ForumsThe Tavernwhich one will be the end?

28 3710
whyismynametom
offline
whyismynametom
263 posts
Nomad

nuke or disease?
between these 2 which will be more likely to end the world?

  • 28 Replies
Ernie15
offline
Ernie15
13,344 posts
Bard

its about dis grrl named sudoku


They name girls after number puzzles there? There you have it, I am not moving to Japan.

she dies when makin paper toys.


Who is the author, and why does he/she assume that the entire Japanese population makes paper toys?
KayEqualsFour
offline
KayEqualsFour
54 posts
Nomad

Who is the author, and why does he/she assume that the entire Japanese population makes paper toys?


i dunno, google it, and bcuz they do
Ernie15
offline
Ernie15
13,344 posts
Bard

Who is the author


Eleanor Coerr. Answered my own question, there.

and bcuz they do


I wonder how it's even possible to play with a paper toy...?
Strop
offline
Strop
10,816 posts
Bard

It's a type of cancer, yes, but the word is German, not Japanese. I think it's German, anyway...


That was half-correct. Maybe try looking it up before posting.

Leukaemia refers to cancer of the white blood cells. That is to say, the production of abnormal white blood cells.

The word itself is derived from Latin. Literally translated, it means "white blood".
chitown
offline
chitown
1,614 posts
Farmer

Nuke causes radiation. Radiation causes cancer. Cancer is a disease. So if it's nuke, it's both.


Your right about that, but nukes would cause the disease so it would be nukes that would end the world.
joao99
offline
joao99
350 posts
Shepherd

what about another Bg Bang? If it builds it destroys

ulimitedpower
offline
ulimitedpower
1,736 posts
Nomad

nuke


The only people who would build a nuke bomb to kill humanity would be terrorists. And most of them would probably not do that. They would also need about 100,000 nuke bombs to kill us all, and I can't see how they could hide that for long.
disease


I find that more likely. It would be devastating if AIDS started spreading as quickly as the Black Plague, but we'd need many other deadly diseases to come quickly after it to kill us all.
what about another Bg Bang? If it builds it destroys


You're probably suggesting the Big Crunch, which states the universe will stop expanding and collapse (But it will take a few trillion years). Not likely: Earth will most likely be destroyed by the end of the Sun's life into Red Giant phase, or something happening that destroys the Earth else how (Ex: Super massive black hole). The other theory is that the universe expands and collapses in a cycle, and if it were to collapse in our lifetime, we'd already be dead before it turns into the Big Bang (How would you survive in a spot as heavy as the universe, and smaller than an atom?).
XVERB
offline
XVERB
3,137 posts
Nomad

nuke will never destroy the world. If any country tries to nuke another country the United States will jump in and stop it. also no country should be stupid enough to start a war like that

scoRe
offline
scoRe
152 posts
Nomad

People under estimate paranoia. I wouldn't put nukes pass as a potential end of our world. Under the right pressure and paranoia I can see nukes exterminating mankind.

fritomaster
offline
fritomaster
117 posts
Nomad

I think if a bunch of nukes went off for some reason then a pandemic happened man kind could die. But not one without the other, and the probability of that happening is kinda slim.

XVERB
offline
XVERB
3,137 posts
Nomad

i bet it would take a bomb that carries a deadly disease.

firetail_madness
offline
firetail_madness
20,540 posts
Blacksmith

The end of the world is going to be a mass famine or something, lack of resources, especially food or water, that or a lack of oxygen.

That, and war over what is left will exterminate everyone else.

Showing 16-27 of 28