♥ ЅϯᵲåώӀӞ℮ᴙʀɣ−ɴɨɨ−ƈħåɴ ♥ Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 Why aren't we using nukes instead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pikachu Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 79 million dollars out of our pockets for this useless mission of attacking the moon to see how much ice/water will fly up!? Yes, and we could build a Hydropolis up there and live there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.Requiem Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 If we had the money' date=' don't you think we would spend it on something more expensive then attacking the f*cking moon?[/quote'] Like attacking Saturn, for instance? Yep, why not attack pluto? If we had the money' date=' don't you think we would spend it on something more expensive then attacking the f*cking moon?[/quote'] 79 million dollars could do a lot, my friend. Well we could something more stupid instead of attacking the moon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankee Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 Why aren't we using nukes instead? Because Nuking the moon is much less fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dr.octagonapus6969 Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 yeah i know i think its stupid wasting good money on useless bulls*** when will they learn? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poseidon© Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 Why aren't we using nukes instead? Elementary, my friend. The moon serves a lot of purpose to us, so we don't nuke it/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HORUS Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 Who cares? It's the moon. It's over 9000 miles away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luxlord Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 79 million dollars out of our pockets for this useless mission of attacking the moon to see how much ice/water will fly up!? Yes' date=' and we could build a Hydropolis up there and live there.[/quote'] I hope that was a joke... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dismal Euphony Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 If we had the money' date=' don't you think we would spend it on something more expensive then attacking the f*cking moon?[/quote'] Like attacking Saturn, for instance? Yep, why not attack pluto? If we had the money' date=' don't you think we would spend it on something more expensive then attacking the f*cking moon?[/quote'] 79 million dollars could do a lot, my friend. Well we could something more stupid instead of attacking the moon. Pluto already takes so much sheet. It's not even considered a planet anymore. Leave it alone. ;\ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.Requiem Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 But....but....but.... picking on pluto is fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dismal Euphony Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 But....but....but.... picking on pluto is fun. LEAVE PLUTO ALONE!11!!11! [/chriscrocker] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prada Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 The moon is funking pointless. It just makes me tired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankee Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 Why aren't we using nukes instead? Elementary' date=' my friend. The moon serves a lot of purpose to us, so we don't nuke it/[/quote']This post is full of loss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nishi-chan Posted October 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 This topic is win.=) 79 million dollars out of our pockets for this useless mission of attacking the moon to see how much ice/water will fly up!?THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING! Why aren't we using nukes instead?Sigged =) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blamonchesix Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 I don't think seeing how many ice/water burst from it is the ONLY reason for the experiment. I believe there's more [/conspiracy] XD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.Requiem Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 But....but....but.... picking on pluto is fun. LEAVE PLUTO ALONE!11!!11! [/chriscrocker] NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO I don't think seeing how many ice/water burst from it is the ONLY reason for the experiment. I believe there's more [/conspiracy] XD Won't do we gain from attacking the moon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nishi-chan Posted October 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 IT'S A CONSPIRACY MAN, WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE! [/crazydude] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♥ ЅϯᵲåώӀӞ℮ᴙʀɣ−ɴɨɨ−ƈħåɴ ♥ Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 Why aren't we using nukes instead?Sigged =) Lolwut? No but seriously, we should totally send nukes. They make great fireworks, and blend perfectly with the solid water/ice particles. It would make a spectacular display of beauty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankee Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 Won't do we gain from attacking the moon? We get to be the first to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nishi-chan Posted October 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 Why aren't we using nukes instead?Sigged =) Lolwut? No but seriously' date=' we should totally send nukes. They make great fireworks, and blend perfectly with the solid water/ice particles. It would make a spectacular display of beauty.[/quote']Yes but a nuke causes more damage. A small missle would cause just the needed amount of damage without any side effects.A nuke would probably alter it's orbit severely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankee Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 Why aren't we using nukes instead?Sigged =) Lolwut? No but seriously' date=' we should totally send nukes. They make great fireworks, and blend perfectly with the solid water/ice particles. It would make a spectacular display of beauty.[/quote'] Why aren't we using nukes instead?Sigged =) Lolwut? No but seriously' date=' we should totally send nukes. They make great fireworks, and blend perfectly with the solid water/ice particles. It would make a spectacular display of beauty.[/quote']Yes but a nuke causes more damage. A small missle would cause just the needed amount of damage without any side effects.A nuke would probably alter it's orbit severely. But it's such a pretty green... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeoDemonX Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 I think Canada is going to help this moon attack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nishi-chan Posted October 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 -_- Now we're trying to make the moon radioactive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dismal Euphony Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 -_- Now we're trying to make the moon radioactive? Why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♥ ЅϯᵲåώӀӞ℮ᴙʀɣ−ɴɨɨ−ƈħåɴ ♥ Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 Well no, if you nuke the moon, it'll fly into Jupiter, then Neptune, and eventually into Pluto. But because Pluto's a ninja, it totally dodges Neptune, and flies into Mars. But since Mars is extremely hot and Pluto is extremely cold, they have a instantaneous explosion, thus causing Mercury to crash into Uranus. Uranus then turns into a supernova, and pushes the Earth into the Sun. Yay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.