Could America be invaded?

[Darkblader01]

Operation Crossroads I believe it was called, It Inspired the creation of the Bikini as a form of remembering the island that was rendered uninhabitable by the nuclear weapons that were dropped on it

you know nothing about the history of war do you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Crossroads#Test_Able_-_July_1

It doesn't have the H-Bomb test in there, but that's because its Wikipedia

 

[Dramatic Flare]

it is possible to detonate a nuclear device with a catalyst, for example a H-bomb can detonate a nuclear device.

also,unless you have anything of value to say then please stop trying to insult me with petty replies

No it isn't. A H bomb can DESTROY a nuclear warhead, but it certainly won't detonate it.

During the tests at bikini atoll a H-Bomb was dropped on three nuclear warheads, the resulting explosive reaction caused what was known as the second sun, this explosion could be seen from islands that were supposed to be safe from the radioactive fallout, islanders woke up to a second sun, then it began snowing in summer, all who touched the snow died from radiation poisoning

Reference please? Also protip - Radioactive fallout doesn't look anything like snow, and it doesn't always (Or even the vast majority of the time) kill people.

Radioactive fallout can be in anything, from a piece of dust to a human being, the snow was caused by the H-Bomb and the three nuclear warheads it was dropped on, the explosion was similar to the impact event that destroyed the dinosaurs in that it caused a miniture ICE AGE around the surrounding area

Hey, people, you know how to get rid of a troll?
Report him.
Now stop feeding it. We all know he's lying.

 

[Zombie Badger]

The problem would be striking the fine balance between allowing people guns as a matter of personal freedom and trying to limit the number of people murdered with guns. Also, just out of curiosity, what would be your stance on censorship?

It has been my experience that the better armed the public is, the fewer gun related crimes actually happen. In fact, there are places around the country that require people to own guns and their crime rates plummeted. I wish I could come up with an article about it, but I heard about it a long time ago and can't remember the names of the cities. Think about it, are you more likely to rob a store when you know the clerk behind the counter has a gun? Or are you gonna go somewhere where the population isn't so armed? People will still kill people, even if they don't have guns.

My beliefs on censorship are that it shouldn't happen. Not today, not tomorrow, not ever. The only place I think it's reasonable to stop people from saying things is in the area of "shouting fire in a crowded room." Only when it can clearly result in physical harm.

For your first point I would quote Switzerland, where their land army is a militia, where every soldier has to keep their weapons at home, and has a murder rate of only 1.32 per 100,000, with less than half of those involving guns, and a very low rate of gun crime and robbery. Gun crime is probably more to do with cultural differences than simply access to guns.

Regarding censorship, the idea that it shouldn't happen is difficult to consider. What about child pornography for example? Would you let that be legalised?

 

[LongAndShort]

A good plan. As long as you could keep the government adhering to the constitution, that could work. You many want to remove a few amendments though. I would recommend the 2nd and the 22nd Amendments.

I can't say I know much about the 22nd, but there's no way I'd take away the 2nd. I simply would not want to ask the people to give up the power to overthrow any government that gets out of hand. That's one of Americas biggest checks in the balance of power.

Edit:

Why would I want to get rid of the 22nd Amendment? I WANT term limits.

The problem would be striking the fine balance between allowing people guns as a matter of personal freedom and trying to limit the number of people murdered with guns. Also, just out of curiosity, what would be your stance on censorship?

It has been my experience that the better armed the public is, the fewer gun related crimes actually happen. In fact, there are places around the country that require people to own guns and their crime rates plummeted. I wish I could come up with an article about it, but I heard about it a long time ago and can't remember the names of the cities. Think about it, are you more likely to rob a store when you know the clerk behind the counter has a gun? Or are you gonna go somewhere where the population isn't so armed? People will still kill people, even if they don't have guns.

My beliefs on censorship are that it shouldn't happen. Not today, not tomorrow, not ever. The only place I think it's reasonable to stop people from saying things is in the area of "shouting fire in a crowded room." Only when it can clearly result in physical harm.

That's bullshit. America isn't any better off because it has more guns. Since the clerk behind the counter is armed it might convince the robber to simply shoot the clerk before he/she has the chance to do so in return.

