The REturn of the USSR? - TranceAddict Forums

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- The REturn of the USSR?
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

Posted by Dj Tomer on Jan-22-2005 01:47:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The REturn of the USSR?

quote:
Originally posted by George Smiley
Go on! Name someone!

Meh, I was refering to the past I guess, can't see any countries attacking them, only terrorist organizations.

Posted by Lira on Jan-22-2005 01:53:

quote:
Originally posted by h@x0r
Maaz, with all your Russian skillz, I'm surprised you haven't been recruited by the "Los Federales" or whatever the secret agency your country has.

Hehe, I'd rather just teach languages... the "Federal" life is not really my cup of tea

quote:
Originally posted by h@x0r
BTW, S proshedshim dnem rozhdeniya. Certain circumstances prevented me from congratulating you with all due sincerity and on time.

Spasibo

Posted by George Smiley on Jan-22-2005 01:53:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The REturn of the USSR?

quote:
Originally posted by Dj Tomer
Meh, I was refering to the past I guess, can't see any countries attacking them, only terrorist organizations.

Suicide terrorists with intercontinental ballistic nuclear missiles - actually, I'm feeling very generous - with short range theatre nuclear missiles strapped to them? Hmmmm?!

Posted by George Smiley on Jan-22-2005 01:54:

quote:
Originally posted by Lira
Spasibo

Yes, Spasibo seems an appropriate word to describe h@x0r...!

Posted by Dj Tomer on Jan-22-2005 01:58:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The REturn of the USSR?

quote:
Originally posted by George Smiley
Suicide terrorists with intercontinental ballistic nuclear missiles - actually, I'm feeling very generous - with short range theatre nuclear missiles strapped to them? Hmmmm?!

Is it not feasible for the Hammas to get a nuke? Or any of the other major terrorist groups? I think if one of them got their hands on one, they'd pose the biggest threat of all, since they've proven they don't care much for the repercussions of their attacks.

Posted by George Smiley on Jan-22-2005 02:12:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The REturn of the USSR?

quote:
Originally posted by Dj Tomer
Is it not feasible for the Hammas to get a nuke? Or any of the other major terrorist groups? I think if one of them got their hands on one, they'd pose the biggest threat of all, since they've proven they don't care much for the repercussions of their attacks.

Well it is a great concern poorly guarded Russian nuclear material could get into the wrong hands, but it would be extremely difficult for a non-state actor to use that material to mount an attack (they would not be able to use missiles for example). It is very unlikely that would go unnoticed or undetected (they would have to leave it somehwere near the target not launch it from a distance). The more likely use of a WMD by terrorists would be a Chemical or Biological substance that could fairly easily be delivered (crop spraying planes etc). Nukes however cost shit loads and would be almost impossible to use as a weapon without facilities only available to states...

Posted by George Smiley on Jan-22-2005 02:14:

As for Hamas, I seriously doubt whether they would use a nuke against Israel due to the amount of Arabs they would kill, add that to the fact that if they do have designs on Israel's land, why make it uninhabital for a few hundred years? Also the risk of the radioactive cloud blowing into Gaza or the West Bank...

Posted by zig on Jan-22-2005 02:31:

Its much more likely to be biological weapons used by terrorists in the future...nuclear weapons are to complicated....biological weapons are simple to use and act upon....its allready been mentioned....a small aeroplane and millions could die...with the right biological weapon on board....

Posted by DrUg_Tit0 on Jan-22-2005 12:41:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The REturn of the USSR?

quote:
Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk::
hmm, i guess we dont hear of conflict every single day in the news, there arent more frequent earthquakes happening, and natural disasters, ehh, no famines going on in africa.

Hmm, like famines and wars didn't happen in the past years. The fact of the matter is that there is less famine, disease, and wars than ever before in history. The primary reason why we still hear about those things is because of Africa that's still living in the middle ages, the age in which radical christianity flourished.

quote:
a little interesting thing about the earthquakes going on.

worldwide. the last 4 years, there have been about 8,000 more earthquakes in 2004 than in 2000, and every year in between, a steady growth. there were 4,000 more earthquakes in 1999 than in 1990. there were 13,562 more earthquakes in 2004 than in 1990im not saying this is a fulfillment of a prophecy, but there is the possibility. .http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/eqlists/eqstats.html

Yes, but the reason why there are more earthquakes is because there are many more earthquakes with magnitude less than 3 detected. Now, a magnitude 3 earthquake is a really weak one, and probably the reason why they weren't as detected as earlier is because of the fact that we now have more sensitive equipment. If you take a look at strong magnitude earthquakes, their number is pretty much the same.

quote:
where and when do u think all these nucleur weapons everyone's developing and stockpiling are going to be used and how. world events are building up to the climax.

What climax? The climax of a possible nuclear war was during cuban missile crises.

Pages (2): « 1 [2]