/a/ on fapping. . File . KB, 2333215. I Antony mans ' tfr. 14 It' and Invent what do fat? I; Anonmynous : 15 S) CO TIME Tro tyu' 28 remiss later u are Incorrect 4Chan
x
Click to expand

/a/ on fapping

Tags: 4Chan
File . KB, 2333215.
I Antony mans ' tfr. 14
It' and Invent
what do fat?
I; Anonmynous : 15 S) CO
TIME Tro tyu'
28 remiss later
u are Incorrect IR America has an nukes In take dch' v. rt , or China; population
tthey have munsch to take nu: ’: land mass many war
WRONG YOU DUMB **** .
LEARN THE RADIUS OF AN ATOMIC HUME BEFORE YOU CLICK ON THAT ******* BUTTON
THE AVERAGE YIELD OF A NUCLEAR BOMB Bl THE CURRENT U. S ARSENAL IS Mt) Klat) ) NS
A 300 WOULD CREATE A WITH A RADIUS OF 3. 5 MILES WHICH IS ABOUT 5., 6 KILOMETERS
THIS GIVES US A AREA CF 93. 5 SQUARED
THE US CURRENTLY 5113 NUCLEAR WHICH MEANS A TOTAL DESTRUCTED AREA, F WARHEAD DID NOT
SEEM AT ALL. OF 5113 It 58. 5 = ABOUT ) SQUARED KILOMETER& WHICH IS HALF A MILLION.
CHINA HAS A LAND SEE OF ABOUT 9. 3 MILLION SSE .
THE TOTAL U. S ARSENAL CAN THEREFORE ONLY DESTROY = LESS THAN 5. 4%
LEARN 2 ******* MATHS FAGGOT
SCHOOL
I ] NOT WNW
N ******* WED
UNTOLD
H Anonymous ( No.
FEEL 493x367, 13(
op here
I' m and, WHAT THE **** : Is
HAPPENING IN THIS THREAD?
L Reply 28 replies, 2 sages
...
  • Recommend tagsx
+487
Views: 25057
Favorited: 69
Submitted: 07/05/2013
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to daggry Subscribe to 4chan submit to reddit

Comments(57):

[ 57 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #3 - teranin ONLINE (07/05/2013) [-]
This guy is actually right-ish. The destruction caused by nuclear weapons tends not to be in actual physical destruction of land, but rather long term effects of that much radioactive material being propelled outward from it's center point. So while the actual destructive force of the blasts do match up with his math, the united states does still have enough nuclear weapons to kill the entire planet 7 times over.
User avatar #46 to #3 - useroftheLOLZ (07/06/2013) [-]
You fail to account for population density, and the spread of radiation. China is very dense in terms of population density, if America would fire their missiles at Chinese population centers, then a much larger percentage of population is going to be lost. There is also the nuclear fallout. Take the nuclear power plant that melted down in Japan, in Wisconsin, a couple weeks after the meltdown, there was radioactive snow all over the ******* place, all because the ocean was contaminated with radioactive materials, and I am sure of this, I had the Geiger counter, and I was the thing go ******* haywire.
User avatar #47 to #46 - teranin ONLINE (07/06/2013) [-]
1 hydrogen bomb of 5 megatons could wipe out the whole population of china, because the amount of radioactivity sparked by an unchained fusion reaction inside earth's atmosphere is VAST, and lasting.
#38 to #3 - John Cena (07/05/2013) [-]
This guy!!!! ^^^^
User avatar #16 to #3 - GDUBBS (07/05/2013) [-]
i believe (one can always be wrong and ive had my fair share of times) that radiation has more potential to kill that the actual blast radius
#40 to #3 - casadue (07/05/2013) [-]
>implying radiations won't give people superpowers and 			****
>implying radiations won't give people superpowers and ****
User avatar #6 to #3 - JNS (07/05/2013) [-]
from my limited knowledge the only mistake he made is using the blast radius of the bombs to judge the destroyed area ... doesn't the radiation seep way out away from the bomb killing the everything and essentially making the area destroyed by the bomb several times larger?
#8 to #6 - John Cena (07/05/2013) [-]
exactly, the idiot in the post is talking about the blast radius only, not the radius that would become impossible to live in for several generations from the radiation, which is way way bigger and is where the real power in nuclear weapons lie.

Therefore, the dude in the post is a retard, and op is faggot for reposting this dumb **** .
User avatar #7 to #6 - teranin ONLINE (07/05/2013) [-]
Yeah that's what I said, in a nutshell. Chernobyl, for example, was only a 13 kiloton explosion, but it made over 1,000 square miles completely uninhabitable for the next few thousand years. Radiation from the explosion hit letal levels temporarily in areas as vast as a 77,000 square mile radius. The earth has about 59,000,000 square miles of land on it's surface, so if the united states has 5,000 nukes (it has more than that) and they average 300 kilotons, or around 22x that size, 22 x 77,000 is 1.7 million give or take, so with only a small fraction of that nuclear payload you could hit the surface of the earth with enough radiation to wipe out humanity. 7 times may have been too low an estimate, but it is the generally agreed consensus of most nuclear physicists as to the scale of radiation damage the earth would take if america were to fire it's whole nuclear payload.
User avatar #9 to #7 - JNS (07/05/2013) [-]
now just imagine if somehow our stockpile blew up ...
User avatar #11 to #9 - teranin ONLINE (07/05/2013) [-]
You think that's bad? the US only has about half of the total nuclear payload of the planet. The rest is in the hands of various other countries.
#42 to #11 - qwertfag (07/05/2013) [-]
The U.S. has 2,150 active warheads.
Russia has 1,800 active warheads.
The other countries have 450 active warheads.
So while the U.S. has 50% of the active warheads.
Russia has another 45%.
User avatar #12 to #11 - JNS (07/05/2013) [-]
only?

seems a bit excessive to me
User avatar #13 to #12 - teranin ONLINE (07/05/2013) [-]
no I mean the concern shouldn't be just the US's payload popping, (which realistically can't happen due to the processes needed to actually split an atom) but there are nukes literally EVERYWHERE.
#23 to #13 - John Cena (07/05/2013) [-]
Isn't there somewhere in between 80 and 150 atom bombs lost around the world?
Oh, and people have started to live in Hiroshima and Nagasaki again. If that is healthy is another matter, but the areas doesn't (from what I know) seem uninhabitable, you can for example mover around in some parts of Pripyat and Chernobyl, without taking permanent radioactive damage as far as I know.
User avatar #26 to #23 - teranin ONLINE (07/05/2013) [-]
thats because those bombs were in the very early stages of development, and they weren't as "dirty" as the bombs made later, or nuclear reactors.
User avatar #14 to #12 - teranin ONLINE (07/05/2013) [-]
or fuse an atom, for that matter. That's about a zero percent chance of accidentally exploding.
#21 - teamrocketninja (07/05/2013) [-]
Butt why?
#45 to #21 - crosskill ONLINE (07/05/2013) [-]
>My meals are still happy

There goes mysides I guess.
#35 - shishiko **User deleted account** (07/05/2013) [-]
OP comes back like   
   
"dez 			*******		"
OP comes back like

"dez ******* "
#27 - brainy (07/05/2013) [-]
They are forgetting, that no one in their right mind would fire their full arsenal of nuclear missiles at one country... The rest of the world would be pretty pissed at America if they did that..
User avatar #43 to #27 - captnnorway (07/05/2013) [-]
implying the rest of the world ins't pissed of at America all ready 'cus of all the wars they start.
User avatar #55 to #43 - wtfareu (07/06/2013) [-]
implying every other country didn't start a **** ton of wars
User avatar #5 to #2 - lolokoko **User deleted account** (07/05/2013) [-]
For whomever is wondering what doujin/manga/hentai that a user posted by a picture in that thread (Was actually the only thing porn related).

It's Cherry Girls: You need to login to view this link

Sidenote: I have too much time in the mornings.
#10 to #2 - John Cena (07/05/2013) [-]
pisses me off how this caps lock bitch is "telling everyone" while being the hugest retard for not understanding how nuclear weapons even work

yu gi told part was funny though
User avatar #24 to #2 - xldarkking (07/05/2013) [-]
Jesus that thread is ******* golden. I so wish i was apart of that.
#4 to #2 - teranin ONLINE (07/05/2013) [-]
Wow, look lower in this thread you posted, this guy's comment cracked me up
User avatar #44 - christheace (07/05/2013) [-]
[] NOT OWNED
[] OWNED
[X] ******* OWNED
[X] TOLD LIKE A BITCH

^^^ Saving for future copy paste needs
User avatar #28 - ilovebrownies (07/05/2013) [-]
the irony of this its only one warhead that they are talking about, we have eight in every missile.
+4
#1 - velvetunderground has deleted their comment [-]
#48 - SirSheepy ONLINE (07/06/2013) [-]
>implying the fall out wouldn't take out almost all of the rest of China.
#56 to #48 - John Cena (07/06/2013) [-]
That pic made me laugh
#32 - giggleassasin (07/05/2013) [-]
But.. radiation...
User avatar #52 - ishallsmiteyou (07/06/2013) [-]
That's the blast radius, but think of all the radiation. China would not be destroyed, but completely irradiated.
User avatar #54 to #52 - belikea (07/06/2013) [-]
And there's the fact, that if you wanted to target the population, you'd just aim for large cities. no need to nuke an area of barren countryside
#50 - UnoSkullmanx (07/06/2013) [-]
the explosion isn't the worst part of a nuke, like this retarded mongoloid seems to think. The radioactive fallout from one modern hydrogen bomb can render enormous areas uninhabitable.
User avatar #33 - zapgod (07/05/2013) [-]
yes but why waste energy covering every inch of china, just take out every large city and china or any other country would still be crippled.
#58 - John Cena (07/12/2013) [-]
this is right in the terms of explosion but the overall long term fallout would kill everyone
#57 - darkparadox (07/06/2013) [-]
He's not talking about taking out the population. He's replying to someone who said that the US had enough to take out the entire land mass. He merely pointed out that the US arsenal would only be able to destroy about 5% of China's landmass
User avatar #53 - purpleday (07/06/2013) [-]
What a dumb **** . You don't need to bomb all of China to take down 90% of the population. You just gotta hit the coastline with your payload, counting the radiation and big ******* booms, I'd be willing to bet that you can take out 90% of the pop.
#49 - John Cena (07/06/2013) [-]
yes but the US only needs to nuke high populates areas of china, they aren't gonna nuke the forest, so it should only take 2-3 nukes to obliterate each major city plus one for each smaller one
#41 - John Cena (07/05/2013) [-]
This website should help clarify matters for you, also its quite fun to use:

[url deleted] /nukemap/
#37 - kanatana (07/05/2013) [-]
**kanatana rolled a random image posted in comment #2765006 at Friendly ** Wow. Just wow.
[ 57 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)