u.s. with russia a distant second, everyone else obliterated. if there is a huge, all out destroy each other world war. of course this would not happen, and im not factoring in alliances and such.
no 2 ways about it, they have the most firepower.
a russian/chinese/middle eastern/south american alliance would be a force for sure.
The point of entry for those who plan to set a foothold in this debate is the layman's work with 144 sealed letters.
As who comes victorious in the End, it will be the "Stone, cast without Hand" which will destroy the image from top to bottom.
Last of which will be scattered into molten clay and iron amongst pile of fine gold, silver and bronze.
im going with this one. i really want to be apart of that kingdom. if any of you know anything about Biblical prophecy, then you understand this, and why i want to be apart of His kingdom.
Originally posted by WhosFat Arguing with those who know nothing of history, about history is like trying to argue with a brick wall.I'll just leave you with this: Vikings weren't "conquerers" and those who govern themselves are not natives.K. Have fun with that.
This is coming from a guy who claims the world's soldiery are pre-dominantly teenagers. History is just another word that starts with H as far as you're concerned.
Originally posted by WhosFat Arguing with those who know nothing of history, about history is like trying to argue with a brick wall.
I'll just leave you with this: Vikings weren't "conquerers" and those who govern themselves are not natives.
K. Have fun with that.
This is coming from a guy who claims the world's soldiery are pre-dominantly teenagers. History is just another word that starts with H as far as you're concerned.
Yep.
The average current US Soldier = 19. Now, that's the AVERAGE AGE. Which means there are a whole lot of 17 and 18yr olds weighing down those 50yr olds.
"He was born Napoleone di Buonaparte on 15 August 1769.
Upon graduation from Brienne in 1784, Bonaparte was admitted to the elite
Originally posted by WhosFat Yep. The average current US Soldier = 19. Now, that's the AVERAGE AGE. Which means there are a whole lot of 17 and 18yr olds weighing down those 50yr olds.
55% of the US Army is 26 or over. I'm fairly sure, though I can't find the stat anywhere now, that the average age for a US enlisted soldier circa 2004 was 24. For an officer, it's higher.
Mortality figures are inevitably skewed toward a younger demographic, because the front-line is where you'll find the youngsters.
Originally posted by Ulujain Originally posted by WhosFatYep. The average current US Soldier = 19. Now, that's the AVERAGE AGE. Which means there are a whole lot of 17 and 18yr olds weighing down those 50yr olds.
55% of the US Army is 26 or over. I'm fairly sure, though I can't find the stat anywhere now, that the average age for a US enlisted soldier circa 2004 was 24. For an officer, it's higher.
Mortality figures are inevitably skewed toward a younger demographic, because the front-line is where you'll find the youngsters.
Yeah, that's just the army.
Even still, like I said earlier the whole thing of being an adult at 18 is a pretty new Idea.
The whole officer thing was pretty useless. I'm sure that you have enough fingers and toes to count every single officer in the army that's 20 or younger, due to the fact that you need a degree or to go to a school such as Georgia Military College or the Citadel to become an officer sooner. Even then they are given 6yrs to finish the 2yrs of school they need for a Bachelors.
japan is a very technologically advanced country they might have mechs/ mobile suits by ww3 but other countries will too and japan could use anime propaganda to control populations and spike rebellions in there favor.
Originally posted by nakedone Americans don't have the will to fight. Too many liberals and other sissys. Europe just makes me giggle.
I vote China.
When the US has a war which affects its home soil - like Europe and WW1 and 2 come back and join the debate. Pearl Harbour really doesnt count, and please dont mention Sept 11th either - thats hardly anything on the same scale as WW1 and 2.
Secondly when WW3 hits, there will be no winners. Go Go Nukes all over the world.
Id rather be dead tbh than live in the after effects of WW3.
That's because nobody is stupid enough to attack us face to face. They will topple us like Rome. There is nothing they can do military wise to destroy the US. We are too well defended and we just have too many weapons for anyone to ever conquer us by force.
And even if they tried, they know that would be it........ for everyone. In our last ditch efforts to save ourselves we would probably destroy all of humanity. Nobody is that stupid.
As proven with Vietnam and Iraq, it's pretty hard to conquer any country. Hence why anyone attacking the US won't aim to hold the territory.
For example they would aim to cripple the US ability of global influence... By driving US countries out of the country, to their own country. This way the investments of the enemy country benefit you. That's a few points less for the US.
