Jump to content

Why a "preemptive" nuclear strike shouldn't be an option...


Casper
 Share

Recommended Posts

Actually guys and gals, If we would have invaded the communists bastards country after WWII which would have been a "preemptive" war...

THAT TESTING WOULDN'T HAVE TAKEN PLACE...

and the problem wouldn't have arisen from

the dumb asses testing nuclear weapons near people. We could have

removed the problem before it happened by a preemptive war. War is hell

but so is seeing all the baby's we could have saved from being

stillborn or born with major birth defects.

While we are on the dead baby in a jar topic...Think about all the aborted

baby's whose mothers were spared the hell of raising them in this country and

tell me those mothers in Kazakhstan wouldn't give their lives for a perfectly healthy child that we take for granted here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sad.

It also reminds me of "The Hills Have Eyes". - Part I or II

Which is fiction and has no basis in fact unless someone was stupid enough to move to a desert in search of a good home and even if they did, we did MOST of our testing BELOW GROUND to lessen contamination. Ten feet of earth will protect you from 100% of radiation and if you happen to get a little

radiation every once in a while you could actually get less cancer than the average person. Small doses of radiation kill cancer according to doctors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...