• Obama to reduce numbers of nuclear weapons
    73 replies, posted
[QUOTE=DireAvenger;20581351]Wait whoa what France has more nukes than the U.K? I don't know, that just feels wrong somehow.[/QUOTE] I doubt the French nukes are as advanced as UK's ones.
[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;20581197][img]http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/gizmodo/2009/08/nuclear3.jpg[/img] [url]http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/08/how-many-nukes-will-it-really-take-to-instantly-annihilate-humanity/[/url][/QUOTE] Let's be a little more modest and assume we just want to destroy all urban areas, which take up about 1.5% of the total land mass. Instead of using bombs we use a friggin Peacekeeper ICBM, which can have up to 10 300kt nuclear reentry missiles, each with a blast radius of about 4,9 km. [url=http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(148940000+km%C2%B2*0.015)/((4.9km*5)^2*pi)]How many would that take?[/url] A thousand.
[QUOTE=lolwutdude;20581164][b]EXACTLY[/B] We have the whole fucking planet by the balls! We're grabbing so tight, they can't fucking ejaculate, if we reduce our numbers of nuclear weapons, the whole world is going to splurge all over us![/QUOTE] Russia has more. So what is this a ball garbing party ?! [editline]12:13PM[/editline] [QUOTE=noctune9;20587749]Let's be a little more modest and assume we just want to destroy all urban areas, which take up about 1.5% of the total land mass. Instead of using bombs we use a friggin Peacekeeper ICBM, which can have up to 10 300kt nuclear reentry missiles, each with a blast radius of about 4,9 km. [url=http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(148940000+km%C2%B2*0.015)/((4.9km*5)^2*pi)]How many would that take?[/url] A thousand.[/QUOTE] Russia I'm pretty sure has a stranded of 25 Megatons. [editline]12:15PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Boba_Fett;20581197][img]http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/gizmodo/2009/08/nuclear3.jpg[/img] [url]http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/08/how-many-nukes-will-it-really-take-to-instantly-annihilate-humanity/[/url][/QUOTE] That does not account for Radiation , Civil war , Societal break down , Fallout , Nuclear winter ? and other etc.
[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;20581197][img]http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/gizmodo/2009/08/nuclear3.jpg[/img] [url]http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/08/how-many-nukes-will-it-really-take-to-instantly-annihilate-humanity/[/url][/QUOTE] You don't need to hit every single spot on the earth to kill pretty much all life.
[QUOTE=Sigma-Lambda;20583121]No one is going to attack the U.S., that's retarded.[/QUOTE] [img]http://bajan.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/kimjongil.jpg[/img] oh harro
[QUOTE=lazyguy;20588947][img]http://bajan.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/kimjongil.jpg[/img] oh harro[/QUOTE] He's not retarded. He's batshit insane.
Good man, Obama. If America starts toning down its nuclear program other countries might see nukes are bad and follow suit.
[QUOTE=MegaJohnny;20589113]Good man, Obama. If America [I]continues[/I] toning down its nuclear program other countries might see nukes are bad and follow suit.[/QUOTE] fix'd [editline]06:44PM[/editline] Bush only paused the nuclear weapons scrapping
[QUOTE=Bean-O;20581118]We already have enough to destroy the entire world several times over. I think being able to destroy the entire world only once is enough.[/QUOTE] goddamit late :smug:
[QUOTE=[U]hypno-toad[/U];20586549] Cold and Radiation are different. Cold does not give you cancer. Cold does not make your babies look like [URL="http://uruknet.com/pic.php?f=image-display.jpg"]this[/URL]. A bad nuclear fallout will be far worse than an ice age.[/QUOTE] A percentage will be effected by mutations, yes. But not all. The human race is very, very good at surviving.
moar nukes makes my dick bigger :smug: xddddddDDd [editline]12:02AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Jackbud;20587344]I doubt the French nukes are as advanced as UK's ones.[/QUOTE] They're implanted with AI that tells them to roll to safety any time a fly is near.
The future is electronic warfare anyway. Maybe physical destruction will soon be a thing of the past.
Sounding like a broken record, but nuclear warfare is a thing of the past. I can only see it being seriously used if there were [B]NO[/B] alternatives, and things would have to fall a looooong way before it got to that point. Biological, chemical, cyber, and electromagnetic weapons are (for better or worse) where human warfare is headed. After all, why nuke something and contaminate the area for years to come, destroying basically anything useful that might have been there anyway, when you can just release a deadly virus to wipe out the entire population in a month?
[QUOTE=lazyguy;20588947] oh harro[/QUOTE] we don't need nukes to defend ourselves against NK their military is equipped entirely with cold-war era weapons. [editline]06:11PM[/editline] This: [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MiG-21[/URL] is their main Jet Fighter it's from 1955
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.