What's more your fetish for guns is causing problems for the rest of the world. Mexican drug cartels go north to the USA, stock up on assault weapons and then bring 'em south to shoot at police and arm the drug war. You are the only country in the world that has this fetish guns and the more you try and defend it the more the rest of the world laughs at you.

 

[Kazturkey]

Operation Crossroads I believe it was called, It Inspired the creation of the Bikini as a form of remembering the island that was rendered uninhabitable by the nuclear weapons that were dropped on it

you know nothing about the history of war do you?

Just took a look at the wiki page for operation crossroads, you were wrong. There were two explosions at crossroads, one of which took place in midair (Missing its target, not detonating other bombs) and one detonating underwater (not detonating any other bombs).

Either give a credible reference or stop telling us it happened.

 

[Zombie Badger]

What's more your fetish for guns is causing problems for the rest of the world. Mexican drug cartels go north to the USA, stock up on assault weapons and then bring 'em south to shoot at police and arm the drug war. You are the only country in the world that has this fetish guns and the more you try and defend it the more the rest of the world laughs at you.

Mexican drug cartels do not but their guns from shops in the US, despite what you have heard. They buy theirs from international arms dealers, the kind that equip rebels in Africa. You may have noticed that American shops do not sell anti-armour rifles or light machine guns.

 

[Zombie Badger]

Operation Crossroads I believe it was called, It Inspired the creation of the Bikini as a form of remembering the island that was rendered uninhabitable by the nuclear weapons that were dropped on it

The bikini is shaped that way because wartime clothing shortages forced manufacturers to remove the midsection from their swimsuits. It is not shaped like any island.

 

[Darkblader01]

whatever makes you feel better Kazturky

Anyway would it be possible to invade America using Nuclear Car bombs? by parking outside of places like the pentagon and the White house then detonating and sending in your ground forces

and the bikini wasn't shaped like an island, It was named after it as Tribute

 

[Lazier Than Thou]

The problem would be striking the fine balance between allowing people guns as a matter of personal freedom and trying to limit the number of people murdered with guns. Also, just out of curiosity, what would be your stance on censorship?

It has been my experience that the better armed the public is, the fewer gun related crimes actually happen. In fact, there are places around the country that require people to own guns and their crime rates plummeted. I wish I could come up with an article about it, but I heard about it a long time ago and can't remember the names of the cities. Think about it, are you more likely to rob a store when you know the clerk behind the counter has a gun? Or are you gonna go somewhere where the population isn't so armed? People will still kill people, even if they don't have guns.

My beliefs on censorship are that it shouldn't happen. Not today, not tomorrow, not ever. The only place I think it's reasonable to stop people from saying things is in the area of "shouting fire in a crowded room." Only when it can clearly result in physical harm.

For your first point I would quote Switzerland, where their land army is a militia, where every soldier has to keep their weapons at home, and has a murder rate of only 1.32 per 100,000, with less than half of those involving guns, and a very low rate of gun crime and robbery. Gun crime is probably more to do with cultural differences than simply access to guns.

You also have to understand that gun ownership across the US is not evenly distributed. The places where it's the worst (New York, Illinois, etc) is actually where the gun control is the highest concentrated. Places like Washington D.C. have the harshest gun control policies, but also have some of the highest gun crimes.

I'm not going to rule out culture, though. Maybe Americans are just more naturally belligerent than others, I don't know. It's a mystery to me.

Regarding censorship, the idea that it shouldn't happen is difficult to consider. What about child pornography for example? Would you let that be legalised?

Child pornography is a different matter. It's not about it being free speech, it's if the child is being harmed by being involved in it. In the US we have age of consent laws which prevent children from having sex with adults. This implies that children can get hurt by being exposed to sex at a young age(as does most psychology work done on the subject). This damage should be taken into account when deciding if child pornography should be legal or not. I believe the children have the right to be innocent and do not have the fully formed logical capabilities of consenting to sexual activities like child pornography.

In my opinion, this is not a censorship issue, it's a child protection issue.

 

[Lazier Than Thou]

whatever makes you feel better

Anyway would it be possible to invade America using Nuclear Car bombs? by parking outside of places like the pentagon and the White house then detonating and sending in your ground forces

I think that's a very realistic possibility. Not only would you be able to get away with it without retaliation(who's gonna know where it came from), but also allows the invading army to disguise itself as troops being sent in to help America.

