Forum Settings
       
1 2 Next »
Reply To Thread

Taking Bets:Follow

#27 Dec 20 2010 at 11:06 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,566 posts
Thats about it, doesn't help that even if they learn things, they usually get pushed out by the media spin on pro american **** ups.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#28 Dec 21 2010 at 7:15 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Whereas I'm sure North Koreans are taught all about their government's fallibilities and mistakes.

Also, crazypants dictator.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#29 Dec 21 2010 at 9:03 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Samira wrote:
Whereas I'm sure North Koreans are taught all about their government's fallibilities and mistakes.

Also, crazypants dictator.


He's not as nuts as he would have you believe.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#30 Dec 21 2010 at 9:43 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
12,049 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Samira wrote:
Whereas I'm sure North Koreans are taught all about their government's fallibilities and mistakes.

Also, crazypants dictator.


He's not as nuts as he would have you believe.


Team America and South Park have taught me otherwise!
#31 Dec 21 2010 at 10:11 AM Rating: Decent
****
9,997 posts
We need nukes for wholly Machiavellian reasons. If we refuse to fight like beasts under the ethic of humanity, our enemies will fight like beasts and devour us. It's a classic example of the prisoner's dilemma.

We'll consider getting rid of nukes the day the UN arranges a lock-in where they sing camp songs and play cooperative games. Until, of course, some clumsy diplomat fails to catch a dictator in the trust fall and he launches World War N because he got a boo-boo.
#32 Dec 21 2010 at 10:16 AM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,024 posts
I get the need for nukes, relative to the fact that other nations have them. I just don't get why we need so MANY. I mean, the bill in the Senate now has opposition. It makes the obscene mandate that we cut our numbers down to... 1,550 to both the US and Russia.

REALLY? Short of an alien invasion, is there ANY reason to have that many?
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#33 Dec 21 2010 at 10:21 AM Rating: Decent
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
Short of an alien invasion, is there ANY reason to have that many?


Aha-- more evidence for life on other planets!
#34 Dec 21 2010 at 10:34 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
idiggory wrote:
I get the need for nukes, relative to the fact that other nations have them. I just don't get why we need so MANY. I mean, the bill in the Senate now has opposition. It makes the obscene mandate that we cut our numbers down to... 1,550 to both the US and Russia.

REALLY? Short of an alien invasion, is there ANY reason to have that many?


To account for failures, give strategic coverage and correct for any heretofore unknown interception systems that have been developed. Also, arming MIRVs and dummy kill vehicles.

Simple enough.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#35 Dec 21 2010 at 10:43 AM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
idiggory wrote:
Short of an alien invasion, is there ANY reason to have that many?
If the aliens are really intelligent, they'd avoid the hell out of us with or without nukes.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#36 Dec 21 2010 at 11:03 AM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,024 posts
That details only why we would want a significant amount, not why we would want the ludicrous amount we actually have. We have 9K warheads (5k if you don't count the warheads that are intended for dismantlement). Put that into perspective that there are only like 200 countries recognized by the US. That's 25 bombs for every nation.

Russia has TWELVE THOUSAND nukes.

Source

It's assinine. Even if you expected a failure rate of something huge like 60%, there's still no reason to have so many nukes.

Now, consider, any non-specialized building within 2.7 miles of smaller nukes is destroyed. Between that and 4.7 miles, any normal structure is destroyed and sky scrapers are seriously damaged. We'll ignore fallout and weather problems for the moment.

(Numbers from Homeland Security.

So, 78.5 square miles are essentially destroyed in a modern nuclear blast. The US is 3,794,101 square miles, according to wikipedia. To blanket the entire area with nuclear blasts, it would take about 50K nukes (the current world estimate is about 30k across all nations).

But this was assuming all the bombs detonate on the ground. If they detonate in the air, within 10.7 miles all buildings are destroyed, from there to 20 miles, all but skyscrapers are. So the surface area destroyed by these blasts is 1,256 square miles. That's 3000 25 megaton atomic weapons. I don't know how many of these there are in the world. But it's feasible that the US alone has enough weapons to completely obliterate our own country, without even bothering to consider people dying from fallout or nuclear winter. We can, potentially, literally level everything.

Yeah, the potential need to hit multiple countries at once and account for failures doesn't look so pleasant now.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
1 2 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 218 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (218)