LordSlater,
there are few technologically and military advanced countries that are not develping exo-skeletons and robotic technology. Japan is one of the countries with most progress in this field.
america has no influence everyone hates US (both the U.S. and the us us) and just so you know the liberals are the ones who start the wars the conservatives end them. and vietnam was hard to beat because of home field advantage all those jungles they were virtually invisible.
This thread's just filled with American elitists, why does it matter which country would win WW3? Or whether America could be invaded?
I'm sure that if every countries government decided to have a war just to satisfy the on going arguments by fat little teenagers over the Internet so that every countries military decided to go and invade every other country, not for the sake of any objectives just to see who's got the biggest m-peens (military peens) then yes, America would stand a good fucking chance of winning, as well as Japan and China etc. Congratulations, I'm sure you elitists are so happy now that you have something to be proud of as you sit at your computers making endless YTMND's about chuck norris, and you can finally forget about your countries obesity levels and your countries shit culture (which seems to consist of pointing out ethnic minorities, suing everyone and complaining about everything) because at least your army can PWN everyone else's. GG.
Phew, I'm happy now. Thanks for that.
reasons to block this: 1.ww3 is inevitable and your complaint proves nothing. 2. your a racist f*ck. 3. i made this poll thread to see who thinks who will probably take over the world(or whats left of it if anything) after ww3.
so please keep this thread with ww3 end result opinions and arguments of them only(or else i'll kill your post(s)) thank you.
Arguing with those who know nothing of history, about history is like trying to argue with a brick wall. I'll just leave you with this: Vikings weren't "conquerers" and those who govern themselves are not natives. K. Have fun with that.
This is coming from a guy who claims the world's soldiery are pre-dominantly teenagers. History is just another word that starts with H as far as you're concerned.
Yep.
The average current US Soldier = 19. Now, that's the AVERAGE AGE. Which means there are a whole lot of 17 and 18yr olds weighing down those 50yr olds.
"He was born Napoleone di Buonaparte on 15 August 1769.
Upon graduation from Brienne in 1784, Bonaparte was admitted to the elite École Royale Militaire in Paris, where he completed the two-year course of study in only one year. Upon graduation in September 1785, he was commissioned as a second lieutenant of artillery and took up his new duties in January 1786 at the age of 16"
16
Can't find a Quote, but have done several papers on the Spartans who became soldiers at 19.
"From his late teens to age thirty-eight in 1200, a Mongol named Temujin (Temüjin) rose as khan over various families. He was vassal to Ong Khan, titular head of a confederacy better organized than other Mongol clans.
And in 1206, at the age of 42, Temujin took the title Universal Ruler, which translates to Genghis Khan, and he addressed his joyous supporters thanking them for their help and their loyalty."
I could go on and on. How about doing a little research before bunking my statement. Thanks.
Teens have and always will be the perfect soldiers for a mass army, because they are easily brain washed.
blahblahblah this is about future wars not history lessons please dont waste pages thank you.
Arguing with those who know nothing of history, about history is like trying to argue with a brick wall. I'll just leave you with this: Vikings weren't "conquerers" and those who govern themselves are not natives. K. Have fun with that.
This is coming from a guy who claims the world's soldiery are pre-dominantly teenagers. History is just another word that starts with H as far as you're concerned.
Yep.
The average current US Soldier = 19. Now, that's the AVERAGE AGE. Which means there are a whole lot of 17 and 18yr olds weighing down those 50yr olds.
"He was born Napoleone di Buonaparte on 15 August 1769.
Upon graduation from Brienne in 1784, Bonaparte was admitted to the elite École Royale Militaire in Paris, where he completed the two-year course of study in only one year. Upon graduation in September 1785, he was commissioned as a second lieutenant of artillery and took up his new duties in January 1786 at the age of 16"
16
Can't find a Quote, but have done several papers on the Spartans who became soldiers at 19.
"From his late teens to age thirty-eight in 1200, a Mongol named Temujin (Temüjin) rose as khan over various families. He was vassal to Ong Khan, titular head of a confederacy better organized than other Mongol clans.
And in 1206, at the age of 42, Temujin took the title Universal Ruler, which translates to Genghis Khan, and he addressed his joyous supporters thanking them for their help and their loyalty."
I could go on and on. How about doing a little research before bunking my statement. Thanks.
Teens have and always will be the perfect soldiers for a mass army, because they are easily brain washed.
blahblahblah this is about future wars not history lessons please dont waste pages thank you.
