Page 2 of 2
Re: US Must Use Nuclear Weapons Against Oil Spill
Posted: Fri May 07, 2010 4:36 pm
by army of nobunaga
72o wrote:jefjef wrote:A small nuke in many strategic locations would solve a lot of problems.
Washington, D.C.;
Baghdad, Iraq;
Athens, Greece;
Kabul, Afghanistan;
Tehran, Iran;
Pyongyang, North Korea;
Didnt the badguys in Triple X the movie try this? All it took was one xander to stop them.
Small atomic explosions might be the only thing that works here.. 1 mile down is a long way to try delicate experiments.
Re: US Must Use Nuclear Weapons Against Oil Spill
Posted: Thu May 13, 2010 7:14 pm
by Kegler
Well it does remind me of War. They've made a point of hiding this news on main media and spam what's really going on over there - try finding a legit video recently put on youtube? Or better yet try finding an updated areial view of the spewing oil
Re: US Must Use Nuclear Weapons Against Oil Spill
Posted: Thu May 13, 2010 7:19 pm
by thegreekdog
pimpdave wrote:jonesthecurl wrote:pimpdave wrote:72o wrote:jefjef wrote:A small nuke in many strategic locations would solve a lot of problems.
Washington, D.C.;
Baghdad, Iraq;
Athens, Greece;
Kabul, Afghanistan;
Tehran, Iran;
Pyongyang, North Korea;
WASILLA, ALASKA
The corner office.
The abandoned warehouse just outside Newark that conceals a nefarious secret lair.
I might be misremembering the comic, but didn't Cobra have it's own town somewhere in middle America? If so, we should bomb that one.
Re: US Must Use Nuclear Weapons Against Oil Spill
Posted: Thu May 13, 2010 11:34 pm
by pimpdave
Kegler wrote:Well it does remind me of War. They've made a point of hiding this news on main media and spam what's really going on over there - try finding a legit video recently put on youtube? Or better yet try finding an updated areial view of the spewing oil
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=did-S6XbpMM
Re: US Must Use Nuclear Weapons Against Oil Spill
Posted: Fri May 14, 2010 2:31 am
by saxitoxin
thegreekdog wrote:I might be misremembering the comic, but didn't Cobra have it's own town somewhere in middle America?
Springfield in an unnamed state. Ol' Cobra Commander started there as a used car salesman until his li'l brother was killed in a drink driving accident. Well, it turns out Snake Eyes was the only one to survive the crash. So ol' Cobra Commander, who had gone off the deep end at this point, hired an assassin to kill Snake Eyes. That assassin failed but CC's intro into the world of crime had begun. Guess what that slippery snake did then? Yep. He formed the Crimson Guard to start a protection racket in Springfield and COBRA grew from there. Eventually the U.S. government had to start a crack team to deal with this new terrorist menace: G.I. JOE.
Re: US Must Use Nuclear Weapons Against Oil Spill
Posted: Fri May 14, 2010 4:09 am
by pimpdave
pimpdave wrote:Kegler wrote:Well it does remind me of War. They've made a point of hiding this news on main media and spam what's really going on over there - try finding a legit video recently put on youtube? Or better yet try finding an updated areial view of the spewing oil
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=did-S6XbpMM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aV0Bmvuc_5U
Re: US Must Use Nuclear Weapons Against Oil Spill
Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 5:37 pm
by Kegler
One link you've left has been deleted from Youtube ...
Take a good look at this one before it gets axed .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKTtezc7-js
Re: US Must Use Nuclear Weapons Against Oil Spill
Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 5:55 pm
by Pedronicus
I've got a cute idea
lets aim the nukes at the Americans that use 26.1% of the worlds energy per year, whilst only being 4.53% of the world population.
That's the best way to stop the requirement for oil.
Re: US Must Use Nuclear Weapons Against Oil Spill
Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 6:12 pm
by jbrettlip
Pedronicus wrote:I've got a cute idea
lets aim the nukes at the Americans that use 26.1% of the worlds energy per year, whilst only being 4.53% of the world population.
That's the best way to stop the requirement for oil.
They are all in CA....I am fine with that.
Re: US Must Use Nuclear Weapons Against Oil Spill
Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 6:20 pm
by Kegler
apology for going off your topic somewhat but lets nevermind the nukes, how about they just go about using ELECTROMAGNETIC WARFARE.
and people still don't believe in chemtrails
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5w1VojBD70&feature=related
Re: US Must Use Nuclear Weapons Against Oil Spill
Posted: Thu Jun 03, 2010 8:19 am
by PLAYER57832
Kegler wrote:apology for going off your topic somewhat but lets nevermind the nukes,
Off topic? I think its all "gallows" humor.
[/quote]
Makes as much sense as nukes!
But oh... I guess I gotta be a bit of a party pooper. I guess this idea has gotten enough mileage that BP actually issued an official statement that they are NOT considering using nukes in the Gulf.
Re: US Must Use Nuclear Weapons Against Oil Spill
Posted: Thu Jun 03, 2010 8:35 am
by AAFitz
Pedronicus wrote:I've got a cute idea
lets aim the nukes at the Americans that use 26.1% of the worlds energy per year, whilst only being 4.53% of the world population.
