Comments on: PEACE – OR ELSE!

By: jayessell

jayessell — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 00:27:58 +0000

The ‘flying girder’ looks like bits of a bomb that was destroyed before it detonated.

There seems to be a small explosion at the bottom of the second page.

By: Seraph

Seraph — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 19:12:02 +0000

The “flying girder” oddly resembles the WWII VB-10/12 family of guided weapons.

By: jayessell

jayessell — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 13:13:51 +0000

A nuclear attack would come from somewhere we didn’t expect? Britain?

A ground burst would waste half of the bomb energy unless the target
was an underground bunker. An air burst distributes the destruction over a wider area.

The History channel or whatever mentioned after the U.S. tested an atomic artillery shell the
Russian generals wanted one also. The Russian Preimer felt only he should have the authority
to use nuclear weapons in a conflict, not some guy on the battlefield!

An article by Willy Ley!
Check out his video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdKmP5sVfu8

By: Eliyahu

Eliyahu — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 18:11:54 +0000

Despite the author’s contention that nuclear artillery would be unfeasible, it wasn’t long after this article was published that the Army developed its 280mm atomic cannon (from which a nuke was fired one time in a Nevada test) and the Davy Crockett weapons system, a recoilless rifle with nuclear capabilities. The latter was taken out of service in the late 1960s. As the author points out, range is crucial, and a short round would be devastating to the crew and any other troops nearby.

By: Randy

Randy — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 22:45:11 +0000

I think the “flying girder” is an early kinetic-energy ICBM interception concept. It is obviously an aerospace component, with all the lightening holes in the flanges that no real building girder would have.

By: lunarmagpie

lunarmagpie — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 21:21:42 +0000

Party at ground zero!

By: Rick Auricchio

Rick Auricchio — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 18:14:33 +0000

I want that five-slice toaster he’s wearing on his back.

By: rsterling78

rsterling78 — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 13:30:51 +0000

Why is nothing on the fellow’s control panel labeled? And why are the controls all handles like you’d find on a manual food chopper?

By: Firebrand38

Firebrand38 — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 05:09:41 +0000

Yeah, a candle snuffer.

By: Charlie

Charlie — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 04:32:01 +0000

His helmet antenna looks like those things people used to use to put out candles.

By: slim

slim — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 04:24:13 +0000

His term mutual atomic destruction is almost the same as M.A.D., mutual assured destruction, which has worked OK so far, at least for nuclear weapons. (knock on wood).
I want a helmet like the guy on the first page.