Thread Tools

**sNoW PIrAnHa** · January 16th, 12:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kenny_1491

are you sure? I believe, or at least expect we do, we have some technology for when the U.S looses world domination, and they figure if they can't have it no one can.

Think. before. you. post.

The U.S. is not going to destroy the world.

To destroy earth itself would take a tremendous amount of energy. Exterminating life would be pretty difficult too since you'd have to destroy ocean and land life. Cockroaches would still be around after a nuclear blast. Life happened after the dinosaurs became extinct and the Earth was still round(ish) and most importantly, it was still there.

***DarkTamer*** · January 16th, 01:03 AM

I agree it would be tremendously difficult, and utterly impossible for any one country or even many combined to literally destroy the world. However if every single country pooled their resources, I think it could be done...

***martix_agent*** · January 16th, 02:33 AM

they say that durning the cold war, between the russian and us subs alone, there was enough power to completly destroy the entire USA. If two countries did that, imagine what we could all do while working together.

The definition of destryong earth is also sketchy, does it mean destry it as we know it or smash it into teeny tiny pieces?

**kenny_1491** · January 16th, 12:37 PM

it isn't something ot be re-thought, just a pondering I have had.

**ComradeMolyneux** · January 16th, 10:17 PM

You guys are all very odd.

**Dudeus** · January 16th, 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sNoW PIrAnHa

Think. before. you. post.

The U.S. is not going to destroy the world.

To destroy earth itself would take a tremendous amount of energy. Exterminating life would be pretty difficult too since you'd have to destroy ocean and land life. Cockroaches would still be around after a nuclear blast. Life happened after the dinosaurs became extinct and the Earth was still round(ish) and most importantly, it was still there.

And... Bacteria.

Nope, not gonna happen. What're we gonna do? Pull an Armagedon and drill to the center of the earth and put a nuke there? Nope. All human life? Yes. Everything? No.

**DuoDSG** · January 20th, 08:30 PM

Yeah I was reading an article in some science magazine the other day where someone asked if it was possible to blow up Mars using all of earth's combined resources and the scientist who responded said that it would take a preposterous amount of energy to destroy a planet. We as humans, even with all our combined resources couldn't pull it off on Mars (which I remind you is smaller than the earth).

It's not like you can turn every single kind of element/material on earth into an explosive. By 'destroying the US' you probably mean wiping the surface clean, but you're not really destroying anything earth-related. That's all manmade stuff.

No you couldn't do it. And that conspiracy theory is nonsense, let me guess 9/11 never happened and we never landed on the moon either. Please...

**sumsimpleracer** · January 23rd, 08:27 PM

even slower news...Bird Flew

**kenny_1491** · January 23rd, 08:42 PM

sweet, now that means the economy is gonna soar to the skies

***DarkTamer*** · January 23rd, 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martix_agent

they say that durning the cold war, between the russian and us subs alone, there was enough power to completly destroy the entire USA. If two countries did that, imagine what we could all do while working together.

The definition of destryong earth is also sketchy, does it mean destry it as we know it or smash it into teeny tiny pieces?

I thought supposedly we had enough to "destroy the world" at that point in time, not just the US? I understood that to be destroy life as we know it, not smash the earth to pieces.

**sumsimpleracer** · January 23rd, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kenny_1491

sweet, now that means the economy is gonna soar to the skies

you didn't get the joke...it's in reference to Bird Flu...

**kenny_1491** · January 23rd, 10:27 PM

lol, wow, this is the closest I have ever felt like a blond. I am way too tired from studying to be PBF'in.

**Ellis** · January 23rd, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kenny_1491

sweet, now that means the economy is gonna soar to the skies

LERN2PUN

**kenny_1491** · January 23rd, 10:47 PM

what

. I ain't that tired yet.

***NYY*** · January 23rd, 11:28 PM

It was probably just nuclear ash.

**Paceley200099** · February 20th, 12:28 AM

To clear up a little confusion, Global Warming doesn't refer to just heating and warming of the atmosphere as previously stated. It just makes climates even more abnormal and extreme. These unexpected snows are actually hints that the "Global Warming Myth" is in fact real.

Global Weirdness more like it.

**mspainter** · February 20th, 10:47 AM

They actually changed the 'name' of what they were calling Global Warming. Not everybody refers to it like this, but the name now being used it Global Climate Change.

When I say they, I have no idea who would have the power to change a name like that, so I am going to guess that it was Al Gore.

***NYY*** · February 20th, 11:38 AM

Yes, because before evil corporations and their factories, the earth's weather patterns were completely predicatable.

**kenny_1491** · February 20th, 01:55 PM

well this thread had a rebirth, either way I just watched the al gore movie for the first time in a year, and I learned a lot from it.

**Ja289** · March 18th, 05:30 PM

its changed because global climate is being altered. you can't assume the theory of global warming is directly due to the fact that the climate has changed. i mean scientists haven't been studying climate patterns for 30+ years the same way they are now to test the global warming theory. just because there's a climate shift (which there has been many times before humans were ever on earth) doesn't necessarily mean it's global warming. the most obvious effect is change of wind/ocean currents that will really just switch around stable climate systems.