A new computer program has determined that it would take only eleven nuclear missiles to change the Great White North from a frozen, uninhabited land with little human population into a frozen, uninhabited land with little human population and three-headed rabbits.
Ok, so the article REALLY says that it would only take eleven nukes to eliminate Canda as a country.
My question is, why'd they model Canada in the first place? I don't think we've waved a musket at them since the War of 1812. Talk about holding a grudge...
1 posted on
01/07/2002 3:00:55 PM PST by
RicocheT
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-50 next last
To: RicocheT
They've been bitter since Gretzky. What can you say?
To: RicocheT
Eliminate Canada? Hmmmmmmmmm....
3 posted on
01/07/2002 3:07:18 PM PST by
LibKill
To: RicocheT
The Canucks claim to have won the War of 1812.
To: RicocheT
Dosn't that work out to be a single ICBM with a MIRV warhead?
Of course, the obvious question is: why bother?
5 posted on
01/07/2002 3:10:30 PM PST by
Hunble
To: RicocheT
Even better would be a poll to determine whether most folks figure such a course would be desirable. After all, it's onle eleven nukes, and we've got plenty.
I can certainly think of targets more immediately deserving though, but Canada is admittedly close at hand. And nuking them would give the rest of the world good reason to be more cautious about antagonizing the US.
8 posted on
01/07/2002 3:12:04 PM PST by
archy
To: RicocheT
11?
Why so many I wonder.
To: RicocheT
Think that might get them a bit more interested in NMD?
To: RicocheT
The real question is, if Canada were eliminated, would anyone notice?
To: RicocheT
So 11 missiles will kill 25% of the population.
I think the remaining 75% might be meaner than you're used to.
Unless you're used to hockey. ;^)
To: RicocheT
Just as long as we station some Patriot missiles around the Molson brewery, I think we'll be OK...
17 posted on
01/07/2002 3:21:21 PM PST by
LouD
To: RicocheT
Take out all of Canada? 11 warheads! ROFL!!! Check the TD range of even a 1-megaton warhead, multiply it by 11, calculate the total area of Canada and compare the two. Even if they were the "dirty" bombs of the 50's, the fallout would only be severe for the first two weeks and hardly noticeable at the end of 14 weeks. Take it out politically? Maybe, but destroy the landmass, hardly!
To: RicocheT
China, because of its large population, would have to be targeted by 368 nuclear weapons. Hit their dams and those nice snow-covered mountains with some nukes and just wash them out to sea.
To: RicocheT
Blame Canada!
To: RicocheT
One pipe bomb and Quebec will surrender unconditionally.
To: RicocheT
29 posted on
01/07/2002 3:32:57 PM PST by
backhoe
To: RicocheT
Some reasons why Canada shouldn't be nuked:
1. The original 5 doesn't sound as good as the original 7
2. It might affect the walleye fishing
3. I like Sorel boots
4. The NHL needs a steady supply of "grinder" type role players (the skill players come from Europe)
5. Don Cherry
6. Our border states depend on the refugees from Canada's medical system
7. I'm thinking, I'm thinking
To: RicocheT
We've been down this road before with these shifty North-enders...they're still PO'ed about the pig.
The Pig War of 1859
It was George Pickett's greatest moment. Well, this one and that thing at Gettysburg...
To: RicocheT
--I though canada had more than eleven breweries????
43 posted on
01/07/2002 3:55:04 PM PST by
zog
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: 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. :)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-50 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson