Discussion in 'World Events' started by EmptyForceOfChi, Apr 27, 2011.
Take a guess. Clue: shitload.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Ok so America has how many nukes then? lets do the math here, your the math's man I admit my math is poor compared to yours so you help me out, how much of the earths surface does japan occupy? maybe less than 1% ? and if 1 single nuke cannot even destroy 1% of the earth then how many nukes would it take to take out the whole world (you said slight exageration) so maybe 10 times?.
By my calculations that = your some serious madmen. you must have thousands upon thousands of them. im pretty sure Japan does not even take up 0.5% of the earths surface area. Yeah you guys have a nice collection of nukes. oh and if i temember correctly you also have nukes in space orbiting the earth?. wasn't it called the "Star wars" opperation?.
Yeah I doubt Russia can compete with that, why spend so much funding on nukes if you dont plan on using them?. you guys are obviously planning on nuking the crap out of everything. you gonna blow the moon up too? prob some islamic terrorists up there somewhere make sure you kill them allPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You don't think that would be classified?
You misunderstood. There aren't enough nukes to "destroy the entire world". At all.
Who is "you"?
Oh dear. There you go again. Relying on memory...
No. Star Wars (SDI) was an anti-nuke (ABM) space-based system. That never went into service anyway.
Well I was. But teacher made me hand over my nukes and I don't get them back until after class.
The difference between the two types of nuclear bomb
The kind of nuclear weapon used in WWII gets it`s energy from the splitting of atomic nuclei in a process known as fission. This is why these weapons are often referred to as atom bombs or "A-bombs" for short. On the other hand, thermonuclear weapons get their energy from the fusion of hydrogen atoms into helium atoms with some of the mass of the hydrogen atoms being converted into energy. This is why these weapons are known as hydrogen bombs, or "H-bombs".
This doen't add up, on one hand you state that the "number of nukes" is Classified info, then you state that "We dont have enough nukes to blow up the earth even once over". So either you know top secret files personaly, or you are lying about not having enough to blow up the world. and "you" is the people you support and the people who run your NATO ops. all the rest is not worth replying to.
Do you know what type we use nowdays?, do we still use the old Atomic warheads, the likes of which we bombed Hiroshima with?. or do we use a more powerful type of warhead now?.
Or maybe your comprehension is poor. We couldn't build enough nuclear weapons to "destroy the Earth". And there are rough numbers available.
The people I support? And you know who I support because...?
My NATO ops?
Because you realise you've buggered up again? Got it.
Both types are in current service.
Where do you get all this crap? Is it from movies? Video games? You just made it up on the spot? Seriously, you keep coming here to post these ridiculously implausible scenarios, reminds me of that Russian guy who made the news for predicting America's downfall this year (with Alaska for some mysterious reason choosing to join Russia, naturally). Maybe you should start by reading some Janes publications and seeing what various armies are actually equipped with these days.
Without the proper equipment and training, 1.2 million soldiers = 1.2 million fish to shoot in a barrel. It's actually quite brutal just how badly a weaker army can be pulverized these days when civilian casualties aren't a concern, even without using WMD's... think 4 years of miserable WWI trench warfare and shelling (much, much worse than Hollywood's depiction of some smoke and dust and a bunch of guys screaming "aaaah!" for a few seconds), all condensed into a week. White phosophorus would look as delicate and harmless as snow by comparison. It sounds like you're making popcorn and hoping the fireworks start soon, not a sane and healthy attitude to have at all.
Nope it will be Israel
Quotes from Dy
"You misunderstood. There aren't enough nukes to "destroy the entire world". At all."
"that would be classified?"
Nope, you said "There are not enough nukes" and then went on to say "how many nukes we have is classified"
So how do you know they dont have thousands more with larger blast radius?. if it's classified then you don't know. Unless you work for a government agency. My comprehension seems just fine to me.
I thought you said there wasn't any difference between the 2 types.
Lol Israel is america to me, whats the difference, both flags make equally good toilet paper aswell.
America and Israel serve the same agenda they are just 2 heads of the same beast in my eyes.
Yes, but who will retaliate against an Israeli nuclear strike?
EDIT:Actually scratch that, who will retaliate against an American nuclear strike - is true as well.
Which part of:
did you not understand?
Or used to...
Then try reading what I actually wrote: nuclear and thermonuclear operate differently (post #6). I said there's no difference between "atomic" and nuclear". Which was your initial claim.
Who would Israel dare to nuke, all of their enemies live next door to them lol, won't they get some radiation from it too.
Actualy I think Israel is probably the safest place to be in a nuclear war, nobody will dare to nuke the Holy land. well hopefully.
So these are the official stats yeah? We 100% don't have the capability to make enough nukes to destroy every country on earth? and wipe out everyone?. would you mind showing me any sources because I can't find any saying this. All i keep finding is people saying how many nukes we have and how we can destroy the world x amount of times.
Mk so you were knitpicking with the different types of bombs to score kudos knowing I have a limited understanding about nuclear bombs. How nice of you ok notch that up as a victory to you then and moving along.
So dy want to actualy contribute to the Thread topic or are you just here for another reason?. You don't think america will be the first to use these new types of nukes? or do you think they will? you don't seem to actualy want to talk about the issue you want to talk about how nuclear bombs are not thermo-nuclear bombs.
That is your opinion but why not think Israel or Russia or even India? They are all capable of doing that but you can only see myopically and with hate in your eays as well.
Don't you think your later comment "I have a limited understanding about nuclear bombs" somehow militates against this? I'm not going to treat you to Nuclear Weapons 101 for free.
And how many of those claims do anything to actually back up that statement?
No, I was simply pointing that (as usual) you were making flat statements from a basis of ignorance
When you stop doing that I'll stop correcting you. As it is it's taken most of two pages to get you to admit that you have "limited understanding". Don't you think that someone who's aware of their "limited understanding" should refrain from making bald declarations?
Under what circumstances?
That wasn't the point of contention, was it? Go back and read your claim: Technically speaking america has used Atomic warheads, not quite nuclear warheads.
Separate names with a comma.