History gives us perspective. It's people like you who string us along for the ride, repeating it.
Put a bullet in your head, you'll be doing the rest of the world a favor.
Originally posted by Havoc-PK Originally posted by blah40000 Originally posted by WhosFat
Originally posted by Ulujain
Originally posted by WhosFat Arguing with those who know nothing of history, about history is like trying to argue with a brick wall. I'll just leave you with this: Vikings weren't "conquerers" and those who govern themselves are not natives. K. Have fun with that.
This is coming from a guy who claims the world's soldiery are pre-dominantly teenagers. History is just another word that starts with H as far as you're concerned. Yep. The average current US Soldier = 19. Now, that's the AVERAGE AGE. Which means there are a whole lot of 17 and 18yr olds weighing down those 50yr olds. "He was born Napoleone di Buonaparte on 15 August 1769. Upon graduation from Brienne in 1784, Bonaparte was admitted to the elite
Arguing with those who know nothing of history, about history is like trying to argue with a brick wall.
I'll just leave you with this: Vikings weren't "conquerers" and those who govern themselves are not natives.
K. Have fun with that.
This is coming from a guy who claims the world's soldiery are pre-dominantly teenagers. History is just another word that starts with H as far as you're concerned.
Yep.
The average current US Soldier = 19. Now, that's the AVERAGE AGE. Which means there are a whole lot of 17 and 18yr olds weighing down those 50yr olds.
"He was born Napoleone di Buonaparte on 15 August 1769.
Upon graduation from Brienne in 1784, Bonaparte was admitted to the elite École Royale Militaire in Paris, where he completed the two-year course of study in only one year. Upon graduation in September 1785, he was commissioned as a second lieutenant of artillery and took up his new duties in January 1786 at the age of 16"
16
Can't find a Quote, but have done several papers on the Spartans who became soldiers at 19.
"From his late teens to age thirty-eight in 1200, a Mongol named Temujin (Temüjin) rose as khan over various families. He was vassal to Ong Khan, titular head of a confederacy better organized than other Mongol clans.
And in 1206, at the age of 42, Temujin took the title Universal Ruler, which translates to Genghis Khan, and he addressed his joyous supporters thanking them for their help and their loyalty."
I could go on and on. How about doing a little research before bunking my statement. Thanks.
Teens have and always will be the perfect soldiers for a mass army, because they are easily brain washed.
blahblahblah this is about future wars not history lessons please dont waste pages thank you.
History gives us perspective. It's people like you who string us along for the ride, repeating it.
Put a bullet in your head, you'll be doing the rest of the world a favor.
He's 14.
my age affects nothing about my opinion but i'm not saying history sucks i know history is good but it doesn't help because people are naive and only hear what they like to hear so they ignore the past and this thread is about ww3 not ww1/2, vietnam, the korean war, the civil war, the french and indian war, ect. so please if you understand i check these threads that i made and don't want to read for 30mins on 1 post. please stay on topic you can post what you want when i let this thread go cold turkey thank you and have a nice day.
Originally posted by Baerf Originally posted by nakedone Americans don't have the will to fight. Too many liberals and other sissys. Europe just makes me giggle. I vote China.
When the US has a war which affects its home soil - like Europe and WW1 and 2 come back and join the debate. Pearl Harbour really doesnt count, and please dont mention Sept 11th either - thats hardly anything on the same scale as WW1 and 2.
Secondly when WW3 hits, there will be no winners. Go Go Nukes all over the world.
Id rather be dead tbh than live in the after effects of WW3.
I never said anything pro-American. You should re-read what I said.
Too bad we didn't just focus on Japan and let you Brits hash it out with Germany alone. But I guess Churchill wouldn't stop begging us for help if we did that though.
I know Pearl Harbor and Sept 11th doesn't compare with everything England has lost in the past 250 years, poor England. You know, how we kicked you out of America and France of all countries laughed at you, Germany at your back door (twice), etc.
Then we have France. Fact. They have never won a war, ever. Even thier civil war was considered a draw. How worthless is that?
So yeah Europe makes me giggle. Nothing wrong with being proud of your country though. But like I said, I voted China because I was giving a realistic answer to the OP. If I voted by favoritisim, I would vote Germany, they haven't let me down yet (well...sorta, maybe third times a charm).
Einstein was asked about the weapons we'd use for WW3.He replied "I don't know what weapons we'll use in WW3,but in WW4 we'll use sticks and stones"
Honestly who gives a crap about a global conflict.Anyone aside from the mogadishu mudmen knows if it happens it's all over,so why bother constructing a who's who of the usual suspects.
