BogOff-Cant you see I'm busy?
So Bill and Hailary are actually the same person, with a shape shifting ability. Though you sometimes see both of them in the same room, they don't ever both move at the same timeOriginally Posted by husaberg
When Bill is actually Hilary, he/she models him/herself upon the President character from Prison Break - right?
Democracy is soooo tough to follow. I'm voting Green the next time we have an election
Anarchic Wild Child
That has yet to be tested .. but I don't want to be around when they do ..
"So if you meet me, have some sympathy, have some courtesy, have some taste ..."
Sir Cumference
In these situations you'll find that Bill is an inflatable lookalike.So Bill and Hailary are actually the same person, with a shape shifting ability. Though you sometimes see both of them in the same room, they don't ever both move at the same time
That's what caused the trouble over Monica - she was simply helping out when he started to deflate.
Can I believe the magic of your size... (The Shirelles)
Anarchic Wild Child
"So if you meet me, have some sympathy, have some courtesy, have some taste ..."
Aio ki te Aorangi
Remember that Inconvenient Truth - Comfortable Life pic. VoilaWhy is that the most useless knobs run the world and the real experts are on a Bike Forum.
I didn't think!!! I experimented!!!
Anorak
Yeah Both are "AMERICANS"
We should get someone to start a poll.So Bill and Hailary are actually the same person, with a shape shifting ability. Though you sometimes see both of them in the same room, they don't ever both move at the same time
When Bill is actually Hilary, he/she models him/herself upon the President character from Prison Break - right?
Democracy is soooo tough to follow. I'm voting Green the next time we have an election
Talk about going international.
Kinky is using a feather. Perverted is using the whole chicken
Just faidin away!
Well there is one country in the world that has openly declared that they will take everybody else down with them should they suffer nuclear attack!
And they have the capacity and the will to do just that!.............................. so probably wont be any of us around!
Anorak
Well there is one country in the world that has openly declared that they will take everybody else down with them should they suffer nuclear attack!
And they have the capacity and the will to do just that!
Incorrect.
The opposing superpowers of the worlds operate on the system of mutually assured destructionIn 2000, Russia did away with its “no first use” nuclear weapons policy and added the option of “de-escalatory” nuclear strikes, placing these dangerous weapons at the center of its military doctrine. De-escalatory nuclear strikes allow Russia to respond with a limited nuclear strike if confronted with a large-scale conventional attack that exceeds its defense capabilities. For the Russians, this strategy deters the U.S. and its allies from becoming involved in conflicts that Moscow wishes to dominate. For the rest of the world, it increases fear that deterrence will fail – Putin could miscalculate a threat and fire nuclear weapons due to miscommunication.
The MAD doctrine assumes that each side has enough nuclear weaponry to destroy the other side and that either side, if attacked for any reason by the other, would retaliate without fail with equal or greater force. The expected result is an immediate, irreversible escalation of hostilities resulting in both combatants' mutual, total, and assured destruction. The doctrine requires that neither side construct shelters on a massive scale, such as there are in Switzerland. If one side constructed a similar system of shelters, it would violate the MAD doctrine and destabilize the situation, because it would not have to fear the consequences of a second strike.The same principle is invoked against missile defense.
The doctrine further assumes that neither side will dare to launch a first strike because the other side would launch on warning (also called fail-deadly) or with surviving forces (a second strike), resulting in unacceptable losses for both parties. The payoff of the MAD doctrine was and still is expected to be a tense but stable global peace.
The primary application of this doctrine started during the Cold War (1940s to 1991), in which MAD was seen as helping to prevent any direct full-scale conflicts between the United States and the Soviet Union while they engaged in smaller proxy wars around the world. It was also responsible for the arms race, as both nations struggled to keep nuclear parity, or at least retain second-strike capability. Although the Cold War ended in the early 1990s, the MAD doctrine continues to be applied.
