry?

Hitler was smarter than Bush, and a better speaker, too. While Bush
isn't the monster Hitler was...he's working on it.


Gould 0738 wrote:
Much as I dislike Bush, I don't see any real comparison between GWB and Hitler.

Agreed.

Hitler served his time in the army, George Bush Jr. got into a cuhsy
position based on favoritism and still went AWOL.

Hitler had the patience & intellect to write a book, George Bush Jr.
doesn't have the patience & intellect to even read one.

Hitler was sincere in his ideological and religious beliefs, George Bush
Jr. is just a good ol' boy who cannot follow through on any consistent
principle.

In a way, this proves the George Bush Jr. simply could not ever become
the evil monster that Hitler was.

There is always the danger that a country that becomes too right wing and too
militant will take the next step and become fascist, (like Germany did), but
comparing GWB, as a person, to Hitler, as a person, would be just as difficult
as it would be silly.

I agree again, but I have no doubt at all that many of GWB's followers
would like to start American concentration camps, if they could.

DSK

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

Is it more humane to kill 100's per day times thousands of days...or doom
the same number of people in a matter of seconds? And which one has more
shock appeal to subdue the enemy by exhausting his will to fight? I know
how FDR chose to answer those questions.


And as your radioactive cloud circles the globe, creating 500 million slow
death cancer cases, any wonderful ideas about how we'll keep it out of the
US
and the one or two other nations on the globe still friendly toward us?

You're exaggerating the effects to people outside the "immediate effect"
range, assuming the attack is done with an "air blast" instead of a surface
blast. Scientists have made predictions of various scenarios, and they've
come to the conclusion that air blasts have a lot less delayed effects from
radiation fallout. In fact, they've calculated that a 1-Mt air blast over a
city would have the following delayed effects *worldwide*:

Somatic effects (Cancer deaths, thyroid cancers, thyroid nodules) : between
1900 and 3700 people worldwide.

Genetic effects (abortions due to chromosomal changes, other genetic
effects): between 450-4500 cases worldwide.

So a worst-case scenario is that 8200 people are affected worldwide (outside
the "immediate effect" area)...which is certainly lower than the total
number of people killed in terrorist attacks over the past 2 decades.

http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/pdfs/7906.pdf (table 14)

NOYB wrote:
"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

Is it more humane to kill 100's per day times thousands of days...or doom
the same number of people in a matter of seconds? And which one has more
shock appeal to subdue the enemy by exhausting his will to fight? I know
how FDR chose to answer those questions.


And as your radioactive cloud circles the globe, creating 500 million slow
death cancer cases, any wonderful ideas about how we'll keep it out of the
US
and the one or two other nations on the globe still friendly toward us?

You're exaggerating the effects to people outside the "immediate effect"
range, assuming the attack is done with an "air blast" instead of a surface
blast. Scientists have made predictions of various scenarios, and they've
come to the conclusion that air blasts have a lot less delayed effects from
radiation fallout. In fact, they've calculated that a 1-Mt air blast over a
city would have the following delayed effects *worldwide*:

Somatic effects (Cancer deaths, thyroid cancers, thyroid nodules) : between
1900 and 3700 people worldwide.

Genetic effects (abortions due to chromosomal changes, other genetic
effects): between 450-4500 cases worldwide.

So a worst-case scenario is that 8200 people are affected worldwide (outside
the "immediate effect" area)...which is certainly lower than the total
number of people killed in terrorist attacks over the past 2 decades.

http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/pdfs/7906.pdf (table 14)




Better your 'hood than mine, fella.

--
We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the
son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of
them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and
incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah.

What, me worry?

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Gould 0738 wrote:
NOYB wrote:

Is it more humane to kill 100's per day times thousands of days...or
doom
the same number of people in a matter of seconds? And which one has
more
shock appeal to subdue the enemy by exhausting his will to fight? I
know
how FDR chose to answer those questions.


And as your radioactive cloud circles the globe, creating 500 million
slow
death cancer cases, any wonderful ideas about how we'll keep it out of
the US
and the one or two other nations on the globe still friendly toward us?

Nobby thinks he and his will be safe down in Buttfock, Florida, where
they live.

That'd be Bumfoch, FL. Buttfock is across Alligator Alley.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

Is it more humane to kill 100's per day times thousands of days...or
doom
the same number of people in a matter of seconds? And which one has
more
shock appeal to subdue the enemy by exhausting his will to fight? I
know
how FDR chose to answer those questions.


And as your radioactive cloud circles the globe, creating 500 million
slow
death cancer cases, any wonderful ideas about how we'll keep it out of
the
US
and the one or two other nations on the globe still friendly toward us?

