There are now 20 million Australians

Dauphin · December 4, 2003, 17:42

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/com...55E662,00.html
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/...351724362.html

For such a huge country there is practically no-one here.

aaglo · December 4, 2003, 17:44

Now, what should we do with them?

The Andy-Man · December 4, 2003, 17:46

i thought there were 30...

Boris Godunov · December 4, 2003, 17:48

Looks like the Raid traps aren't working!

rah · December 4, 2003, 17:52

Quote:

Originally posted by aaglo
Now, what should we do with them?

Protect them with a star wars missle defense system.
(which bless their hearts they're trying to sign up for)

Q Classic · December 4, 2003, 17:52

how many drink piss?

Ecthy · December 4, 2003, 17:54

Australia is still far behind Poland.

Boris Godunov · December 4, 2003, 17:54

Quote:

Originally posted by rah
Protect them with a star wars missle defense system.
(which bless their hearts they're trying to sign up for)

From who? ICBM-wielding aboriginees?

Ecthy · December 4, 2003, 17:55

I've seen Boris Godunov at the local opera. Art Nouveau opera house, for you.

4 hours of stageplay made for a cultural shock.

Boris Godunov · December 4, 2003, 17:57

I was never there, and you can't prove I was there. I deny any and all accusations.

rah · December 4, 2003, 17:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
From who? ICBM-wielding aboriginees?

Haven't figured that one out yet.

But from this mornings paper.

Associated Press
Published December 4, 2003

CANBERRA, Australia -- Australia has agreed to participate in the U.S. missile defense program, the government announced Thursday.

"We believe that taking part in the U.S. program will serve our strategic interest, help us defend Australia and allow us to make an important contribution to global and regional security," Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said.

Washington hopes to develop a shield against ballistic missiles, arguing that nations it calls rogue states, such as North Korea, could soon have missiles that would threaten the United States. It wants allies such as Britain and Australia involved in the project, particularly for the use of satellite tracking stations in their countries.

Australia has been one of Washington's staunchest allies over the past several years, pledging troops to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and stating that its relationship with the United States is central to the nation's long-term interest.

Downer said the nature of Australia's participation "will depend on many factors, including our own strategic defense needs, regional considerations, industry capabilities and financial considerations."

Defense Minister Robert Hill said Australia is likely to help in research for the multibillion dollar project and has no plans for a ground-based missile defense system on its soil. It may incorporate a missile defense system into three planned air warfare destroyers for the Australian navy.

Copyright © 2003, Chicago Tribune

Ecthy · December 4, 2003, 18:01

Oh not you, but Kerstin in the choir.

Dauphin · December 4, 2003, 19:09

I don't see why Australia needs missile defence. Its in a remote location and is pretty inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. Besides there's only about 3 cities in the whole of Australia worth targeting, everywhere else is so sparce that NBC's would be ineffective at wreaking any major harm.

Bereta_Eder · December 4, 2003, 19:13

I think whoever from the neighborhood wants , can conquer Australia in a blink of an eye. That's why they've become a xenophobic hell, lackey serving lapdog, in the vain hope that when such times come, someone from their inbred sparkle challenged friends will come to their aid. Apart from that the cangooroos are nice and I think the Aborgines will have much more brains to use a rocket launcher than the "ones who came after".

Of course I could be wrong. I have nothing against Australia

Peace and everything just telling it how I see it. They are a decent country

notyoueither · December 4, 2003, 19:25

Yes, the Commonwealth is shaping up quite nicely. Need to strengthen ties with India though.

Sava · December 4, 2003, 19:27

Australia and Star Wars?

"We really don't have the vision for massive cash cow programs that don't work, so we're going to work with the Bush junta for brownee points!"

mrmitchell · December 4, 2003, 19:33

How many nuke detonations would be required to trigger a nuclear winter?

I imagine, all you'd have to do would be target North America and Europe and it (nuke winter) would come in and take care of the rest.

St Leo · December 4, 2003, 21:02

Canada is over 30 BTW. Australia's our lil' sibling.

Bereta_Eder · December 4, 2003, 21:05

naw canada is something else. couldnt pinpoint it but its something else. nothing to do with australia

Joseph · December 4, 2003, 22:05

We have about 36 to 38 million in California.

Sava · December 4, 2003, 22:12

Quote:

Originally posted by mrmitchell
How many nuke detonations would be required to trigger a nuclear winter?

