View Single Post
Old 09-13-2007, 09:06 PM   #16
Ijkavylo

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
496
Senior Member
Default
ONYC, that works in theory, but we all know something like that would not work in the real world....

I am also in support of a more philanthropic world. A place where teh poorest of the poor does not hae to worry about the basic needs of man. But something about how man works and how society runs does not allow for that without contestation.

I too think it was stupid of them to go for more destruction. We all have enough to destroy just about anything in about a dozen different ways (cluster bombs, incindiaries, daisycutters, MOAB, nuclear, biological, etc), but we always look for one more.

Sad part is, the country that stops looking for the nes one is left with bronze swords and shields to fight the newest Iron carrying phalanxes.

And if THAT does not beat all, many of our more humanistic developments have derived from military research into more destructive applications.



At least a weapon like this is more tracable, does not (for the most part) leave leftovers after manyfacture, storage or detonation, and looks better in the latest fall catalogs.

Ijkavylo is offline


 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:38 AM.
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Design & Developed by Amodity.com
Copyright© Amodity