• Redneck Grand Battery - US Reveals Its Gigantic Nuclear Stockpile
    87 replies, posted
I never saw the point in having nukes. "Hey Russia, we're threatening you with weapons we both know that we'd never use! That's right bitches, empty threat, coming at you!"
[QUOTE=Maloof?;21728218]I never saw the point in having nukes. "Hey Russia, we're threatening you with weapons we both know that we'd never use! That's right bitches, empty threat, coming at you!"[/QUOTE] Because nobody is going to attack you even if you have a single functioning nuke.
I don't see the point. There are probably not even 1/5th that many cities in the world large enough to warrant nuking if the entire world declared war on the US at once.
Liking the thread title. More fantastic work by America_Fan77.
More. WE NEED MORE.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;21728304]I don't see the point. There are probably not even 1/5th that many cities in the world large enough to warrant nuking if the entire world declared war on the US at once.[/QUOTE] It's called the cold war, all about status and domination. Regardless of whether you need that many nukes a bigger number sounded more frightening to the opposing country.
[QUOTE=Cassettic;21728362]It's called the cold war, all about status and domination. Regardless of whether you need that many nukes a bigger number sounded more frightening to the opposing country.[/QUOTE] Russia and the United States enlarging their thermonuclear dicks to swing at each other. Good times (not really.)
We need [url=http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/08/how-many-nukes-will-it-really-take-to-instantly-annihilate-humanity/]more[/url] nukes.
[QUOTE=SnakeHead;21728423]We need [url=http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/08/how-many-nukes-will-it-really-take-to-instantly-annihilate-humanity/]more[/url] nukes.[/QUOTE] That site is bull. It's definition of "wipe out humanity" is destroying everyone at the exact same time with the blast only, which is not even half the destructive power.
I have more than this in my back yard.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;21728304]I don't see the point. There are probably not even 1/5th that many cities in the world large enough to warrant nuking if the entire world declared war on the US at once.[/QUOTE] Keep in mind that the point of a nuclear weapon isn't to demolish a city. They're intended to be used on key military facilities that cover a large area and/or are protected by the surrounding. So there are may other places that could warrant the use of nuclear weapons, such as mountain ranges. Though I do agree, over 5,000 is a few thousand too many.
Also, keep in mind that many of these "nukes" are outdated bombs that can only be dropped by planes. Only a small amount of them are able to be mounted on missiles.
[IMG]http://www.philth.ie/images/how-many-nukes-will-destroy-the-world.gif[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Abstrakt;21730118][IMG]http://www.philth.ie/images/how-many-nukes-will-destroy-the-world.gif[/IMG][/QUOTE] How many are required to take out the major population centers? I mean, Arlen, Texas isn't exactly civilization.
[QUOTE=Abstrakt;21730118]Stupid Image[/quote] That image is incredibly flawed, only a few nuclear weapons would be required to cause nuclear winter thus causing most, if not all of the human race to die out.
You know, you guys, that imagine isn't actually flawed, it says "how many nukes will be needed to destroy the world" Which you could assume means killing all humans, but it could also mean literally turning Earth into a husk of a planet. If it's adhering to the latter, then it's probably right. [editline]12:12AM[/editline] But yeah, anyone who uses that as an example for Nuclear Warfare or something is dumb
[QUOTE=ASmellyOgre;21726341]This better be as low as it gets. We only have enough to destroy a few planets if we get into an interstellar war.[/QUOTE] A Bigger Stick dear boy, a Bigger Stick. :monocle:
Why would anyone think it's a good idea to reveal how many nukes we have?
[QUOTE=Musicfreak59;21726283]Radioactive rowing boats :dance:[/QUOTE] They'd have to be either really shitty or malfunctioning nukes if the casing was radioactive.
[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;21726864]You have to wonder... One warhead- not scary enough to enemies... Two, three....six hundred warheads? You're getting warm... One thousand, two thousand...five thousand warheads? Yep, that's the sweet spot baby! At what point is it enough and why is that number enough, not ten less or five more? Damn, what an amazing waste of resources.[/QUOTE] I think the point is having enough to launch one or two at each important point in enemy territory. Also nuclear warheads are not nukes.
[QUOTE=CommieTurtle;21726506]That's hardly any considering we had 6 times as many in the late 60's.[/QUOTE] It's still a pretty damn big stockpile, considering it's the 21st century. [editline]06:53AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Maloof?;21728218]I never saw the point in having nukes. "Hey Russia, we're threatening you with weapons we both know that we'd never use! That's right bitches, empty threat, coming at you!"[/QUOTE] It's pre-emptive threat. In the Cold War, the Soviet Union and the Western World, majorly the United States, both had the nuclear capabilities to wipe one another off the face of the earth. It's a "if I'm taken down, I'm taking you with me" situation for both sides. [editline]06:54AM[/editline] And the gigantic military capabilities of both sides threatened each other into a static war. [editline]06:58AM[/editline] [QUOTE=PrismatexV8;21726289]Wait, is the thread title implying that all Americans are rednecks? Goddamn, Gmod_Fan77. You continue to outdo yourself.[/QUOTE] From the Americans I've seen, they characterize us as prissy little bad-toothed tea-drinkers. Saying America's got rednecks isn't nearly as bad.
[QUOTE=Gmod_Fan77;21731547]From the Americans I've seen, they characterize us as prissy little bad-toothed tea-drinkers. Saying America's got rednecks isn't nearly as bad.[/QUOTE] If I went by your posts, I'd characterize the UK as uneducated buffoons; a people to be tamed, not feared. Thankfully, I know enough people over there to know that isn't true in the slightest.
[QUOTE=G71tc4;21726728]Can somebody post the "How many nukes it would take to destroy humanity" image?[/QUOTE] Just one
[QUOTE=Abstrakt;21730118][IMG]http://www.philth.ie/images/how-many-nukes-will-destroy-the-world.gif[/IMG][/QUOTE] I hate this picture. I seen it so many times and it is all wrong. The artist (David McCandless) hasn't put radiation into account.
Plus the fact that it would probably only take one nuke to make that country decend into anarchy.
I think the reduced numbers prove that the cold-war system of nuclear deterrence is over
Hey man, someone asked for it. I was just delivering.
The policy on strategic nuclear warfare (the use of nuclear weapons to destroy your opponents ability to wage war, as opposed to tactical, which entails using nuclear weapons as military support) is that, should a nuclear exchange occur, there need to be enough missiles ready to launch at any given time to completely wipe out the opponents strategic capabilities. Given the state of the Cold War, in which new submarines and ballistic missiles were frequently invented with the intention of first strike, a nuclear stockpile large enough to destroy your opponent one time over is not enough. Imagine a successful first strike neutralizing all of one nations silos within 15 minutes, before Command and Control can even figure out that war has begun. To combat this, the superpowers built enough weaponry in their stockpiles to ensure even a devastatingly successful first strike will not succeed in preventing counter attack. In direct response to this, both sides rapidly developed their first strike weapons as well, to try to tip the balance back into their favor. Thanks to the correlation between first strike weapons and standard weapons, either increasing meant the other must as well. Give that process about 50 years of unhindered development, and congratulations. You've got the worlds current nuclear stockpile.
Man this forum has a lot of Americaphobia.
[QUOTE=Zambies!;21746620]Man this forum has a lot of Americaphobia.[/QUOTE] No, that's just Gmod_Fan77.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.