I imagine, all you'd have to do would be target North America and Europe and it (nuke winter) would come in and take care of the rest.

Nuke detonations wouldn't nearly be as devastating to the environment as the Cold War fear mongers made it out to be.

from http://www.oism.org/nwss/s73p912.htm

Quote:

° Myth: Unsurvivable "nuclear winter" surely will follow a nuclear war. The world will be frozen if only 100 megatons (less than one percent of all nuclear weapons) are used to ignite cities. World-enveloping smoke from fires and the dust from surface bursts will prevent almost all sunlight and solar heat from reaching the earth's surface. Universal darkness for weeks! Sub-zero temperatures, even in summertime! Frozen crops, even in the jungles of South America! Worldwide famine! Whole species of animals and plants exterminated! The survival of mankind in doubt!

° Facts: Unsurvivable "nuclear winter" is a discredited theory that, since its conception in 1982, has been used to frighten additional millions into believing that trying to survive a nuclear war is a waste of effort and resources, and that only by ridding the world of almost all nuclear weapons do we have a chance of surviving.

Non-propagandizing scientists recently havecalculated that the climatic and other environmental effects of even an all-out nuclear war would be much less severe than the catastrophic effects repeatedly publicized by popular astronomer Carl Sagan and his fellow activist scientists, and by all the involved Soviet scientists. Conclusions reached from these recent, realistic calculations are summarized in an article, "Nuclear Winter Reappraised", featured in the 1986 summer issue of Foreign Affairs, the prestigious quarterly of the Council on Foreign Relations. The authors, Starley L. Thompson and Stephen H. Schneider, are atmospheric scientists with the National Center for Atmospheric Research. They showed " that on scientific grounds the global apocalyptic conclusions of the initial nuclear winter hypothesis can now be relegated to a vanishing low level of probability."

centrifuge · December 4, 2003, 22:13

Maybe California and Canada should hold a population wide steel cage death match.

Sava · December 4, 2003, 22:16

Quote:

Maybe California and Canada should hold a population wide steel cage death match.

St Leo · December 4, 2003, 22:18

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Sava
Nuke detonations wouldn't nearly be as devastating to the environment as the Cold War fear mongers made it out to be.
[/q]

Tell that to the dinosaurs. The Yucatan impact caused the equivalent of a "nuclear winter".

Sava · December 4, 2003, 22:19

[QUOTE] Originally posted by St Leo

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
Nuke detonations wouldn't nearly be as devastating to the environment as the Cold War fear mongers made it out to be.
[/q]

Tell that to the dinosaurs. The Yucatan impact caused the equivalent of a "nuclear winter".

that's one theory... but not proven...

Sava · December 4, 2003, 22:20

plus the amount of energy in such a large asteroid impact would far exceed anything the world's nuclear arsenal could do...

Dauphin · December 4, 2003, 22:22

The K-T impact released 10,000 times more energy than all present day nukes combined.

Sava · December 4, 2003, 22:22

Quote:

LOS ALAMOS, N.M., June 2003 -- What would happen if a 10-kilometer-diameter asteroid penetrated Earth's crust at a speed of 15 to 20 kilometers per second? The kinetic energy of such an asteroid (more than 6 miles in diameter) would equal the energy of 300 million nuclear weapons and create temperatures hotter than on the sun's surface for several minutes. The expanding fireball of superheated air would immediately wipe out unprotected organisms near the impact and eventually lead to the extinction of many species worldwide.

If that asteroid didn't wipe out all life on earth, I don't a few ten thousand nukes could do it.

http://www.eurekalert.org/features/d...-maa060403.php

notyoueither · December 4, 2003, 22:38

Quote:

Originally posted by centrifuge
Maybe California and Canada should hold a population wide steel cage death match.

It's funny actually, California has been used as a measuring stick for Canada for a very long time. Cali has so many cars, Canada has so many. Cali has this many people, Canada has that many.

California is the Canadian equivalent of the London bus.

centrifuge · December 4, 2003, 22:43

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither

It's funny actually, California has been used as a measuring stick for Canada for a very long time. Cali has so many cars, Canada has so many. Cali has this many people, Canada has that many.

California is the Canadian equivalent of the London bus.

Well then its about time that California and Canada did some bare knuckle boxing