Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Forums
Non-Cattle Specific Topics
Coffee Shop
American Found
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Help Support CattleToday:
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Craig-TX" data-source="post: 29353" data-attributes="member: 39"><p>If you're from Texas you should be aware that it's slightly larger than 425 square miles. Houston is bigger than that. Actually, Texas is over 266 thousand square miles. </p><p></p><p>You seem to be falling prey to the hysterical mindset of nuke discussions. Bear in mind that there are many different sizes and types of nuclear weapons, from small tactical weapons that are fired from artillery all the way to the multi-warhead city busters. Five of the big nukes would not destroy Texas, much less the planet. Mankind has become pretty cocky to presume we have the power to destroy the earth. The Mt. Saint Helens explosion was many times the size of the bombs we dropped on Japan. </p><p></p><p>As far as the radiation left behind, let Iraq glow. Would you rather that New York, Houston, or LA glowed for years? Give it time and that's exactly what will happen if we don't get our foot on thier neck.</p><p></p><p>Take your argument to its logical conclusion and you can see how silly it is. They are huge bombs that kill a lot of people via heat, blast, radiation and general collapse of economy and infrastructure. You are saying it would be better to spend many more billions of dollars and thousands of lives to do the same thing with a lot more smaller bombs? </p><p></p><p>Craig-TX</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Craig-TX, post: 29353, member: 39"] If you’re from Texas you should be aware that it’s slightly larger than 425 square miles. Houston is bigger than that. Actually, Texas is over 266 thousand square miles. You seem to be falling prey to the hysterical mindset of nuke discussions. Bear in mind that there are many different sizes and types of nuclear weapons, from small tactical weapons that are fired from artillery all the way to the multi-warhead city busters. Five of the big nukes would not destroy Texas, much less the planet. Mankind has become pretty cocky to presume we have the power to destroy the earth. The Mt. Saint Helens explosion was many times the size of the bombs we dropped on Japan. As far as the radiation left behind, let Iraq glow. Would you rather that New York, Houston, or LA glowed for years? Give it time and that's exactly what will happen if we don't get our foot on thier neck. Take your argument to its logical conclusion and you can see how silly it is. They are huge bombs that kill a lot of people via heat, blast, radiation and general collapse of economy and infrastructure. You are saying it would be better to spend many more billions of dollars and thousands of lives to do the same thing with a lot more smaller bombs? Craig-TX [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Non-Cattle Specific Topics
Coffee Shop
American Found
Top