|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Global Futurism. A discussion of impending issues | |||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1593 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
that's absurd. the chances are astronomical.
keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1593 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
no...i meant of worldwide global issues of impending disaster like global warming....wow....thats.alot of uh..stuff. sorry not what i was referring
keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1593 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
yes but as the article points out: not exclusively.
keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1593 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
I guess I'm not sure what you are asking then... Can you elaborate?
~nemesis juggernaut~ i believe that the impending issues facing a real threat to mankind would be : 1: global warming (or more pointedly, the effects of it)2: undocumented mass slamming the planet I'm just wondering what other "annihilation" scenarios there are that can be proven? and if proven, how do we potentially prepare to avoid them given awareness? Edited by tesla, : changed subtitle keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1593 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
if you are willing to believe that, you should go to The White House and submit the question. that the possibility, that a president could be taken over by a fit of mental illness, permitting that the potential exists for world annihilation under the "exclusive" ability of the president to launch multiple nuclear missiles.
however, i believe the sharing of powers designed in our government make such an assertion silly. Edited by tesla, : No reason given. keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1593 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
DEFCON DEFense CONdition - United States Nuclear Forces
seriously, write a letter to the whitehouse. keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1593 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
i refuse to believe that. it would go against the purpose of shareing power. i don't see congress allowing one person to be able to initiate a multiple nuclear attack no questions asked.
i will submit for documentation for you, but it may take a couple days before it will be available. no promises. Edited by tesla, : sumbiting. keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1593 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
that's some pretty old documentation. I'm not willing to trust it.
i don't believe if it did apply at all, that it applies today. Ive submitted an inquiry to the whitehouse. however, i still don't believe its a realistic threat. Edited by tesla, : No reason given. keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1593 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
nccs is not "the president"
and it only suggests that the military could not involve nukes without the presidents involvement, not that the president can launch nukes at will. keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1593 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
not at all. I'm implying that tho he has control of it, there are protocols to action , requirements that must be met before a president would have full cooperation.
that the president cannot "exclusively" launch nuclear missiles. I'm not dense, your just stubborn keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1593 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
the sophisticated system in place was set up to limit launch ability, not give exclusive power to the president.
congress wouldn't allow it. the American people wouldn't allow it, the other countries would be horrified from it, and the political implications of the suggestion would be a breakdown of all democratic law. there is no way a president, will have that power as long as congress, and the house of representatives, the media, and the people of the united states have any say about it. your wrong. presidents can be impeached, and defied, just like a military commander can be defied if one goes section 8 Edited by tesla, : No reason given. keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1593 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
o-n-l-y a nuclear launch activation can be made with presidential inclusion. not only the president can unlock it and by self desire initiate the launch.
interesting..you also just added another group: erc did you read my last post? what your suggesting is communism. does it matter how much proof i put before you that your suggestion is impossible in this democracy? I'm starting to feel like I'm trying to convince the chicken the sky is not falling.... keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1593 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
i believe that the "proof" your showing me is either: no longer in compliance, or outright propaganda.
the purpose of a democracy is to limit power of a single entity. suggesting that a power as dangerous as nuclear launches would be accepted by the government, or by the world in a power as powerful as the united states,to one individual, is absurd. no matter how many documents you show me to try to prove that what your saying is correct: it would be impossible to implement it politically. the potential of a president to loose his mind is realistic, therefore the government was established so that no one entity in the government would have exclusive power. Edited by tesla, : No reason given. keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024