Skip to comments.
Only 11 nuclear bombs to 'take out' Canada
The Ottawa Citizen ^
| 7 January 2002
| David Pugliese
Posted on 01/07/2002 3:00:55 PM PST by RicocheT
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 201-209 next last
To: Poohbah
The point is that everything of significant economic value in Canada is concentrated in 11 warhead's worth of coverage.I am not qualified to comment on the economic viability after such an attack, however the landmass would still be there and usable.
To: archy
I guess that means we are all screwed here.
To: RicocheT
--I though canada had more than eleven breweries????
43
posted on
01/07/2002 3:55:04 PM PST
by
zog
To: Sawdring
The radiation on the ground would be manageable after 14 weeks. Look at Japan. They have thriving metropolises at ground zero and those were much dirtier bombs that we use now.
To: RightWhale
So the Redcoats burned DC to the ground. So what? No big deal. It wasn't much of a war anyway. Just a misunderstanding. Remember New Orleans.
The burning of DC was in retaliation for the American burning to the ground of York (the old name for Toronto.)
And the US failed in its primary objective, to conquer Canada. The stuff about protesting impressment of US sailors was merely a convenient excuse; the maritime states of New England that had the sailors being taken were OPPOSED to the war, while Western states supported it. The majority of the members of congress who voted for the war voted for it for the primary reason of capturing Canada.
All that most people know about the war comes from high school history textbooks, which are pretty crappy and sanitized.
45
posted on
01/07/2002 3:59:00 PM PST
by
John H K
To: RicocheT
YES! Nobody asked the OBVIOUS!
Would those be 'A'-bombs or 'Eh'-bombs?
46
posted on
01/07/2002 3:59:13 PM PST
by
invoman
To: Great Dane
Where's Canada? That sir/maam is on a need to know basis.
Stop trying to hide Canada. It's bigger than the U.S. and we know where it is. Any American public high school student can tell you that it has something to do with France, or Dudley Do-Right, or sumpin like dat, I forget.
47
posted on
01/07/2002 4:00:01 PM PST
by
xJones
To: RicocheT
Probably would take less than 11...lol. Of course, would not be great to get fallout here in America. On the other hand, we would gain lots more territory to drill for oil etc. :)
To: headsonpikes
Eleven nukes, huh?
I'm trying to figure out who's #11. Do you suppose it would be Moose Jaw or Charlottetown???
49
posted on
01/07/2002 4:02:42 PM PST
by
okie01
To: RicocheT
How many to take out South Dakota, Vermont and Delaware?
(just kidding).
To: CrossCheck
Make that original 6, not 7.
To: Billthedrill
"Sure, they burned D.C. to the ground...but what have they done for us
lately?"
LOL!
To: RicocheT
I'm still thinking about it.
Is there anything we get from Canada that we actually want and can't get elsewhere?
53
posted on
01/07/2002 4:06:15 PM PST
by
LibKill
To: CrossCheck
Some reasons why Canada shouldn't be nuked:
7. RUSH
(Aren't they supposed to be releasing a new album
in the near future?)
To: John H K
Actually, I remember all the stuff you said mentioned in my high school textbook. Of course, it is AP history....and the textbook is actually intended for college (not sure why, it isn't hard to understand).
To: RicocheT
nuke 'em, danno!
and toss one on beijing while you're at it!
To: RadioAstronomer
Remenber your rules of 7 when caclulating fallout. First 7 hours is the worst, then 2 days later 1/10th, two weeks after that, 1/10th and 14 weeks later, again 1/10th. So after 14 weeks a 6000 r/hr is only 6 r/hr. And these levels would only be near G-zero. Assuming no second strikes or followup waves of targeting after an initial flight of ICBMs, then a discharge of submarine or other ocean-going vessels as they move within firing range, followed by last-ditch single or multiple aircraft raids on secondary or tertiary targets deserving of additional treatment.
And, of course, possible local contamination from fratricide of incoming missiles, or targeting of commercial nuclear reactor facilities.
-archy-/-
57
posted on
01/07/2002 4:10:06 PM PST
by
archy
To: invoman
hahahaha.....
Would those be 'A'-bombs or 'Eh'-bombs?Poor Canada, everyone picking on her!
58
posted on
01/07/2002 4:17:10 PM PST
by
Key
To: ChromeDome
I think you may be on thin ice there, eh. Course if you'd mentioned Neil Young, I'd agree. I think he lives in CA now though. That's about the only reason I'd have for not nuking the Leftist Coast.
To: RicocheT
Two for the US: Washington DC and New York. It would cripple our government and our financial center.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 201-209 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson