Hilarious Bush Quotes

posted on February 7th, 2005, 4:48 am

The reason we have so many nukes is really just number, how it looks on paper, it's like 2,600 and thats a big number on paper, no one cares how many nukes you got except you have more then the other guy, thats it. Makes sense don't it?

[ewm90]

posted on February 7th, 2005, 6:33 am

Last edited by ewm90 on February 7th, 2005, 6:57 am, edited 1 time in total.

no not real. i meen at the pont that you can blow up the warld and still haveing nooke left its just exses, it take munny to keep all those nooks sucer, working, and stored. i think munny cude be beter spint uther places.


the cold war is over we had all to nukes to stop rasha and uther comunist contrys from nooking us well those days are over.
the problom we face naw is smaller contrys and tarist groops that will whood take 3-4 nooks to wipe out. so all thos thousonds of nooks are not needed. about 50-100 whood do the job.

and and we dont have a nuff nookler loch sites to loch tham all be for we are distoyed so it just make sints, uthers contrys think we are scard of tham. wich from what i get from waching bush not what he wonts to relay.

but no we are making more and more why?

posted on February 7th, 2005, 7:04 am

Becasue your a moron ewm, jesus christ you take everything that are government does as an insult to the world. We have that many nukes so we can respond in differant ways, such as nuclear bombs, cruise missiles, ICBMs, etc. That way we can have enough nukes in each catagory so that if an enemy somehow wiped one out, we have a backup plan.

I don't think we need that many either but their there, we can either use them to make another chernobyl or we can make em into a hiroshima, and apparently our elected leaders decided for the latter. Don't ask me why they do it, i'm not your enemy here.

posted on February 7th, 2005, 1:12 pm

as an insult no no. i dont i just think that bush is miss leding this cunnty.

but we dont need tham all thare bo tret on us to justify all thos nukes.
but bush is braking treetys and that keept ower ailes from geting nukes.

the treety bush brokle to make the new nuke weponds was disined to reduse the amont of nukes that rusha had and keep tham happy.

the word is more un safe if pepal think like that the more nukes pepal have the biger the chace of some one useing or selling one.

[coolhandab]

posted on February 7th, 2005, 3:16 pm

Last edited by coolhandab on February 7th, 2005, 3:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I think a lot of it has to do with expected reliability. The Russians for instance have a few hundred Topol and Topol-M missiles that are practically brand new, and they know they'll work. The average age for our arsenal is over 20 years, with a design life of 15. We'd have to fire at least three warheads at every target to make sure of detonation. Remember the test ban 15 years ago? We have that to thank for this.

Actually there is some speculation (this info is classified of course so I don't really know) that out of every 6 ICBMs we could launch only one would actually make it out of the silo, track correctly, release correctly, and have all three warheads hit the right targets and detonate.

posted on February 7th, 2005, 4:04 pm

I think a lot of it has to do with expected reliability. The Russians for instance have a few hundred Topol and Topol-M missiles that are practically brand new, and they know they'll work. The average age for our arsenal is over 20 years, with a design life of 15. We'd have to fire at least three warheads at every target to make sure of detonation. Remember the test ban 15 years ago? We have that to thank for this.

Actually there is some speculation (this info is classified of course so I don't really know) that out of every 6 ICBMs we could launch only one would actually make it out of the silo, track correctly, release correctly, and have all three warheads hit the right targets and detonate.

but haw meny torgets to we have left. have all the nukes arawnd is more of a insintive for uther contry to get nukes tham selves. apeshaly contrys that we are not frindly with. thay think the same whay we do the more nookes we have the biger inserents poasy. but what hapinds if the contrry gose in to sival ware or clapses with all those nukler wepinds.

after the claps of the ussr you have nukes that rusha cude not take care of that wher just siting a rawnd in some case with lital or no sucraty in farers feelds. so naw that tyhe us has declared war on all contrrys that harber tarist those cuttry will wont nukes be cuss thay think we mite lonch owers at tham.


in my mind i can not make a argument that cood posibaly just ify all the nucler wepinds we have its mad ness.

