OT: Atomic Bombing (podcast)

Of course! Fat man was only 21k tons of TNT.

Wiki says that russia detonated one that was 50M tons of TNT. It also says that hydrogen bombs can be much stronger.

I think we should give osama our antique nukes since the liberals want him to have them anyways... after all, we don't need them.

We WON'T need them. Obama/Osama will TALK us into being an Islamic nation.

...Jim Thompson

Wow, fear mongering and strawman all in one. Economy of design, I think that's called.

Or you can just put 1 million pounds of TNT at the same place...

You *do* know that the entire bin Laden family is heavily connected to the Bush family, right? You practically can't tell whose dick is in whose mouth anymore.

Jon Slaughter schrieb: ...

Did you ever wonder why the rest of the world thinks, that many US-Citizens are clueless fanatics? No? ....

Just my 2 (Euro-)¢

Falk

You leftist weenies sure are easy to brainwash.

...Jim Thompson

"Jim Thompson" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...

You do know that it's not that difficult when you don't have a brain?

Yeah - half a kiloton. ;-)

Cheers! Rich

Remember, the above is a million *pounds* of TNT. Atomic bombs are usually rated in millions of *tons* of TNT. The above would have been a very relatively small atomic bomb, 500 tons of TNT.

Jim Thompson wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

Obama will SURRENDER us to the Islamics. [aided by a DemocRATic Congress]

slowly,like the frog in the pot of slowly warming water.

Actually, No. You can't. TNT is primarily a chemical reaction at the atomic level. A nuclear event is completely different.

I think it's MP3 #3 or #4 that discusses the unique difference between comparing x-tonnage of TNT to nuclear detonation. Primarily these differences involve visible light and gamma radiation occuring in the first second of so of detonation. They claim the visible light alone at Nagasaki was enough to raise skin temp 50-deg C instantly. Enough to burn the flesh off your bones. TNT doesn't do that at any appreciable distance.

Although, it probably wouldn't matter much? Once the light flash burns your skin, the following concussion wave can practically pulverize your skeleton. Anyway, it's a good podcast (even if you don't trust government reports). I recommend downloading for your next long road trip...

-mpm

Falk Willberg wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@mid.individual.net:

another idiot;We Americans are "clueless" and "fanatics",but no comment on the Islamics.

But Europe has alrady surrendered to the Islamics;they just haven't realized it yet. They've already disarmed themselves.

And DEPEND on the [hated] US for their protection.

I bet that galls this putz.

Just remember;much of Europe USED to be Islamic,and they intend to regain it.

You aren't going to like it,either. B-)

and under Obama,that US protection will disappear. He's already said he favors the Muslims. (and enjoys their support,including the most radical Islamics)

Jim Thompson wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

they aren't rational.

PeterD wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

Actually,most of them are rated in KILOtons.

Jim Yanik schrieb:

^^^^^^ ^^^^

I did not say that.

What for? Enough said already.

This may be true for the Europe you see, the Europe I live in is different.

Who hates the US? I don't. Most don't. But many criticize the US.

...

A significant part of spain 711-1285. (And guess, at what time they started to burn Jews and other disbeleivers and when the first universities were founded?).

Southeastern Europe was partly conquered by the Turks, freed again, conquered again...

Before that, a much greater part was Roman, before a smaller part was Greek, later bigger parts became French, then German (what was in fact Italian) now Europe is trying to unite...

Who intends that?

...

Cool. He said that and a majority still would vote for him? That is really strange :-)

Prove?

Falk P.S.: What year was it, when "Communist" was replaced by "Islamic"?

Heh - I've used the same imagery for the neocons chipping away at Liberty.

The neocons lost the "war on terror" the day that "Homeland Security" started strip-searching American citizens at the airports.

And, actually, they guy that starts a fight _should_ lose it. (namely, Cheney, but those crooks have their golden parachutes all lined up - where they deserve to be is at the end of a rope.)

Or do you want the USA to be bogged down in two and a half Vietnams for all of eternity?

Thanks, Rich