You're exaggerating the effects to people outside the "immediate effect"
range, assuming the attack is done with an "air blast" instead of a
surface
blast. Scientists have made predictions of various scenarios, and
they've
come to the conclusion that air blasts have a lot less delayed effects
from
radiation fallout. In fact, they've calculated that a 1-Mt air blast
over a
city would have the following delayed effects *worldwide*:

Somatic effects (Cancer deaths, thyroid cancers, thyroid nodules) :
between
1900 and 3700 people worldwide.

Genetic effects (abortions due to chromosomal changes, other genetic
effects): between 450-4500 cases worldwide.

So a worst-case scenario is that 8200 people are affected worldwide
(outside
the "immediate effect" area)...which is certainly lower than the total
number of people killed in terrorist attacks over the past 2 decades.

http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/pdfs/7906.pdf (table 14)




Better your 'hood than mine, fella.

Better the Middle East than either of our 'hoods.

NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

Is it more humane to kill 100's per day times thousands of days...or
doom
the same number of people in a matter of seconds? And which one has
more
shock appeal to subdue the enemy by exhausting his will to fight? I
know
how FDR chose to answer those questions.


And as your radioactive cloud circles the globe, creating 500 million
slow
death cancer cases, any wonderful ideas about how we'll keep it out of
the
US
and the one or two other nations on the globe still friendly toward us?

You're exaggerating the effects to people outside the "immediate effect"
range, assuming the attack is done with an "air blast" instead of a
surface
blast. Scientists have made predictions of various scenarios, and
they've
come to the conclusion that air blasts have a lot less delayed effects
from
radiation fallout. In fact, they've calculated that a 1-Mt air blast
over a
city would have the following delayed effects *worldwide*:

Somatic effects (Cancer deaths, thyroid cancers, thyroid nodules) :
between
1900 and 3700 people worldwide.

Genetic effects (abortions due to chromosomal changes, other genetic
effects): between 450-4500 cases worldwide.

So a worst-case scenario is that 8200 people are affected worldwide
(outside
the "immediate effect" area)...which is certainly lower than the total
number of people killed in terrorist attacks over the past 2 decades.

http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/pdfs/7906.pdf (table 14)




Better your 'hood than mine, fella.

Better the Middle East than either of our 'hoods.




If there is a nuclear war, it isn't going to be "contained" where you
would like it.

Come on...you're a lot smarter than that. No one wins nuclear war.

--
We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the
son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of
them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and
incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah.

What, me worry?

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

Is it more humane to kill 100's per day times thousands of
days...or
doom
the same number of people in a matter of seconds? And which one
has
more
shock appeal to subdue the enemy by exhausting his will to fight?
I
know
how FDR chose to answer those questions.


And as your radioactive cloud circles the globe, creating 500
million
slow
death cancer cases, any wonderful ideas about how we'll keep it out
of
the
US
and the one or two other nations on the globe still friendly toward
us?

You're exaggerating the effects to people outside the "immediate
effect"
range, assuming the attack is done with an "air blast" instead of a
surface
blast. Scientists have made predictions of various scenarios, and
they've
come to the conclusion that air blasts have a lot less delayed
effects
from
radiation fallout. In fact, they've calculated that a 1-Mt air blast
over a
city would have the following delayed effects *worldwide*:

Somatic effects (Cancer deaths, thyroid cancers, thyroid nodules) :
between
1900 and 3700 people worldwide.

Genetic effects (abortions due to chromosomal changes, other genetic
effects): between 450-4500 cases worldwide.

So a worst-case scenario is that 8200 people are affected worldwide
(outside
the "immediate effect" area)...which is certainly lower than the
total
number of people killed in terrorist attacks over the past 2 decades.

http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/pdfs/7906.pdf (table 14)




Better your 'hood than mine, fella.

Better the Middle East than either of our 'hoods.




If there is a nuclear war, it isn't going to be "contained" where you
would like it.

Come on...you're a lot smarter than that. No one wins nuclear war.

Particularly the ones without nukes.

Harry Krause wrote in message ...
Curtis CCR wrote:
You think the author of this bill really wants a draft? Charlie
Rangel??? How about the co-sponsors? Sheila Jackson-Lee and Pete
Stark want a draft?

I think a draft that does not exclude rich, white kids would be
delightful. It certainly would bring an end to unjustified militarism on
our part.

I have no heartache with that aspect. But the post I responded to
said that "he is calling for a draft," and cites an article that tries
to make it sound like this Bush driven legislation.

I don't have a problem with conscription for all. There are of
course, people that shouldn't serve. There are legitimate medical
excuses - 'Roids and toenail fungus are not among them.

This would not bring an end to militarism on our part. Whether or not
any particular action is "unjustified" is matter of opinion. This
kind of draft will not turn the U.S. into a bunch a french pussies,
despite the best intentions of your party.