How Astronomers Missed the Massive Asteroid That Just Whizze

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 11:36:02 PM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:

On Thursday, August 1, 2019 at 11:26:25 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 3:17:29 AM UTC+10, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, August 1, 2019 at 12:49:59 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:4e35d268-daad-4268-8762-c5474c415e42@googlegroups.com:

On Thursday, August 1, 2019 at 12:18:06 PM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:4a42c39b-e413-421b-9cb5-04b638860f51@googlegroups.com:

Actually it is a measure of energy and does not imply the
existence of matter.

Planck would differ with you.

Heat... specifically the thing that 'temperature' puts a
measure on,

is ONLY exibited by atomic / molecular motion.

So matter is required to have heat.

Any you find devoid of matter was 'generated' by matter and is
a
remnant.

I don't normally bother replying to you as you mostly have no idea
of what you are talking about. In this case I can point to the
cosmic background radiation which is considered to be
approximately 4°K and does in no way involve matter.


It involves the moment matter was created throughout the known
universe. Duh! It most certainly does (did) involve matter... all
of the matter there was and is all at once and we are part of what is
left.

Note I did not say you were wrong. Temperature can be measured.

Can you measure it in free space? Empty space?

Does it require something moving to impart change into the
transducer you are using to measure it with?

What are you measuring? The air? The surface of a medium? All
involve matter and contact with the transducer.

Theorizing ideals? Matter is still there.

If you are measuring the temperature of a photon stream (the solar
wind) (source left) with an IR device perpendicular to the flow, what
are you measuring and what generated it? Hint: Look left. That
star's matter generated that energy.

This is why I usually don't reply to you. When you come up with a wrong idea, you double down.

In the same way that you are doing here.

All your noise aside, the cosmic background radiation is not matter and yet it has a temperature.

It's photons, which do have mass (if not a lot) and none of the individual photons has a "temperature". Each of them has a wavelength and thus an energy content, but that's not a "temperature".

Photons don't have mass, stupid.

The stupidity is all yours. They have energy, and energy has mass.

E=m.v^2 works both ways. Photons don't have much mass, but they do have some.

How do you think a light sail works?

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 11:31:50 PM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:

On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 6:44:30 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:5dcacfe7-3c48-41e8-
8105-609ccac57015@googlegroups.com:

<snip>

So, go explain it to the world's nuclear physicists, who have it wrong.
Those silly fools have been making dirty hydrogen bombs for sixty five
years when they could be making clean ones.

They have been making powerful hydrogen bombs for the past 65 years. Clean devices would be less powerful.

The enthusiasts for using nuclear explosives for civil engineering projects might have been interested in making cleaner bombs, but that went away when testing nuclear weapons in the atmosphere stopped being acceptable.

> Wrong, always wrong.

Trader4 does get a lot of stuff wrong too, and - unlike DLUNU - doesn't seem to get anything right. He's down in the krw category.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 11:37:20 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 11:44:27 PM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Thursday, August 1, 2019 at 11:16:14 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 12:55:06 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Thursday, August 1, 2019 at 8:52:25 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
"John Miles, KE5FX" <jmiles@gmail.com> wrote in
news:0d3c8a6d-52e4-431c-946f-b3fb96e84326@googlegroups.com:

On Tuesday, July 30, 2019 at 7:13:11 AM UTC-7, bitrex wrote:
the headline says "massive" but asteroids at the lower end of
that range are small enough that if you could intercept
exoatmospherically with a ten, 20 megaton nuclear weapon at a
couple hundred meters would vaporize the bulk of it.

Problem: Huge-ass asteroid on collision course with Earth

Solution: Nuke it

Problem: 12 medium-sized radioactive asteroids on collision course
with Earth

-- john, KE5FX


Problem: Folks unable to analyze a problem, leading to not needed
non solutions.

Solution: Ignore them.

Here... they would use a FUSION type nuclear device, not one that
radiates or contaminates.

That's good to know, the world has been mistaken to fear the fallout from
hydrogen bombs for the last half century, because they don't radiate
or contaminate. And all the bother in the early days, treaties to limit
testing to underground. Could have just set them all off in the air
and avoided all the additional effort.

Wrong, always wrong.

Trader4 is rather better entitled to the title than DLUNU.

Figures that you'd chime in on the wrong side to try to help your butt buddy.

I'm not all that fond of DLUNU, but he does get stuff right from time to time, which trader4 doesn't.

The first fusion weapon was very dirty indeed, because the uranium bomb used to initiate nuclear fusion was surrounded by liquified deuterium, which was itself enclosed in a five ton natural uranium tamper.

The neutrons released by deuterium fusion caused fission in the natural uranium tamper, which was responsible for 77% of the final yield.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivy_Mike

A hydrogen bomb designed for civil engineering work could be a lot less dirty.


Less dirty is still dirty, stupid. This is what DL posted:

" they would use a FUSION type nuclear device, not one that
radiates or contaminates."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aneutronic_fusion

There is no known way and probably isn't a way period, to create a nuclear
fusion explosion without using a nuclear fission reaction to start it
and it starts it with a huge release of radiation, which is what gets
the fusion going.

The Joint European Torus creates nuclear fusion without a nuclear fission reaction to start the process. It doesn't create an explosion - it's a proof-of -principle device designed to lead to sustained power generation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Ignition_Facility

uses a lot of lasers to create a very small fusion explosion.

https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/science-tech/laser-boron-fusion-now-%E2%80%98leading-contender%E2%80%99-energy

is about a scheme that uses two laser flashes in combination to fuse lithium and hydrogen. It's ingenious, and the people pushing the scheme seem confident that it can be made to work.

It's an experimental design to create what amounts to a very tiny fusion
reaction, in the hopes of being able to create a viable fusion reactor
someday, with controlled fusion. It had nothing to do with a large
nuclear EXPLOSION, eg a fusion bomb that would be needed to destroy
an asteroid, fuckwit. You're becoming just like DL, mixing together, conflating a pile of BS piled on top of more BS.

And you get plenty of fallout too. Funny how some
nuclear plant somewhere has a fart and you libs run around with your hair
on fire. But DL comes along and claims that a nuclear fusion bomb doesn't
radiate or contaminate, and you just right on board the ignorance train..

DLUNU was talking about a fusion bomb that would have been designed not generate a lot of radioactivity. The people who wanted to use nuclear explosives for civil did some work on such devices a long time ago, but nothing got built or tested that I've heard about.

What your butt buddy actually posted was this:

" they would use a FUSION type nuclear device, not one that
radiates or contaminates. "


There is no such thing.

Keep making up crazy stuff with DL.

I'm afraid that you are the crazy here - you have this lunatic delusion that you know what you are talking about.

Soon you'll be always wrong too.

Cursitor Doom thinks that already, but he does specialise in delusions that make him feel good.

--
Bill Sloman. Sydney

No one here is wrong as much as DL. He's always wrong. And sadly you're
too stupid to realize it.

 

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:3644f3f8-6bff-44b1-
971d-4038be8906d4@googlegroups.com:

That's all wrong too. Our current devices are aimed at explosive
destructive force, not for radiation effect.

Dumbfuck. A pure fusion device would be tactical. Try to keep up,
dipshit.

 

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:aeb5bbdc-55c6-459f-9fe0-16727244c0fc@googlegroups.com:

So, go explain it to the world's nuclear physicists, who have it
wrong.

They do not.

You, you stupid fuck... YOU have it wrong.

 

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:aeb5bbdc-55c6-459f-
9fe0-16727244c0fc@googlegroups.com:

It's very much about such a method not existing. Because there is no
way with current physics and our understanding of nuclear fusion to
make a nuclear fusion bomb,

Bullshit. Critical mass temperatures can easily be reached now,
compared to when your examples were made.

I am not the only one pointing this out to you either, chump.

Our understanding?

*You* really are an idiot. *We* understand just fine.

 

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:3644f3f8-6bff-44b1-
971d-4038be8906d4@googlegroups.com:

And second, any fool would know that a "huge device", would not be
suited to the application of sending it into space to meet an
asteroid on a course with earth.

No, idiot. As has been discussed ad infinitum obviously absent you,
we already know that ANY attempt would be futile.

And your grasp of what would or would not be suited for anything
anywhere is nil. You are a fucking joke.

 

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:cf99d856-df9a-4af6-9e32-5c073a4a0504@googlegroups.com:

On Thursday, August 1, 2019 at 11:26:25 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman
wrote:
On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 3:17:29 AM UTC+10, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, August 1, 2019 at 12:49:59 PM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@deca
dence.org wrote:
Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:4e35d268-daad-4268-8762-c5474c415e42@googlegroups.com:

On Thursday, August 1, 2019 at 12:18:06 PM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:4a42c39b-e413-421b-9cb5-04b638860f51@googlegroups.com:

Actually it is a measure of energy and does not imply
the existence of matter.

Planck would differ with you.

Heat... specifically the thing that 'temperature' puts
a measure on,

is ONLY exibited by atomic / molecular motion.

So matter is required to have heat.

Any you find devoid of matter was 'generated' by matter
and is a
remnant.

I don't normally bother replying to you as you mostly have
no idea of what you are talking about. In this case I can
point to the cosmic background radiation which is
considered to be approximately 4°K and does in no way
involve matter.


It involves the moment matter was created throughout the
known universe. Duh! It most certainly does (did) involve
matter... all

of the matter there was and is all at once and we are part of
what is

left.

Note I did not say you were wrong. Temperature can be
measured.

Can you measure it in free space? Empty space?

Does it require something moving to impart change into the
transducer you are using to measure it with?

What are you measuring? The air? The surface of a medium?
All
involve matter and contact with the transducer.

Theorizing ideals? Matter is still there.

If you are measuring the temperature of a photon stream
(the solar

wind) (source left) with an IR device perpendicular to the
flow, what

are you measuring and what generated it? Hint: Look left.
That star's matter generated that energy.

This is why I usually don't reply to you. When you come up
with a wron
g idea, you double down.

In the same way that you are doing here.

All your noise aside, the cosmic background radiation is not
matter and
yet it has a temperature.

It's photons, which do have mass (if not a lot) and none of the
individua
l photons has a "temperature". Each of them has a wavelength and
thus an energy content, but that's not a "temperature".

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Photons don't have mass, stupid.

They have "momentum" and are affected by gravitational fields.
Tell us how that works.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/momentum

 

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:e5318b50-1af8-4d3c-bdf2-5b51c4cad604@googlegroups.com:

Figures that you'd chime in on the wrong side to try to help your
butt buddy.

Still striving to eat that 0.80" extreme overbore load, eh?

You sure do deserve it.

 

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:e5318b50-1af8-4d3c-
bdf2-5b51c4cad604@googlegroups.com:

Less dirty is still dirty, stupid. This is what DL posted:


" they would use a FUSION type nuclear device, not one that
radiates or contaminates."

Look closely, idiot. Look at that "not one" part.

As in NOT whatever your wee wittle bwain is futzing around with.

 

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:3644f3f8-6bff-44b1-
971d-4038be8906d4@googlegroups.com:

The exception would be
whatever neutron bomb type devices we have, but all that is sitting
in silos and in boomer subs are targeted for explosive destruction,
not to create radiation.

You are retarded. They are in no such locations you stupid fuck. We
banned them DECADES ago!

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 3:42:18 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:

On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 11:37:20 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 11:44:27 PM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Thursday, August 1, 2019 at 11:16:14 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 12:55:06 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Thursday, August 1, 2019 at 8:52:25 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
"John Miles, KE5FX" <jmiles@gmail.com> wrote in
news:0d3c8a6d-52e4-431c-946f-b3fb96e84326@googlegroups.com:

On Tuesday, July 30, 2019 at 7:13:11 AM UTC-7, bitrex wrote:
the headline says "massive" but asteroids at the lower end of
that range are small enough that if you could intercept
exoatmospherically with a ten, 20 megaton nuclear weapon at a
couple hundred meters would vaporize the bulk of it.

Problem: Huge-ass asteroid on collision course with Earth

Solution: Nuke it

Problem: 12 medium-sized radioactive asteroids on collision course
with Earth

-- john, KE5FX


Problem: Folks unable to analyze a problem, leading to not needed
non solutions.

Solution: Ignore them.

Here... they would use a FUSION type nuclear device, not one that
radiates or contaminates.

That's good to know, the world has been mistaken to fear the fallout from hydrogen bombs for the last half century, because they don't radiate or contaminate. And all the bother in the early days, treaties to limit
testing to underground. Could have just set them all off in the air and avoided all the additional effort.

Wrong, always wrong.

Trader4 is rather better entitled to the title than DLUNU.

Figures that you'd chime in on the wrong side to try to help your butt buddy.

I'm not all that fond of DLUNU, but he does get stuff right from time to time, which trader4 doesn't.

The first fusion weapon was very dirty indeed, because the uranium bomb used to initiate nuclear fusion was surrounded by liquified deuterium, which was itself enclosed in a five ton natural uranium tamper.

The neutrons released by deuterium fusion caused fission in the natural uranium tamper, which was responsible for 77% of the final yield.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivy_Mike

A hydrogen bomb designed for civil engineering work could be a lot less dirty.

Less dirty is still dirty, stupid.

Do we actually care how much radioactivity gets dump on asteroid in the process of discouraging it from hitting the earth?

Putting five tons of natural uranium around the fusion layer of a fission-fusion-fission bomb triples the explosive yield, but multiplies the radioactive contamination about one hundred fold. The critical mass of U-235 is 56 kg, and of plutonium-239 only about 11 kgm.

Use a different tamper, and you can have a much cleaner - if somewhat less powerful - bomb.

This is what DL posted:

" they would use a FUSION type nuclear device, not one that
radiates or contaminates."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aneutronic_fusion

There is no known way and probably isn't a way period, to create a nuclear
fusion explosion without using a nuclear fission reaction to start it
and it starts it with a huge release of radiation, which is what gets
the fusion going.

The Joint European Torus creates nuclear fusion without a nuclear fission reaction to start the process. It doesn't create an explosion - it's a proof-of -principle device designed to lead to sustained power generation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Ignition_Facility

uses a lot of lasers to create a very small fusion explosion.

https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/science-tech/laser-boron-fusion-now-%E2%80%98leading-contender%E2%80%99-energy

is about a scheme that uses two laser flashes in combination to fuse boron and hydrogen. It's ingenious, and the people pushing the scheme seem confident that it can be made to work.

It's an experimental design to create what amounts to a very tiny fusion
reaction, in the hopes of being able to create a viable fusion reactor
someday, with controlled fusion.

Your claim was that "There is no known way and probably isn't a way period, to create a nuclear fusion explosion".

This is obviously wrong. Nobody has created a big explosion yet, but nothing in the physics makes it impossible.

> It had nothing to do with a large nuclear EXPLOSION, eg a fusion bomb that would be needed to destroy an asteroid, fuckwit.

You are the fuckwit here. There's nothing in the physics that makes it impossible. There's an obvious reason for the fact that nobody has tried to do it.

> You're becoming just like DL, mixing together, conflating a pile of BS piled on top of more BS.

Your problem is that you confuse theory and practice, and seem to think that the fact that nobody has demonstrated a non-fission driven fusion based explosion is all the evidence you need to claim that it is impossible. In reality, anybody who could demonstrate such a device would keep very quiet about it.

And you get plenty of fallout too. Funny how some
nuclear plant somewhere has a fart and you libs run around with your hair
on fire. But DL comes along and claims that a nuclear fusion bomb doesn't
radiate or contaminate, and you just right on board the ignorance train.

DLUNU was talking about a fusion bomb that would have been designed not generate a lot of radioactivity. The people who wanted to use nuclear explosives for civil did some work on such devices a long time ago, but nothing got built or tested that I've heard about.

What your butt buddy actually posted was this:

" they would use a FUSION type nuclear device, not one that
radiates or contaminates. "

There is no such thing.

Not that you or I know about. People deeper in the defense industries might know better.

> > > Keep making up crazy stuff with DL.

Keep on making crazy assertions based on the set of delusions you happen to like.

I'm afraid that you are the crazy here - you have this lunatic delusion that you know what you are talking about.

Soon you'll be always wrong too.

Cursitor Doom thinks that already, but he does specialise in delusions that make him feel good.

No one here is wrong as much as DL.

Trader4 does worse. DL does get stuff right from time to time.

> He's always wrong.

Not as reliably as krw - and now you - like to claim.

> And sadly you're too stupid to realize it.

The stupidity is all yours, as you persistently remind us. What kind of idiot chooses "Whoey Louie" as his pseudonym?

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 5:20:46 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:aeb5bbdc-55c6-459f-
9fe0-16727244c0fc@googlegroups.com:

It's very much about such a method not existing. Because there is no
way with current physics and our understanding of nuclear fusion to
make a nuclear fusion bomb,

Bullshit. Critical mass temperatures can easily be reached now,
compared to when your examples were made.

ROFL

Wrong, always wrong.

Show us examples of these new bombs. You can't. Just like you can
never show anything to back up any of your other false claims. Found
the accident reports for those B1 bomber crashes you claimed were due
to fly-by-wire?

ROFL

In another post you just said that the US no longer has nuclear weapons
that are on land based and sub based ICBMs, that we gave them up
decades ago. Wrong, always wrong. Maybe your butt buddy Bill will
chime in to try to help you out on that BS. You two are fun to watch.

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 5:23:29 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:3644f3f8-6bff-44b1-
971d-4038be8906d4@googlegroups.com:

That's all wrong too. Our current devices are aimed at explosive
destructive force, not for radiation effect.

Dumbfuck. A pure fusion device would be tactical. Try to keep up,
dipshit.

A Buck Rogers time machine would be tactical too, if it really existed......
It doesn't. Neither does your pure fusion bomb that creates no radiation
or contamination. Would you volunteer to stand exposed to the neutrons
from a fusion reactor or bomb? Ever hear of a neutron bomb? Neutrons
kill people stupid.





And here again is what you posted:


"A design for this application would be a huge device meant for
explosive force, not radiation effect, which our crop currently
relies on. "


Which of course is wrong. The vast majority of our current nuclear
weapons are in fact meant for explosive force, not radiation effect.


Wrong, always wrong.

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 5:24:50 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:3644f3f8-6bff-44b1-
971d-4038be8906d4@googlegroups.com:

The exception would be
whatever neutron bomb type devices we have, but all that is sitting
in silos and in boomer subs are targeted for explosive destruction,
not to create radiation.


You are retarded. They are in no such locations you stupid fuck. We
banned them DECADES ago!

Wrong again, always wrong.

Of course the US still has land based ICBMs as well as ICBMs on
nuclear subs under the world's oceans right now and weapons capable
of being delivered by aircraft. It's called the nuclear triad,
stupid. Trump didn't know what that was either, so you have some
good company there.

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 5:30:31 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:e5318b50-1af8-4d3c-bdf2-5b51c4cad604@googlegroups.com:

Figures that you'd chime in on the wrong side to try to help your
butt buddy.

Still striving to eat that 0.80" extreme overbore load, eh?

You sure do deserve it.

I've added that to your threat file.

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 5:32:45 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:e5318b50-1af8-4d3c-
bdf2-5b51c4cad604@googlegroups.com:

Less dirty is still dirty, stupid. This is what DL posted:


" they would use a FUSION type nuclear device, not one that
radiates or contaminates."


Look closely, idiot. Look at that "not one" part.

As in NOT whatever your wee wittle bwain is futzing around with.

Look at this. All the world's fusion bombs create radiation and
fallout. One prime reason is that they have to use a FISSION reaction
to create the conditions for fusion to occur. There is no mythical
fusion bomb that produces no radiation or contamination, as you claimed.

Wrong, always wrong.

You're so wrong that you just claimed the US doesn't have land based
and sub based nuclear ICBMs anymore.

Wrong, always wrong.

 

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:41573418-6c17-4f75-82a3-a588cf5594e2@googlegroups.com:

On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 5:23:29 PM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:3644f3f8-6bff-44b1- 971d-4038be8906d4@googlegroups.com:

That's all wrong too. Our current devices are aimed at
explosive destructive force, not for radiation effect.

Dumbfuck. A pure fusion device would be tactical. Try to keep
up,
dipshit.

A Buck Rogers time machine would be tactical too, if it really
existed...... It doesn't.

That is your argument? Note that the statement I made is a
hypothetical. I know that term is hard for you to grasp, because you
have been going off about stupid shit for days nows.

Neither does your pure fusion bomb that
creates no radiation or contamination.

Look at the remark, you stupid fuck. It is not incorrect. A pure
fusion device would be clean. Plain and simple and correct.

You just cannot get over the fact that you were wrong to attack me
or the statement.

Nice try though, PUNK. You really need a HOAD moment in your life.

Would you volunteer to
stand exposed to the neutrons from a fusion reactor or bomb?

You are an idiot.

Ever
hear of a neutron bomb? Neutrons kill people stupid.

No... neutrons kill stupid people. The shame is that you have not
been exposed.

Would you volunteer for a HOAD event? It's free for folks like
you. I guarantee that it would be efficacious. HOAD, twerp.

And here again is what you posted:

You have a sad habit of this stupid shit. This is Usenet, idiot.
You do not need to requote previously posted material, putz.

"A design for this application would be a huge device meant for
explosive force, not radiation effect, which our crop currently
relies on. "


Which of course is wrong. The vast majority of our current
nuclear weapons are in fact meant for explosive force, not
radiation effect.

They are dual purpose and are designed to be that way.

 

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:4b94b1e5-737f-4523-9203-3383a641ccc7@googlegroups.com:

On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 5:24:50 PM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:3644f3f8-6bff-44b1- 971d-4038be8906d4@googlegroups.com:

The exception would be
whatever neutron bomb type devices we have, but all that is
sitting in silos and in boomer subs are targeted for explosive
destruction, not to create radiation.


You are retarded. They are in no such locations you stupid
fuck. We
banned them DECADES ago!

Wrong again, always wrong.

Of course the US still has land based ICBMs as well as ICBMs on
nuclear subs under the world's oceans right now and weapons
capable of being delivered by aircraft. It's called the nuclear
triad, stupid. Trump didn't know what that was either, so you
have some good company there.

You are an idiot. You said they were all neutron bombs. They were
banned decades ago and were never on top of our ICBMs. That is what
I said.

You are the dopey dumbfuck whom is always getting it wrong. Your
zeal to attack me only menas that you need a HOAD moment.

HOAD, twerp. That's all you deserve.

 

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:7c911ffd-8b21-4cae-9e82-d1399dbbee39@googlegroups.com:

On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 5:30:31 PM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:e5318b50-1af8-4d3c-bdf2-5b51c4cad604@googlegroups.com:

Figures that you'd chime in on the wrong side to try to help
your butt buddy.

Still striving to eat that 0.80" extreme overbore load, eh?

You sure do deserve it.

I've added that to your threat file.

Bwuahahahahahaha! HOAD, fatass... HOAD!