Proponents of MAD as part of U.S. and USSR strategic doctrine believed that nuclear war could best be prevented if neither side could expect to survive a full-scale nuclear exchange as a functioning state. Since the credibility of the threat is critical to such assurance, each side had to invest substantial capital in their nuclear arsenals even if they were not intended for use. In addition, neither side could be expected or allowed to adequately defend itself against the other's nuclear missiles.[citation needed] This led both to the hardening and diversification of nuclear delivery systems (such as nuclear missile silos, ballistic missile submarines, and nuclear bombers kept at fail-safe points) and to the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty
Kinky is using a feather. Perverted is using the whole chicken
Just faidin away!
Not incorrect - not USSR or modern day Russia!
Anorak
Its clearly correct, that you are totally incorrect in your original assertion, But feel free to ignore that, as it clearly doesn't suit your agenda.Not incorrect - not USSR or modern day Russia!
Well there is one country in the world that has openly declared that they will take everybody else down with them should they suffer nuclear attack!
And they have the capacity and the will to do just that!Proponents of MAD as part of U.S. and USSR strategic doctrine believed that nuclear war could best be prevented if neither side could expect to survive a full-scale nuclear exchange as a functioning state.By the mid-1960s, unilateral deterrence gave way to "mutual deterrence," a situation of strategic stalemate. The superpowers would refrain from attacking each other because of the certainty of mutual assured destruction, better known as MAD. This theory is still a major part of the defense policies of the United States and Russia.In 2000, Russia did away with its “no first use” nuclear weapons policy
So nothing really new in that aye.
Kinky is using a feather. Perverted is using the whole chicken
Forum whore
Just faidin away!
What's this then? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option
Anorak
its a webpage,. that also has this video plus a seris of text that proves your original assertion is bogus.
but like I said, But feel free to ignore that, as it clearly doesn't suit your agenda.Well there is one country in the world that has openly declared that they will take everybody else down with them should they suffer nuclear attack!
And they have the capacity and the will to do just that!
During the 1999 NATO Bombings of Serbia
During the 1999 NATO bombing of Serbia, Russian leaders repeatedly inferred that if bombing continued or ground troops entered Serbia, it might lead to nuclear war with Russia. A series of quotes, right up until the bombing stopped, illustrate how serious they were.
“I told NATO, the Americans, the Germans: Don't push us toward military action. Otherwise there will be a European war for sure and possibly world war.'' Russian President Boris Yeltsin, April 6, 1999
"In the event that NATO and America start a ground operation in Yugoslavia, they will face a second Vietnam, I do not want to forecast what is going to start then. I cannot rule out a third world war.'' Moscow Mayor Yuri Luzhkov, April 17, 1999
"If NATO goes from air force to ground force it will be a world catastrophe. (Russia) has never felt such anti-Western, anti-European feelings." First Deputy Russian Prime Minister Anatoly Chubais, April 25, 1999.
“You have to understand that if we want to cause you a problem over this, we could. Someone, we don't know who, could send up a missile from a ship or a submarine and detonate a nuclear weapon high over the United States. The EMP (electromagnetic pulse that destroys electronic and computer equipment) would take away all your capability.” Vladimir Lukin, Chairman of the Russian State Duma Foreign Policy Committee, late April, 1999
“Just let Clinton, a little bit, accidentally, send a missile. We will answer immediately. Such impudence! To unleash a war on a sovereign state. Without Security Council. Without United Nations. It could only be possible in a time of barbarism.” Boris Yeltsin, May 7, 1999
"The world has never in this decade been so close as now to the brink of nuclear war." Viktor Chernomyrdin, May 27, 1999
Kinky is using a feather. Perverted is using the whole chicken
Just faidin away!
Adage springs to mind: You can fool some people some of the time but you won't fool all of the people all of the time!
Anorak
A wise man can learn more from a foolish question than a fool can learn from a wise answer.Adage springs to mind: You can fool some people some of the time but you won't fool all of the people all of the time!
Well there is one country in the world that has openly declared that they will take everybody else down with them should they suffer nuclear attack!
And they have the capacity and the will to do just that!
Kinky is using a feather. Perverted is using the whole chicken
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks