Advertisement

Lisa Benson for April 14, 2010

  1. Krazykatbw2
    grapfhics  over 11 years ago

    we’ll meet again, don’t know when, don’t know where …

     •  Reply
  2. Cowboyonhorse2
    Gypsy8  over 11 years ago

    More hysteria and distortion!

     •  Reply
  3. Woodstock
    HUMPHRIES  over 11 years ago

    So, let’s see . If we can destroy the woeld 122 times and the other guys can only do it 119 times, does this mean we’re more secure ?

     •  Reply
  4. Shadow avatar
    Kevin Roth Premium Member over 11 years ago

    The threats we’re facing today aren’t concerned about their own death, much less anyone around them. You don’t pull weeds with a back hoe, you don’t stop suicide bombers with an ICMB.

    You do however sound like a typical right-wing ultra conservative when you use fear mongering to illustrate an overblown misdirected threat.

    No thank you, Lisa “Chicken Little” Benson, but i’m sure Palin will like her autographed copy.

     •  Reply
  5. Ys
    HabaneroBuck  over 11 years ago

    Having a big stick has always been a deterrent. It’s not a means to address suicide bombers, no, but as anyone who has played even the most simple video games knows, you need a full arsenal of a variety of weapons to be at the “top of your game.”

    That destroy the world 122 times over nonsense is 1980’s false science. Go look up some pictures of Nagasaki and Hiroshima today. Radiation from the blasts is very minor in terms of its deadly effects compared to the impact of the blast itself. There are NOT enough nukes to destroy the world even one time over.

     •  Reply
  6. Missing large
    pamelaskunz  over 11 years ago

    900 Americans were being killed everyday before we bombed Japan, that’s not including people in the other countries……

     •  Reply
  7. Missing large
    Gladius  over 11 years ago

    Most of the security threats today do not lend themselves to a nuclear response. Whether you agree or disagree with the current military operations they have resulted in the most experienced and best trained military force in the world. That is a our security blanket not nukes. This comic is, if you’ll excuse the phrase, overkill.

     •  Reply
  8. Cartoon character
    DesultoryPhillipic  over 11 years ago

    Whose doing your thinking for you caveman? You’re relatively lucid now days. And somewhat funny.

    That’s a compliment, by the way.

     •  Reply
  9. Avatar201803 salty
    Jaedabee Premium Member over 11 years ago

    “Go look up some pictures of Nagasaki and Hiroshima today.”

    Nuclear Weapon Yield

    The old bombs PALE in comparison to the bombs we have now, Sweetheart.

     •  Reply
  10. Georg von rosen   oden som vandringsman  1886  odin  the wanderer
    runar  over 11 years ago

    What happened in Hiroshima:

    ”Approximately 60,000 to 70,000 people were killed, and 50,000 were injured. Of approximately 90,000 buildings in the city, 65,000 were rendered unusable and almost all the remainder received at least light superficial damage. The underground utilities of the city were undamaged except where they crossed bridges over the rivers cutting through the city. All of the small factories in the center of the city were destroyed. However, the big plants on the periphery of the city were almost completely undamaged and 94 percent of their workers unhurt. These factories accounted for 74 percent of the industrial production of the city. It is estimated that they could have resumed substantially normal production within 30 days of the bombing, had the war continued. The railroads running through the city were repaired for the resumption of through traffic on 8 August, 2 days after the attack.”

    In other words, mostly civilians killed. Impact on the war industries: negligible. Blowing off a big wad? Priceless.

    The end result of the bombings:

    ”Nevertheless, it seems clear that, even without the atomic bombing attacks, air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion. Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.”

    In case you’re wondering what commie pinko pacifist leftist group came up with this, it is the United States Strategic Bombing Survey Summary Report (Pacific War), issued 1 July 1946.

     •  Reply
  11. Missing large
    behuey57  over 11 years ago

    Why is it everything Pres. Obama does is wrong, even when republicans (conservatives) first promoted it. (see Reagan)

     •  Reply
  12. 200px maco earth
    bradwilliams  over 11 years ago

    Runar,

    Great reseach. But keep in mind the dropping of the bombs in the center of the city was more of a ‘shock and awe” decission. They wanted to scare the hell out of Japan. It worked. If they had been looking more for a logistical/strategic target the would have dropped in in the center of the industrial section of town.

     •  Reply
  13. Quixote78
    leerab78  over 11 years ago

    Habanero - I hope you go back to your video games and never stop playing because your attitude frightens me and deters my efforts to gain faith in mankind.

    bradwilliams - I’m sure it worked. So what was the decision for Nagasaki besides tens of thousands of dead innocents? Were they not scared enough?

    runar - thanks for the link and research

    lisa b- nukes are the key to our national security? Delusional at all? I don’t think you’re delusional, just automatically opposed to anything that this president does regardless of merit or progress

     •  Reply
  14. 200px maco earth
    bradwilliams  over 11 years ago

    The second bomb was to get them to surrender.

     •  Reply
  15. Keithmoon
    Wildcard24365  over 11 years ago

    @HabaneroBuck

    Having a big stick has always been a deterrent.

    Huh?

    It’s not a means to address suicide bombers…

    I’m glad you recognize that. Now, try to reconcile these two statements, viz, how did having such a huge, manly arsenal deter 9/11?

    but as anyone who has played even the most simple video games knows, you need a full arsenal of a variety of weapons to be at the “top of your game.”

    Fortunately, we have a President who isn’t playing a video game, especially a video game where the sole objective is to kill everything that isn’t admiring how big your arsenal is.

    There are NOT enough nukes to destroy the world even one time over.

    I assume you’re joking? The blast strengths of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were measured in equivalent kilo (thousands of) tons of TNT. The weapons today are measured in mega (millions of) tons of TNT.

    I could of course be taking you too seriously, in which case, if you are indeed being satyrical, I apologize for the misunderstanding.

     •  Reply
  16. Keithmoon
    Wildcard24365  over 11 years ago

    What I don’t understand is how do Conservatives justify their angst at Obama for promising to reduce our nuclear arsenal? Even the Joint Chiefs say they’re too costly and no longer relevant to today’s threats. In other words, he’s cutting unnecessary spending.

    What’s the problem?

     •  Reply
  17. Avatar201803 salty
    Jaedabee Premium Member over 11 years ago

    “In other words, he’s cutting unnecessary spending.”

    Unnecessary spending is defined as whatever you don’t particularly care for whether or not it is pragmatically correct or not.
     •  Reply
  18. Warcriminal
    WarBush  over 11 years ago

    “If we get rid of our Nukes, only people in caves will have Nukes.”

    Does that mean you’ll have all the nukes?

     •  Reply
  19. 1107121618000
    CorosiveFrog Premium Member over 11 years ago

    Some like to shoot cave nuts with nukes like rednecks like to hunt squirrels with guns.

    The rest of us know smaller and more clever (cats for squirrels) are better suited for the hunt.

     •  Reply
  20. Dsc00100
    zekedog55  over 11 years ago

    HabeneroBuck….thanks so much for your deep and incisive explanation concerning our national defense.

    Yes sir, even with those most simple video games you gotta have that full arsenal and that variety of weapons.

    Stay sharp, HB—you are definitely cabinet grade brain trust for Sarah’s administration.

    “Top of your game.” You betcha!

     •  Reply
  21. Birthcontrol
    Dtroutma  over 11 years ago

    Just reading in Aviation Week about aviation “cyber-attack” argument between military and intelligence agencies being in control. Also the cost escalation of the F-35 and new weaponry for C-130 in counter-insurgency use.

    Anyone concerned about reducing nuclear by 1/3 or even 2/3 of current stockpiles is a moron, and totally uninformed on modern “warfare”. The step toward controlling weapons grade materials in particular, and any fissionable material in general, (as in “peaceful use”) is a HUGE step forward, not just because we’re dealing with those 46 other nations who agree with us, but that they’re actually and finally agreeing to DO something!

     •  Reply
  22. Cowboyonhorse2
    Gypsy8  over 11 years ago

    Perhaps over-doing the big fat green ones a bit!

     •  Reply
  23. Keithmoon
    Wildcard24365  over 11 years ago

    I mean, come *on*! Between the hysteria over “socialized medicine” and the fear that we won’t be able to blow up Russia as many times as we’d like, it feels like freakin’ 1952, again!

     •  Reply
  24. System
    TheFinalSolution  over 11 years ago

    Alex Struder says:

    “Slick Barry and Medvedev are in bed together, promoting this idea of nuclear arms reduction.

    This is all a smokescreen. More Hegelian dialectic.

    Anyone educated enough will tell you in a new york minute that nuclear weapons are obsolete and anyone arguing over nuclear proliferation is doing so to distract attention away from the real threat: SCALAR WEAPONRY.

    Scalar weapons are far more destructive, far more accurate, and far more difficult to defend against, plus they have the added benefit of instantaneous implementation, without having to travel across the globe meanwhile being tracked on radar. No, scalar weapons are instant, at the speed of light, operating out of plasma states created in the ionosphere or elsewhere, utilizing either HAARP-like gound-based antenna systems, satellite systems, or both. These weapons can easily create the destructive power of thousands of nuclear weapons, without having to send them over on rockets, and without the nuclear fallout.

    Learn about scalar weapons folks.”

     •  Reply
  25. 1107121618000
    CorosiveFrog Premium Member over 11 years ago

    Learned anything from 9/11?

    A well-used box cutter can do much more damage than any nuke.

     •  Reply
Sign in to comment
Advertisement

More From Lisa Benson

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement