The Metal Maniac

Yes. Because, like I've said before, unless the shield is 100% effective, then the only thing people will need to penetrate the shield will be lots and lots of nukes. Thus, they will build lots and lots of nukes to ensure that they still can nuke the states, should circumstances arise.

Of course not Greco. KOD, fool. Wow, this went way off-topic really quick.

Oh, what the fuck do you know? Caper. I think.

No, but having a shield is only gonna make people want more nukes faster. One of those damned if you do, damned if you don't things. And Agent, did you get a donair? Those things rock.

It's slang, like 'cuz. It's not that complicated.

Almost forgot: Every single stunt in Ong-Bak.

Gandalf's battle with the Balrog in The Two Towers. The courtroom scene in Boondock Saints. Inigo Montoya vs the six-fingered man from Princess Bride.

Neato. *dives in*

Honestly, that sounds about right to me. I'd rather more people have nukes then have people who think they can use nukes without fear. Because while places like N. Korea may be somewhat crazy, I honestly don't think even they would be dumb enough to turn their own country into radioactive glass; which is exactly what using a nuke would accomplish. I mean, even if the guy in charge is a total wackjob, I would think he'd realize, if nothing else, that destroying N. Korea means he has no place to rule. Or live.

They're all just trying to catch up to everyone else. But I'd say that no one actually, you know, USING the weapons is pretty damned stable.

A rule which was made because if the US did nuke anyone, then YOUR country would be radioactive glass too. That doesn't really apply with a shield in place. Am I saying they'd change it for sure? No, but then they'd have the option to. You DON'T have that option right now. But it's NOT; it's actually worse, because other countries will KNOW the shield doesn't work very well. Thus, they won't need any sort of crazy-advanced technology to get around the shield, they'll just need MORE NUKES. And then they'll build more nukes, so that if it comes down to it, they can STILL turn your country into radioactive glass. You know, like an arms race, only they won't have to develop anything new, they'll just have to expand what they have. As it stands, everything is nice and calm thanks to MAD's stabilizing effects. But this shield is a de-stabilizing weapon, which means it's only gonna cause trouble and cost billions upon billions of dollars.

I would imagine that the other 20% are undecided, and that the stat was found the same way they find other stats...whatever the hell that is.

I buy albums more often then I download them. I'll generally only download a few tunes and decide if the album is worth it.

This is how he can, Boon: I stole it from that thread with that article about Americans getting dumber.

Maybe this was just a typo, but seriously; how the fuck are they gonna hit you BACK unless you hit them FIRST? Of course not. But you guys can still get nuked yourselves. But if you couldn't get nuked back, then the scenario would be different. Not saying that the US would have nuked Iraq, but honestly, with all this world policing, I *really* would not be shocked if the US came upon a situation where they felt they would be justified in nuking someplace. And if there's a shield that actually works, then they're gonna feel like they can, because no one can nuke them back.

I wasn't aware I was left.

I do. Especially if they think they're immune to counter-attack. Or if they nuke someone who doesn't have nukes. I mean, nuking Iraq would've saved lots of US lives. Why not? I don't think it's bad because the US thought of it. I think it's bad because it's needless, costly, and will only serve to piss people off.

Exactly. Which is a problem. I mean, I REALLY wouldn't be surprised if the US, thinking it was immune to nuclear attack (as I explained before, I doubt the system would work anyway) decided to just nuke one of those annoying Arab countries rather then go through a lengthy invasion. With the shield in place, there'd be NO ONE to stop them from doing that. And I REALLY don't think that things as deadly as nukes should be able to be used like that.

I always thought the guy believed that HHH was gonna give him a Tiger Driver with the way he jumped.

I think C-Bacon just summed it up, but again: A missle defense system would be destabalizing. It would give the US a HUGE upper hand in terms of nuclear weapons, which would make every single other nuclear power nervous. In turn, they would seek to design ways to get around this shield, which, of course, leads to an arms race, which leads to everyone spending lots of money on nukes they don't need. Also, it will most probably make the US *think* they are immune to nukes. And if you don't have to worry about being nuked yourself, then you're a lot more likely to nuke someone else, since you don't need to fear the reprecussions. Further, I can't see any real benefits to the system. In the first place, they're telling us that they're gonna shoot down missles over Canada. Well, where are they gonna go? They can't just make them detonate in the air, that'd probably be much worse. So are there gonna be all kinds of nuclear payloads just falling on Canada, still radioactive and deadly, should a nuclear war go on? Why the hell should we support that? And yeah, you can argue that a benefit is that it'll shoot down nukes. Well, good job. The REAL question is: How MANY nukes can it shoot down? Can it shoot down 10? 50? A thousand nukes launched at the same time? Can they shoot ALL of those down, with 100% accuracy, guaranteed? Because if it can't, the system is USELESS. I don't know how many nukes China has, but I've got a strong feeling it's a lot. And I have a stronger feeling that one of their responses to the shield will be to build more. So many more, in fact, that should nuclear war break out, they will just launch ALL of their nukes at the states, and the shield simply won't be able to shoot them all down. Some will get through. Maybe not many, but really, how many nukes do you NEED anyway? So that's why people like me are against the shield. It will do nothing but serve to aggravate everyone who doesn't have it, make an arms race almost guaranteed, and it won't actually STOP nuclear warfare from killing everything anyway.

I wouldn't say century. Remember those world wars? Yeah, we did our own fighting there, thanks. And honestly; has the US ever fought to defend Canada against any Canadian specific attacks without us at least doing something? My history isn't strong in this area, but I don't recall anything... I'm against missle defense anyway. I can't see it doing anything but making people launch MORE nukes against the states should the time come. And besides, I thought Muslim terrorists were the enemies now. Where are they gonna get ICBMs? Don't you think they'd use things like suitcase nukes instead?

It's been many years since I really hoped that Undertaker would squash his opponent at WM, but I can't think of anyone else I'd rather see squashed then Orton. What a queef.

So wait...she cut in front of him in the line, so he called home to let his wife know he might be late, and for that, he got the shit beat out of him? I hate society.

Benoit didn't win the WCW World Title - the decision was overturned. Actually, I think that the WWF recognizes his title reign today, even though they shouldn't, because it was really just a delayed Dusty Finish. HOWEVER, Benoit still doesn't count as being a WWF and WCW champion, because he never really held the WWF/WWE title. I think he got it Dusty Finished once or twice, but again, that doesn't count. The belt he held was the World title, not the WWF/E title.

Eh...I think I liked JP's non Halford albums better, but that's probably because, outside of 2 or three songs, nothing that Halford did seemed that memorable to me. Or maybe I just didn't listen to that as much as I did JP. *shrug* But this album is good, so it all balances out.