The Star Tribune observed the 70th anniversary of Hiroshima by playing a little morbid”what if” with a Hiroshima bomb in downtown Minneapolis:
The above map shows a range of effects that would result from the blast if a “Little Boy”-type bomb were dropped on the Star Tribune newsroom in downtown Minneapolis.
For starters, the DFL will have to hire a new PR firm.
(Ba-dum-bump)
Sometimes it seems as though their is a guiding hand on history.
It used to be said that both the Russians and the Americans got their space program from the Germans — we got to the Moon first because “our Germans were better than their Germans.” That’s not really true. The Soviets had a well developed rocket program even before WW2. Their army thought of rockets as being extremely long-range artillery, as did the Germans. Pre WW2 the US rocket program was small potatoes, in part because Goddard didn’t work well with others. He was paranoid. He thought collaborators would steal his ideas. He died believing that the Germans had stolen V2 tech from him. Goddard was working for the navy, doing torpedo stuff at the time.
But the atom bomb is all American. It couldn’t have been built before 1930 or so. It could only be built under the conditions of an all-out war — where the country building it was rich, with an educated population, and immune from the kind of bombing campaigns that the US used against the Germans and the Japanese. No one would build such a thing during peace time. Ethics aside, it was horrendously expensive. Every other country that has developed atomic weapons used research that the US performed only because it was made possible by World War Two.
Ok. Now do one for an Iranian Bomb smuggled into the Mall of America……
Go back to your hasbara mother ship and get some new material troll.
“Al-Shabab Threat Against Mall of America Could Be a Call to Action”
http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/02/23/al-shabab-threat-against-mall-of-america-could-be-a-call-to-action/
Who knew the guys at Foreign Policy mag were hasbara trolls?
Mary Peretz doesn’t like the Iran deal: http://www.thetower.org/article/the-democratic-party-on-the-edge-of-the-abyss/
I think Obama’s attitude can be summarized as “The constitution gives congress and only congress the right to declare war, but as commander in chief it is within my power to lose any war I choose to lose.”
Mix a few ‘over the counter’ assault rifles and an individual with machining skills and the result would be predictable.
PB writes: “The constitution gives congress and only congress the right to declare war, but as commander in chief it is within my power to lose any war I choose to lose.”
I’m not sure anyone is suggesting that one shove their hands in our pockets. But we have been through this before and even doubters about the efficacy of Obama’s strategy accept that stuff needs to be done.
It is just that the posturing and promise of military action is always greater than the actual results obtained.We create an image of success only to turn around and realize nothing has changed and if it has it is usually for the worse.
It is just that the posturing and promise of military action is always greater than the actual results obtained
Two words, EmeryTheAntisemticSoci@list, you incessant history challenged puke – Cold War.
“It is just that the posturing and promise of military action is always greater than the actual results obtained”
Not sure this comment goes with a post about two atom bombs ending World War Two.
I am never quite certain what people mean when they say that the alternative to Obama’s treaty (or whatever he is calling it to skirt congressional approval) is war. Who, exactly, is pushing the idea of war with Iran as an alternative? I can’t tink of a single American politician wo says we should go to war with Iran.
I’ve heard rumors, BTW, that part of the treaty says we will help the Iranians harden their ‘peaceful’ nuclear program against sabotage and external attack.
Neither was the trolls comment about an Iranian nuke @ the MOA.
Although I must say; your first post (8/7) was well informed.
It strikes me that President Bush–he who is to be blamed for everything–got the Libyans to back off on WMD without firing a shot at Libya. Just sayin’. So it would seem that “war or bad treaty” is not a valid set of alternatives.
If war is the absolute worst outcome, then what Obama is saying is that this “treaty” is marginally better that the absolute worst outcome.
America deserves better than this POS president.
The guy to read on the history of the space age is one-time NASA historian Roger Launius. He doesn’t pull punches. Launius is convinced we’ll never get a manned mission past Mars orbit. In space distance is time and time, and time is literally a killer.