Our species is too dumb to even fund a proper search for ELE sized asteroids,or agree to stop burning oil and destroying the atmosphere we all need.
We're so dumb we spend all these resources killing eachother,when a fraction of those resources spent on space exploration(ie space habitats)could ensure our species survives.
Hell while I'm here I might as well pick someone..let's see,I'll take...Russia.They'll sell some warheads to some "rogue" nation who will drop 10 of em on the US and we'll get it all kicked off that way..never understood why most ppl thought Russia self-destructing was a good thing
Einstein was asked about the weapons we'd use for WW3.He replied "I don't know what weapons we'll use in WW3,but in WW4 we'll use sticks and stones"
Honestly who gives a crap about a global conflict.Anyone aside from the mogadishu mudmen knows if it happens it's all over,so why bother constructing a who's who of the usual suspects.
Our species is too dumb to even fund a proper search for ELE sized asteroids,or agree to stop burning oil and destroying the atmosphere we all need.
We're so dumb we spend all these resources killing eachother,when a fraction of those resources spent on space exploration(ie space habitats)could ensure our species survives.
Hell while I'm here I might as well pick someone..let's see,I'll take...Russia.They'll sell some warheads to some "rogue" nation who will drop 10 of em on the US and we'll get it all kicked off that way..never understood why most ppl thought Russia self-destructing was a good thing
IF!?!?!? ww3 is not an if it's a matter of when because its inevitable and my guess is in about 50-100 years.
oh yeah and global warming/ the destruction of our ozone is natural.
Einstein was asked about the weapons we'd use for WW3.He replied "I don't know what weapons we'll use in WW3,but in WW4 we'll use sticks and stones"
Honestly who gives a crap about a global conflict.Anyone aside from the mogadishu mudmen knows if it happens it's all over,so why bother constructing a who's who of the usual suspects.
Our species is too dumb to even fund a proper search for ELE sized asteroids,or agree to stop burning oil and destroying the atmosphere we all need.
We're so dumb we spend all these resources killing eachother,when a fraction of those resources spent on space exploration(ie space habitats)could ensure our species survives.
Hell while I'm here I might as well pick someone..let's see,I'll take...Russia.They'll sell some warheads to some "rogue" nation who will drop 10 of em on the US and we'll get it all kicked off that way..never understood why most ppl thought Russia self-destructing was a good thing
IF!?!?!? ww3 is not an if it's a matter of when because its inevitable and my guess is in about 50-100 years.
oh yeah and global warming/ the destruction of our ozone is natural.
Comments
u.s. with russia a distant second, everyone else obliterated. if there is a huge, all out destroy each other world war. of course this would not happen, and im not factoring in alliances and such.
no 2 ways about it, they have the most firepower.
a russian/chinese/middle eastern/south american alliance would be a force for sure.
CLICK HERE TO GET A LIST OF FREE MMO LISTS!!!
The US always wins. Just watch any war movie.
Except "A Bridge too Far" LOL Love that movie
______________________________
This is coming from a guy who claims the world's soldiery are pre-dominantly teenagers. History is just another word that starts with H as far as you're concerned.
Yep.
The average current US Soldier = 19. Now, that's the AVERAGE AGE. Which means there are a whole lot of 17 and 18yr olds weighing down those 50yr olds.
"He was born Napoleone di Buonaparte on 15 August 1769.
Upon graduation from Brienne in 1784, Bonaparte was admitted to the elite
Link
55% of the US Army is 26 or over. I'm fairly sure, though I can't find the stat anywhere now, that the average age for a US enlisted soldier circa 2004 was 24. For an officer, it's higher.
Mortality figures are inevitably skewed toward a younger demographic, because the front-line is where you'll find the youngsters.
Link
55% of the US Army is 26 or over. I'm fairly sure, though I can't find the stat anywhere now, that the average age for a US enlisted soldier circa 2004 was 24. For an officer, it's higher.
Mortality figures are inevitably skewed toward a younger demographic, because the front-line is where you'll find the youngsters.
Yeah, that's just the army.
Even still, like I said earlier the whole thing of being an adult at 18 is a pretty new Idea.
The whole officer thing was pretty useless. I'm sure that you have enough fingers and toes to count every single officer in the army that's 20 or younger, due to the fact that you need a degree or to go to a school such as Georgia Military College or the Citadel to become an officer sooner. Even then they are given 6yrs to finish the 2yrs of school they need for a Bachelors.
