View Full Version : Plutonium protected by 3,000 rounds per minute...
125gJoe
02-04-2006, 6:24 PM
Link: http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060203/NEWS01/602030335/1001
http://pic18.picturetrail.com/VOL932/715239/2841949/128257402.jpg
______________
Slappy*McFish
02-04-2006, 9:51 PM
Impressive.
sumthin fishy
02-05-2006, 2:35 PM
I live about 10 miles from that place. The lab is so gosh darned high security. BIG signs saying trespassers will be SHOT ON SIGHT! At $75,000 a piece, I wouldnt doubt they ordered a few thousand. I recall, Livermore being on the top 5 nuclear targets in the world at one point, not sure if thats still the case or not.
plantbrain
02-05-2006, 2:40 PM
Now that's a huntin gun:)
Regards,
Tom Barr
patoloco
02-05-2006, 2:53 PM
Quoted from linked article:
"Each gun will cost anywhere from $50,000 to $75,000, he said."
How many african children could be saved from starving with such money? How many vaccines and medicines could be bought and scattered around the world?
Well, each country knows how to spend people's taxes...
slipknottin
02-05-2006, 2:55 PM
How many african children could be saved from starving with such money? How many vaccines and medicines could be bought and scattered around the world?
How many could be killed with stolen plutonium?
patoloco
02-05-2006, 2:59 PM
Right. Lots of people can die with stolen plutomium too. It's a shame there is so much investment in things that will really end up messing out the world.
The worst part is that it becomes a vicious circle. War and armaments will only be useful until someone comes with a bigger and stroger one and then it will be required to build a bigger one, and so on. Or you can sell some old tanks and guns to some other country to help develop the new weapons you need to overpower the guns you sold.
Also, how many rocks with purple string could be produced with $50000 bucks? :joke: :joke:
UncaBret
02-05-2006, 3:11 PM
That's silly. Unless they expect to be attacked by massive hordes they would be better off with Barrett Light 50s and Ruger Mini-30s.
It would cost a heck of a lot less!
Slappy*McFish
02-05-2006, 3:36 PM
The guns are more of a deterrent than anything.
msouth468
02-05-2006, 7:44 PM
That's silly. Unless they expect to be attacked by massive hordes they would be better off with Barrett Light 50s and Ruger Mini-30s.
It would cost a heck of a lot less!
Well, in the case of protecting radioactive material that can be used to create anything from dirty bombs to minature nuclear weapons. I expect them to spend as much money as possible.