English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Now that 'President' Poodle Blair is again trying to re-insert that provobial tongue up the nether regions of President (now there's a perfect example of dellusions of grandeur) Labotomy Bush with his attempt to get the latter to base 'Son of Star Wars' on our soil, shouldn't we not only be questioning what these two nincompoops are trying to achieve but also the technology with which they're trying to do achieve it ?

From what I understand ballistic missiles are notoriously unreliable when they test them, they are prone to malfunction - so if you are going to set up a defence net of batteries to send one missile to knock out another isn't this going to be a very expensive folly?

Surely the military of the various NATO nations should be spending the inordinate sums of money involved into research into a defence net using what Sci Fi has long since called 'Shields' - is this type of technology really as far off as ''Beam me up Scotty"? - I know Heisenberg uncertainty principle !

2007-02-25 13:29:56 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Military

4 answers

WOW! I love your description of George Dubbya. But from what I can figure out, to give a person a Lobotomy they must first have some kind of Grey matter in their cranium. They tried unsuccessfully to do that to Dubbya, all they found was a bunch of fried Grey gunk. It seems while he was AWOL from his Nat. Guard unit, Air Nat. Guard, I'll add, he fried his brain on some kind of white powdery subbstance. And since it was such a small brain to begin with it didn't take much. I say Hats off to Prince Harry. Good on him. Oh by the way, I was born and raised in the U.S.A. And thank you Brits for your support. Hopefully we will get a good leader in the up coming elections.

2007-03-04 03:27:07 · answer #1 · answered by c321arty 3 · 0 0

Ballistic missiles can hit each other in mid-air just fine, because they have a set course. The problem with their accuracy is in hitting a target without a fixed course. Shields aren't an alternative, because the were just a way for space ships to shoot each other with lasers on TV and still be believable. Science doesn't support this at all.

2007-03-04 17:35:27 · answer #2 · answered by elleron2000 2 · 0 0

Bush and all the republicans are in a dream world. So is Blair.

2007-03-03 16:32:33 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Maybe you're right. I'll read that again

2007-03-01 12:40:17 · answer #4 · answered by kinvadave 5 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers