 |
|
Ecthy
|
|
Zhonghuà Rénmín Gònghéguó
Mar 2000
time: 06:32
|
|
Australia is still far behind Poland.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ecthy
|
|
Zhonghuà Rénmín Gònghéguó
Mar 2000
time: 06:32
|
|
I've seen Boris Godunov at the local opera. Art Nouveau opera house, for you.
4 hours of stageplay made for a cultural shock.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
rah
|
|
Apolyton Prince of Moderators, Master of Reason
|
 |
Lord of the Ferrets
Jan 1970
time: 23:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
From who? ICBM-wielding aboriginees? |
Haven't figured that one out yet. 
But from this mornings paper.
Associated Press
Published December 4, 2003
CANBERRA, Australia -- Australia has agreed to participate in the U.S. missile defense program, the government announced Thursday.
"We believe that taking part in the U.S. program will serve our strategic interest, help us defend Australia and allow us to make an important contribution to global and regional security," Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said.
Washington hopes to develop a shield against ballistic missiles, arguing that nations it calls rogue states, such as North Korea, could soon have missiles that would threaten the United States. It wants allies such as Britain and Australia involved in the project, particularly for the use of satellite tracking stations in their countries.
Australia has been one of Washington's staunchest allies over the past several years, pledging troops to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and stating that its relationship with the United States is central to the nation's long-term interest.
Downer said the nature of Australia's participation "will depend on many factors, including our own strategic defense needs, regional considerations, industry capabilities and financial considerations."
Defense Minister Robert Hill said Australia is likely to help in research for the multibillion dollar project and has no plans for a ground-based missile defense system on its soil. It may incorporate a missile defense system into three planned air warfare destroyers for the Australian navy.
Copyright © 2003, Chicago Tribune
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ecthy
|
|
Zhonghuà Rénmín Gònghéguó
Mar 2000
time: 06:32
|
|
Oh not you, but Kerstin in the choir.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mrmitchell
|
|
How many nuke detonations would be required to trigger a nuclear winter?
I imagine, all you'd have to do would be target North America and Europe and it (nuke winter) would come in and take care of the rest.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Sava
|
 |
GO GO GO!
Mar 2001
time: 23:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by mrmitchell
How many nuke detonations would be required to trigger a nuclear winter?
I imagine, all you'd have to do would be target North America and Europe and it (nuke winter) would come in and take care of the rest. |
Nuke detonations wouldn't nearly be as devastating to the environment as the Cold War fear mongers made it out to be.
from http://www.oism.org/nwss/s73p912.htm
quote:
° Myth: Unsurvivable "nuclear winter" surely will follow a nuclear war. The world will be frozen if only 100 megatons (less than one percent of all nuclear weapons) are used to ignite cities. World-enveloping smoke from fires and the dust from surface bursts will prevent almost all sunlight and solar heat from reaching the earth's surface. Universal darkness for weeks! Sub-zero temperatures, even in summertime! Frozen crops, even in the jungles of South America! Worldwide famine! Whole species of animals and plants exterminated! The survival of mankind in doubt!
° Facts: Unsurvivable "nuclear winter" is a discredited theory that, since its conception in 1982, has been used to frighten additional millions into believing that trying to survive a nuclear war is a waste of effort and resources, and that only by ridding the world of almost all nuclear weapons do we have a chance of surviving.
Non-propagandizing scientists recently havecalculated that the climatic and other environmental effects of even an all-out nuclear war would be much less severe than the catastrophic effects repeatedly publicized by popular astronomer Carl Sagan and his fellow activist scientists, and by all the involved Soviet scientists. Conclusions reached from these recent, realistic calculations are summarized in an article, "Nuclear Winter Reappraised", featured in the 1986 summer issue of Foreign Affairs, the prestigious quarterly of the Council on Foreign Relations. The authors, Starley L. Thompson and Stephen H. Schneider, are atmospheric scientists with the National Center for Atmospheric Research. They showed " that on scientific grounds the global apocalyptic conclusions of the initial nuclear winter hypothesis can now be relegated to a vanishing low level of probability."
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
centrifuge
|
|
Maybe California and Canada should hold a population wide steel cage death match.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32.
Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
05-12-2003 02:42
Peace and everything just telling it how I see it. They are a decent country 
Australia and Star Wars?
|