OMG i love you!!! you are so funny.
Plese do post again.
maybe.
When the US has a war which affects its home soil - like Europe and WW1 and 2 come back and join the debate. Pearl Harbour really doesnt count, and please dont mention Sept 11th either - thats hardly anything on the same scale as WW1 and 2.
Secondly when WW3 hits, there will be no winners. Go Go Nukes all over the world.
Id rather be dead tbh than live in the after effects of WW3.
That's because nobody is stupid enough to attack us face to face. They will topple us like Rome. There is nothing they can do military wise to destroy the US. We are too well defended and we just have too many weapons for anyone to ever conquer us by force.
And even if they tried, they know that would be it........ for everyone. In our last ditch efforts to save ourselves we would probably destroy all of humanity. Nobody is that stupid.
As proven with Vietnam and Iraq, it's pretty hard to conquer any country. Hence why anyone attacking the US won't aim to hold the territory.
For example they would aim to cripple the US ability of global influence... By driving US countries out of the country, to their own country. This way the investments of the enemy country benefit you. That's a few points less for the US.
LordSlater,
there are few technologically and military advanced countries that are not develping exo-skeletons and robotic technology. Japan is one of the countries with most progress in this field.
america has no influence everyone hates US (both the U.S. and the us us) and just so you know the liberals are the ones who start the wars the conservatives end them. and vietnam was hard to beat because of home field advantage all those jungles they were virtually invisible.
so please keep this thread with ww3 end result opinions and arguments of them only(or else i'll kill your post(s)
please take this warning seriously.
This is coming from a guy who claims the world's soldiery are pre-dominantly teenagers. History is just another word that starts with H as far as you're concerned.
Yep.
The average current US Soldier = 19. Now, that's the AVERAGE AGE. Which means there are a whole lot of 17 and 18yr olds weighing down those 50yr olds.
"He was born Napoleone di Buonaparte on 15 August 1769.
Upon graduation from Brienne in 1784, Bonaparte was admitted to the elite École Royale Militaire in Paris, where he completed the two-year course of study in only one year. Upon graduation in September 1785, he was commissioned as a second lieutenant of artillery and took up his new duties in January 1786 at the age of 16"
16
Can't find a Quote, but have done several papers on the Spartans who became soldiers at 19.
"From his late teens to age thirty-eight in 1200, a Mongol named Temujin (Temüjin) rose as khan over various families. He was vassal to Ong Khan, titular head of a confederacy better organized than other Mongol clans.
And in 1206, at the age of 42, Temujin took the title Universal Ruler, which translates to Genghis Khan, and he addressed his joyous supporters thanking them for their help and their loyalty."
I could go on and on. How about doing a little research before bunking my statement. Thanks.
Teens have and always will be the perfect soldiers for a mass army, because they are easily brain washed.
blahblahblah this is about future wars not history lessons please dont waste pages thank you.
This is coming from a guy who claims the world's soldiery are pre-dominantly teenagers. History is just another word that starts with H as far as you're concerned.
Yep.
The average current US Soldier = 19. Now, that's the AVERAGE AGE. Which means there are a whole lot of 17 and 18yr olds weighing down those 50yr olds.
"He was born Napoleone di Buonaparte on 15 August 1769.
Upon graduation from Brienne in 1784, Bonaparte was admitted to the elite École Royale Militaire in Paris, where he completed the two-year course of study in only one year. Upon graduation in September 1785, he was commissioned as a second lieutenant of artillery and took up his new duties in January 1786 at the age of 16"
16
Can't find a Quote, but have done several papers on the Spartans who became soldiers at 19.
"From his late teens to age thirty-eight in 1200, a Mongol named Temujin (Temüjin) rose as khan over various families. He was vassal to Ong Khan, titular head of a confederacy better organized than other Mongol clans.
And in 1206, at the age of 42, Temujin took the title Universal Ruler, which translates to Genghis Khan, and he addressed his joyous supporters thanking them for their help and their loyalty."
I could go on and on. How about doing a little research before bunking my statement. Thanks.
Teens have and always will be the perfect soldiers for a mass army, because they are easily brain washed.
blahblahblah this is about future wars not history lessons please dont waste pages thank you.
History gives us perspective. It's people like you who string us along for the ride, repeating it.
Put a bullet in your head, you'll be doing the rest of the world a favor.
Yep.
The average current US Soldier = 19. Now, that's the AVERAGE AGE. Which means there are a whole lot of 17 and 18yr olds weighing down those 50yr olds.
"He was born Napoleone di Buonaparte on 15 August 1769.
Upon graduation from Brienne in 1784, Bonaparte was admitted to the elite
This is coming from a guy who claims the world's soldiery are pre-dominantly teenagers. History is just another word that starts with H as far as you're concerned.
Yep.
The average current US Soldier = 19. Now, that's the AVERAGE AGE. Which means there are a whole lot of 17 and 18yr olds weighing down those 50yr olds.
"He was born Napoleone di Buonaparte on 15 August 1769.
Upon graduation from Brienne in 1784, Bonaparte was admitted to the elite École Royale Militaire in Paris, where he completed the two-year course of study in only one year. Upon graduation in September 1785, he was commissioned as a second lieutenant of artillery and took up his new duties in January 1786 at the age of 16"
16
Can't find a Quote, but have done several papers on the Spartans who became soldiers at 19.
"From his late teens to age thirty-eight in 1200, a Mongol named Temujin (Temüjin) rose as khan over various families. He was vassal to Ong Khan, titular head of a confederacy better organized than other Mongol clans.
And in 1206, at the age of 42, Temujin took the title Universal Ruler, which translates to Genghis Khan, and he addressed his joyous supporters thanking them for their help and their loyalty."
I could go on and on. How about doing a little research before bunking my statement. Thanks.
Teens have and always will be the perfect soldiers for a mass army, because they are easily brain washed.
blahblahblah this is about future wars not history lessons please dont waste pages thank you.
History gives us perspective. It's people like you who string us along for the ride, repeating it.
Put a bullet in your head, you'll be doing the rest of the world a favor.
He's 14.
my age affects nothing about my opinion but i'm not saying history sucks i know history is good but it doesn't help because people are naive and only hear what they like to hear so they ignore the past and this thread is about ww3 not ww1/2, vietnam, the korean war, the civil war, the french and indian war, ect. so please if you understand i check these threads that i made and don't want to read for 30mins on 1 post. please stay on topic you can post what you want when i let this thread go cold turkey thank you and have a nice day.
CLICK HERE TO GET A LIST OF FREE MMO LISTS!!!
ww3 is inevitable so don't say anything like there is no ww3.
I got an idea.
Everyone argue with a guy who hasn't even taken US History yet.
And I said before the third world war has been going on for almost 20 years.
CLICK HERE TO GET A LIST OF FREE MMO LISTS!!!
Secondly when WW3 hits, there will be no winners. Go Go Nukes all over the world.
Id rather be dead tbh than live in the after effects of WW3.
I never said anything pro-American. You should re-read what I said.
Too bad we didn't just focus on Japan and let you Brits hash it out with Germany alone. But I guess Churchill wouldn't stop begging us for help if we did that though.
I know Pearl Harbor and Sept 11th doesn't compare with everything England has lost in the past 250 years, poor England. You know, how we kicked you out of America and France of all countries laughed at you, Germany at your back door (twice), etc.
Then we have France. Fact. They have never won a war, ever. Even thier civil war was considered a draw. How worthless is that?
So yeah Europe makes me giggle. Nothing wrong with being proud of your country though. But like I said, I voted China because I was giving a realistic answer to the OP. If I voted by favoritisim, I would vote Germany, they haven't let me down yet (well...sorta, maybe third times a charm).
Honestly who gives a crap about a global conflict.Anyone aside from the mogadishu mudmen knows if it happens it's all over,so why bother constructing a who's who of the usual suspects.
Our species is too dumb to even fund a proper search for ELE sized asteroids,or agree to stop burning oil and destroying the atmosphere we all need.
We're so dumb we spend all these resources killing eachother,when a fraction of those resources spent on space exploration(ie space habitats)could ensure our species survives.
Hell while I'm here I might as well pick someone..let's see,I'll take...Russia.They'll sell some warheads to some "rogue" nation who will drop 10 of em on the US and we'll get it all kicked off that way..never understood why most ppl thought Russia self-destructing was a good thing
Gee. I wonder.
Why do you keep necroing this thread? Let it die.
oh yeah and global warming/ the destruction of our ozone is natural.
oh yeah and global warming/ the destruction of our ozone is natural.
God, you're stupid.
CLICK HERE TO GET A LIST OF FREE MMO LISTS!!!