Not so according this article

https://www.businessinsider.com/survive-nuclear-attack-fallout-shelter-cars-2017-5?op=1

Global Nuclear Attack

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0JniNX1OCg

Emergency nuclear attack siren hired out for parties?

Interesting, but geography doesn't protect from ballistic and or guided missiles, the most likely weapons of choice.

In the event of a nuclear attack, is being a vault dweller really what you want? It's something to consider....I don't want to be a Morlok.

I would feel far safer in Iceland. Who's going to nuke anything anywhere near Iceland? Europe, on the other hand, has plenty of targets...and would probably have plenty of desperate dying people to deal with. They're as scary to me as the bombs if not more.

Just remember... while there is a Congress that *might* temper some of his proposals... there's no Congress between him and the button (and the fact that he has said he would not rule out a first strike nuclear attack against somebody in the Middle East and Europe... and he also might not protect our European allies if attacked if they haven't paid). There's no Congress between him and him launching an initial retaliatory strike for making jestures... No matter how bad Hillary is, she isn't ready to destroy the world and start a nuclear holicast the way Trump is more than willing to do. Also, the lone wolf attacks we've seen the last year or so will only greatly increase under Trump as he and his ideals, implemented or not, incite futher self radicalization, by people who won't need contacts, they'll just be upset that the US is targeting Islam as a whole specifically, not just the jehadist... and remember, it looks like he'll win as he is winning in states like Florida and Ohio... When those nuclear missles rain into the United States, remember, those voiting for him, you specifically knew that would happen and you chose to destroy the world by voting for an egomaniac that has no clue how to be diplomatic, who has no clue how the real world works... who thinks the world opperates just like a boardroom... or one of his appartments where he kept black people out...

Look, it's really simple. The question was, "Will the US military obey unlawful orders."

I pointed to one proven instance where they absolutely did just that. I didn't bring up rape or any of that, you did, but it actually makes my case even more solid. Not only did they OBEY those orders, they took them several steps further on their own. Abu Ghraib is an excellent example because there was a court case and therefore there's a lot of documentation.

There are a ton of other examples, especially from WWII onward, firebombing major German cities, nuclear attacks on Japan, use of Napalm in Vietnam. Treatment of POWs.... It's a very long list of debatable war crimes, many of which are poorly documented. If you want to pick one as a better example, go ahead, but building up straw men to attack when you seem to essentially agree with the thrust of my argument seems petty and ridiculous.

I really don't think Sony was too concerned about a nuclear attack.There was tremendous pressure from the groups that own the malls who put pressure on the groups that own the theaters which put pressure on Sony. The obvious concern being loss of money if there was a theater attack which could result in people avoiding movie theaters en masse.

Sony is a multinational corporation. Sony Pictures Entertainment (the target of the hack) is based in the USA.

I personally think Sony fucked up here, not just with their ridiculous notorious bad security (still with the plain text passwords? wtf), but by caving in to these scumbags even after the FBI said there was no credible threat. This obviously just opens the door for further bullshit like this from any asshole with a computer and a grudge in the future.

In any event, yeah the movie will be "leaked" (as evidenced by the scene above) so total streisand effect blunder. Apparently these genius hackers don't realize that when a movie like this gets made, many people have "screener" copies of it long before it ever gets released.

Bert the Turtle knows what to do in case of a nuclear attack.

@ghark

Paragraph 1:

1. The difference between collateral damage and terrorism is easy to assess. Intentions, methods, and actions of the bombers of 9/11 and the allied forces are different. Does that make civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan less tragic? No. Do we have to understand the ripple effect of those lost innocent lives? Yes. If an allied soldier killed my family I probably would not care why they did it - accident or not - and I would probably want to seek revenge. Thus the viscious cycle that armed conflict perpetuates.


However, to call allied soldiers terrorist is completely out of line.

2. I'm not defining terrorist as a muslim with a beard.

As George Carlin said, "You have to be realistic about terrorism. Certain groups of people, certain groups, Muslim fundamentalists, Christian fundamentalists, Jewish fundamentalists, and just plain guys from Montana, are going to continue to make life in this country very interesting for a long, long time."

What George is pointing out, and I believe Sam to agree with, is that people with bad ideas are bad no matter where they are from.


Or from wikipedia: "Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion."

Paragraph 2 - Harris Fear Mongering, Generalizing:

1. How is Harris fear mongering? He is stating simple facts about the reality of a nuclear attack on US soil. He did not inflate those numbers or misrepresent them.

2.You can say things like "blatant generalizations" but you are not giving any real concrete examples.

Paragraph 3 - Hedges:

1. Aside from some debates I have seen Hedges in I have very little knowledge of his work. I can't comment on it because I have not read it.

Paragraph 4 - Self Gratification?


1. I fail to see how Harris mention of a possible nuclear attack on the United States, or anywhere, is an example of self gratification. I do not think this statistic brings Sam any pleasure at all.

Nuclear Attack a Ticking Time Bomb

Now for the Rip.


You admit you didn't listen to the video in its entirety which means you didn't give Sam a chance to fully develop his ideas. I don't know exactly what you expect from him or any other speaker, but they can only get so many words out of their mouth at one time and they cannot cover every objection. From what I have read and heard from Sam in the past I know him to be a fairly reasonable person - so I give him some leeway.

It reminds me of a fellow student in one of my literature classes in college. He opened his mouth and said," Well, I did not have a chance to read the story, but from what I'm hearing in the discussion I think..."


The Professor stopped him right there. He had no right to spend my time giving me his opinion of something he did not take the time to understand - and frankly neither do you.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

I remember an 80s Twilight Zone episode where there was a necklace that would allow you to stop and start time, and it ended with the main character stopping time a few seconds before a nuclear attack. Freaky.


Had a huge effect on me when I saw it as a kid. Myself and my brother still talk about it today.

A little peace and quiet... nicely played into my 80's imminent apocalypse terror: http://youtu.be/bjFdix6BRZk



>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

I remember an 80s Twilight Zone episode where there was a necklace that would allow you to stop and start time, and it ended with the main character stopping time a few seconds before a nuclear attack. Freaky.

I remember an 80s Twilight Zone episode where there was a necklace that would allow you to stop and start time, and it ended with the main character stopping time a few seconds before a nuclear attack. Freaky.

The only common factor in all that ignoring and downvoting is you and your snide, passive-aggressive and sarcastic comments in this thread. We're ignoring you. You haven't made any contributions to the discussion, just attacked individuals, or kinda implied a disapproval in some backhanded way. The only things you have said that were on topic show you are two steps behind, like in researching the context of Harris's remarks on nuclear attacks, for example. The best way to kill a stupid argument like that is to ignore it, and the best way to still show disapproval is to downvote.

Just because you say something in a thread doesn't mean people are obliged to engage with it. So take this opportunity to look back at your comments from the beginning and try and imagine why anyone would want to answer them. For starters, people don't like answering sarcasm, indirect criticism and personal insults. So if you want your comments to get some attention, start with that.>> ^marbles:

Herd mentality in action!
@dystopianfuturetoday @Skeeve @Zyrxil @Januari @Issykitty @hpqp @rottenseed @enoch @Boise_Lib
Good job guys. You made my point. 13 down votes and 0 rebuttals. No mind control here. Just free thinkers.

Hey Kulpims, Thanks very much for the promote!

In reply to this comment by kulpims:
*promote