 

[Zombie Badger]

Child pornography is a different matter. It's not about it being free speech, it's if the child is being harmed by being involved in it. In the US we have age of consent laws which prevent children from having sex with adults. This implies that children can get hurt by being exposed to sex at a young age(as does most psychology work done on the subject). This damage should be taken into account when deciding if child pornography should be legal or not. I believe the children have the right to be innocent and do not have the fully formed logical capabilities of consenting to sexual activities like child pornography.

In my opinion, this is not a censorship issue, it's a child protection issue.

Two things regarding this issue. First, what do you believe the legal age that a sexual picture of ta person would be considered legal at? Over here in the UK you can have sex with a 16 year old, but if you photograph them naked, you are arrested. Second, do you define child pornography as media showing a real child, or a picture of a fictional child. In the UK, again, we have another retarded law, which you can probably guess.

 

[Darkblader01]

and that would probably help you to get your troops in key locations before you attack with your main army.

 

[LongAndShort]

What's more your fetish for guns is causing problems for the rest of the world. Mexican drug cartels go north to the USA, stock up on assault weapons and then bring 'em south to shoot at police and arm the drug war. You are the only country in the world that has this fetish guns and the more you try and defend it the more the rest of the world laughs at you.

Mexican drug cartels do not but their guns from shops in the US, despite what you have heard. They buy theirs from international arms dealers, the kind that equip rebels in Africa. You may have noticed that American shops do not sell anti-armour rifles or light machine guns.

That's bullshit. Why buy an AK from a Russian when you buy one up north cheaper. and these days armour piercing rounds (which can be bought in the US) make any rifle armour-piercing. Oh and you know who's supplying those arms-dealers or directly supplying those Warlords in Africa with guns? the fucking USA, UK, Russia and China.

 

[Zombie Badger]

What's more your fetish for guns is causing problems for the rest of the world. Mexican drug cartels go north to the USA, stock up on assault weapons and then bring 'em south to shoot at police and arm the drug war. You are the only country in the world that has this fetish guns and the more you try and defend it the more the rest of the world laughs at you.

Mexican drug cartels do not but their guns from shops in the US, despite what you have heard. They buy theirs from international arms dealers, the kind that equip rebels in Africa. You may have noticed that American shops do not sell anti-armour rifles or light machine guns.

That's bullshit. Why buy an AK from a Russian when you buy one up north cheaper. and these days armour piercing rounds (which can be bought in the US) make any rifle armour-piercing. Oh and you know who's supplying those arms-dealers or directly supplying those Warlords in Africa with guns? the fucking USA, UK, Russia and China.

Why buy a semi-auto AK-47 'up north' when you can buy a fully auto rifle of the M16 family? Or a PK machine gun? And as for the suppliers of the warlords, the modern arms industry has been a circulatory death machine for the past 5 decades.

 

[Lazier Than Thou]

Child pornography is a different matter. It's not about it being free speech, it's if the child is being harmed by being involved in it. In the US we have age of consent laws which prevent children from having sex with adults. This implies that children can get hurt by being exposed to sex at a young age(as does most psychology work done on the subject). This damage should be taken into account when deciding if child pornography should be legal or not. I believe the children have the right to be innocent and do not have the fully formed logical capabilities of consenting to sexual activities like child pornography.

In my opinion, this is not a censorship issue, it's a child protection issue.

Two things regarding this issue. First, what do you believe the legal age that a sexual picture of ta person would be considered legal at? Over here in the UK you can have sex with a 16 year old, but if you photograph them naked, you are arrested. Second, do you define child pornography as media showing a real child, or a picture of a fictional child. In the UK, again, we have another retarded law, which you can probably guess.

I'd say the hardest thing about this is that people mature at different speeds. Setting an arbitrary line of "it's okay to be sexual at this age" seems rather unrealistic. Still, I think the current age of 18 is fine and 16 doesn't seem much worse. Still, I remember being 18 and I was hardly capable of making possibly life changing decisions like who I should or should not have sex with. Maybe I'm just stupider than most people. 18 seems like a good standard. Then again, we let people drive at the age of 16 and that's just as potentially destructive.

As per the fictional child stuff, I'll restate that my distaste for it stems from it hurting the child. Now, it's also dangerous because it can encourage pedophiles to do their stupid stuff and scar people for life. But, I guess you could also make the argument that they should be able to make that choice for themselves and it doesn't hurt anyone. Well, not until they act on their lusts. Still, I doubt not having pornography will really stop pedophiles from acting on their desires.

I don't think I've had enough time to really think this out, but I can't say that they shouldn't have it.

How do you feel about all this stuff?

 

[Booze Zombie]

America's easy.
Load of civilians with guns? You use tanks on 'em.
The Army? Fight 'em with your army.
The nukes? They ain't gonna drop 'em on their own heads.

 

[Zombie Badger]

Two things regarding this issue. First, what do you believe the legal age that a sexual picture of ta person would be considered legal at? Over here in the UK you can have sex with a 16 year old, but if you photograph them naked, you are arrested. Second, do you define child pornography as media showing a real child, or a picture of a fictional child. In the UK, again, we have another retarded law, which you can probably guess.

I'd say the hardest thing about this is that people mature at different speeds. Setting an arbitrary line of "it's okay to be sexual at this age" seems rather unrealistic. Still, I think the current age of 18 is fine and 16 doesn't seem much worse. Still, I remember being 18 and I was hardly capable of making possibly life changing decisions like who I should or should not have sex with. Maybe I'm just stupider than most people. 18 seems like a good standard. Then again, we let people drive at the age of 16 and that's just as potentially destructive.

As per the fictional child stuff, I'll restate that my distaste for it stems from it hurting the child. Now, it's also dangerous because it can encourage pedophiles to do their stupid stuff and scar people for life. But, I guess you could also make the argument that they should be able to make that choice for themselves and it doesn't hurt anyone. Well, not until they act on their lusts. Still, I doubt not having pornography will really stop pedophiles from acting on their desires.

I don't think I've had enough time to really think this out, but I can't say that they shouldn't have it.

How do you feel about all this stuff?

For the age of consent, I believe it should be lowered slightly, as 15 year old are already having sex by that age, and I believe that the age line for child pornography should be the same, otherwise it makes no sense. And as disgusting as the stuff is, fictional child porn does not cause any harm, and child abuse, like rape, is more a crime of power than lust. Also, regarding guns, I believe that the laws should be more relaxed than they are in the UK (We're only allowed double-barreled shotguns), so pistols and bolt-action rifles should be legal. The reason we have the restrictions we do is because a psycho went on a killing spree in a Scottish primary school. The whole 'gun problem' in the US is more down to cutural problems.

 

[LongAndShort]

What's more your fetish for guns is causing problems for the rest of the world. Mexican drug cartels go north to the USA, stock up on assault weapons and then bring 'em south to shoot at police and arm the drug war. You are the only country in the world that has this fetish guns and the more you try and defend it the more the rest of the world laughs at you.

Mexican drug cartels do not but their guns from shops in the US, despite what you have heard. They buy theirs from international arms dealers, the kind that equip rebels in Africa. You may have noticed that American shops do not sell anti-armour rifles or light machine guns.

That's bullshit. Why buy an AK from a Russian when you buy one up north cheaper. and these days armour piercing rounds (which can be bought in the US) make any rifle armour-piercing. Oh and you know who's supplying those arms-dealers or directly supplying those Warlords in Africa with guns? the fucking USA, UK, Russia and China.

Why buy a semi-auto AK-47 'up north' when you can buy a fully auto rifle of the M16 family? Or a PK machine gun? And as for the suppliers of the warlords, the modern arms industry has been a circulatory death machine for the past 5 decades.

Do you have any idea how easy it is to turn those things back into fully automatic? Shit, they sell kits to do so in the same stores they sell the guns. Hell you could even by light machine guns like PKs in US stores in semi-automatic and switch them to fully automatic. Oh and the modern-arms industry has been a circulatory death machine for a lot longer. In America it goes back to swapping guns for luxury goods like furs with the Indians. At Custer's last stand the Indians were better armed than the American army. You may not think this to be part of the modern arms industry, but I'd disagree.