posted on February 7th, 2005, 4:05 pm

In my opinion the countrys that have like 1 or so nukes are by far more dangerous than USA or Russia that have a lot of them, because they feel real powerful with that one nuke, and if someone had attacked them or something they wouldnt hasitate to launch it :-S

About the number of the nukes US have, the thing is it is also hard to get rid of them, since it takes a lot of time to dismantle it and that they become unhazardes fot the enviroment.

posted on February 7th, 2005, 4:13 pm

but we are bilding more not geting rid of tham.

posted on February 7th, 2005, 6:21 pm

In my opinion the countrys that have like 1 or so nukes are by far more dangerous than USA or Russia that have a lot of them, because they feel real powerful with that one nuke, and if someone had attacked them or something they wouldnt hasitate to launch it :-S

Precisely. Although the more important aspect is the whole world knows that if a nuclear power is attacked by someone with a return address, it's their last day on earth. What's scarier to me as a US citizen is someone like Iran or N. Korea giving a nuke to a group of people who effectively operate independently; it would be much more difficult to craft a politically acceptable retaliation for such an action.

[The Black Baron]

posted on February 7th, 2005, 7:32 pm

Last edited by The Black Baron on February 7th, 2005, 7:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

True, terrorists cant hope to match the millitarry power of the big nations like USA, GB, France, Germany, Russia,.... so they use guerilla tactics, and I realize its hard to predict or stop these terrorists.
But I dont agree USA just attacking countrys that supposably support terrorosts, I think that under-cover operations, with a small group or specialists would not only cause less suffering to innocent people, but would also be more effective. At least I think so

posted on February 7th, 2005, 8:15 pm

We did the covert ops thingy in Afghanistan and it worked fairly effectively expect for one thing, Osama got away. With thousands of ground troops we are able to secure more faster and to my knowledge, we've gotten saddam and his sons, and pretty much everyone responsible for the killing of the Iraqis, either dead or alive. I think thats what made the differance, and that there was alot more enemy soldiers involved, more technicals and armor, etc.

Bout the nukes, you trust a country that hasen't launched a nuke into another country...ever, or do you trust a country whos getting a nuke for the first time and has sworn enemies all around and isn't afraid to lose millions to achieve their goal?

posted on February 7th, 2005, 8:18 pm

Well u cant say u didnt ever launched a nuke, if I remember correctly u launched 2 against Japan in WW2, but that is different I guess since lots of souldiers died from Japanieses reluctance to end eventhough they couldnt win anymore

posted on February 7th, 2005, 8:20 pm

Those were not nukes, those were atom bombs, 2 differant things. They also weren't missiles, as I implied when I said launched, but simply dropped from 2 B-29 superfortresses.

[ewm90]

posted on February 7th, 2005, 9:54 pm

Last edited by ewm90 on February 7th, 2005, 9:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

you need a history leson it seems adom bomns and nukler boms are the same think thay both split adoms cosing devistating resolts.

so meny pepal died in japne be cuss of us droping nukes on tham. kiling milinons of inasent pepal man woman and childran. it is nuthing to be spokin of litly the pepal hoe lived ahfter we nuked japane in herashema and nonasoky wher cripaled and doomed to die a most haribal deth. we are the only cuntry to ever use the bomn on himains and i hope it stays that whay.

those wepinds shood be wiped from the face of the earth.

posted on February 7th, 2005, 10:31 pm

Oh oh ho, you need the history lesson here SON. Atom bomb and Nuclear bomb are differant. Simple answer, an atom bomb splits the atoms while the other deals with nuclei. Atom bombs are much less destructive and are the for runner of nuclear weapons. In reality there are no differance between the 2 but there was when we were chatting here.

Well ewm the differance is that well your a moron and i'm not, let me explain.

2 B-29s bomb 2 japanese cities with nuclear weaponry and kill 180,000 people, mostly innocent civilians. War comes to quick end with no more US soldiers killed.

We don't bomb Japan, civilians spared, we launch a huge ass amphibious assault against Japan, an estimated million US soldiers are killed in fighting, as well as an estimated 5 million Japanese, soldiers and civilians but mostly armed civilians forced to fight.

Hmm, I fail to see your view of how this could have been resolved without more bloodshed.