That's the best way to stop the requirement for oil.
Complaining about energy usage while using a computer to play a game is about as productive as spray painting on a wall.
In any case, its easy for someone on an island with a pretty moderate temperature throughout the year, to complain about a continent with extremes in temperature from 120F degrees to -120Fdegrees. We also as you mention have a pretty small population in relation to our size, so it does indeed take more time to get where we are going. Weve only been settling the place for over 400 years total--not counting the time native Americans lived here, but they werent as much settling...and by settling, I suppose I mean conquering.
I had some friends from Scotland who were completely annoyed that our gas prices were much lower, until they had to go out and get jobs, and realized that they couldnt possibly afford to even have those jobs if the gas prices were the same.
We have a massive continent, its friggin hot, and its friggin cold. I agree that there is much, much waste at the same time, but dont go thinking normal Americans are going out spewing gas all over the place for fun. We use it to go to work, and keep from freezing, and keep from melting. And use it to play some silly games on the internet as well, but most, try to conserve as much as they possibly can, and if other options were available, wed take them in a second.
Re: US Must Use Nuclear Weapons Against Oil Spill
Posted: Thu Jun 03, 2010 8:40 am
by AAFitz
Personally, I think a giant angioplasty would be the easiest method, with a massive inflatable ball at the end, that just got pushed into the hole and then inflated, and then perhaps concrete poured into that gap if at all possible.
The problems of course are the extreme pressures of both the ocean and the oil coming out itself with that plan.
The only other would be an explodable foam of which many are available that simply happen by mixing two different agents together, though getting them both in that hole and in sufficient quantities would be rather tough, not to mention the friction of the foam against the hole, would have a difficult time dealing with the pressure of the leak, but even if it bought time, it would perhaps their silly top hat, bottom splat, or procrastinating splewge ideas to work.
Re: US Must Use Nuclear Weapons Against Oil Spill
Posted: Thu Jun 03, 2010 5:40 pm
by Kegler
That first idea is almost the same thing as the Top Fail. Too much pressure is being forced out of that hole. They should try to cut the pipe and put the biggest funnel man has ever made over that area, and you could contain the leak and subdue the pressure. You have a challenge of not knowing whether the oil would just go underneath the funnel and surface, but I think if you put enough pumps and filters up above, and some vacuums around the edges of the funnel, the chances of success are there. I saw the foam idea in a movie once
Re: US Must Use Nuclear Weapons Against Oil Spill
Posted: Fri Jun 04, 2010 9:09 am
by PLAYER57832
AAFitz wrote:Pedronicus wrote:I've got a cute idea
lets aim the nukes at the Americans that use 26.1% of the worlds energy per year, whilst only being 4.53% of the world population.
That's the best way to stop the requirement for oil.
Complaining about energy usage while using a computer to play a game is about as productive as spray painting on a wall.
In any case, its easy for someone on an island with a pretty moderate temperature throughout the year, to complain about a continent with extremes in temperature from 120F degrees to -120Fdegrees. We also as you mention have a pretty small population in relation to our size, so it does indeed take more time to get where we are going. Weve only been settling the place for over 400 years total--not counting the time native Americans lived here, but they werent as much settling...and by settling, I suppose I mean conquering.
I had some friends from Scotland who were completely annoyed that our gas prices were much lower, until they had to go out and get jobs, and realized that they couldnt possibly afford to even have those jobs if the gas prices were the same.
We have a massive continent, its friggin hot, and its friggin cold. I agree that there is much, much waste at the same time, but dont go thinking normal Americans are going out spewing gas all over the place for fun. We use it to go to work, and keep from freezing, and keep from melting. And use it to play some silly games on the internet as well, but most, try to conserve as much as they possibly can, and if other options were available, wed take them in a second.
This is true, but it is also false.
If gas prices were higher, then wages would have to follow. BUT, the biggest issue is mass transit. Just as an example, Los Angeles had planned a subway system in the 50's. It was killed, ostentiably due to earthquakes, but in truth, because GM saw a huge market and did not want the competition. To this day, Los Angeles is a big sprawl with only poor mass transit. It has improve some in recent years, but nowhere near what it could be.
Or, take Amtrak. It got a bad name under Reagan. Truth is, trains are very efficient means of moving goods and people, far better than planes. The problem is that while our government puts millions into roadways, the jurisdiction of rails is almost entirely private. So, you have stretches run by companies that do a great job of maintaining tracks, followed by another company that does as little as possible. The system is only as strong as its weakest link. So, we have stretches of failures that cause big, spectacular accidents and dissuade people from rail travel. Plus, our rail system has been largely denuded.
I have rails running 3 blocks from my house, and connections that essentially surround us on all sides (though by some miles). Yet, if I want to ride a train, I have to drive 2 hours to catch one. And, that is the ONLY connection for a couple hundred miles in every direction. I can actually catch a small commercial flight just 30 minutes away, a flight from a big airport just 1 1/2 hours away. There are 3 Airports within 2 hours, 5 airports, including 2 international ones, within 2 1/2 hours.
When gas prices go up, more people use mass transit. More people using them mean they can be more profitable. Sadly, too my systems, though were designed to actually not be profitable.