Derailed thread (the oppsite version). In b4 "that escalated quickly"... No matter how many times I see this, I will never stop reading the whole thing while yelling.
Click to expand


What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#2 - mynameisnightwolf (04/26/2013) [-]
No matter how many times I see this, I will never stop reading the whole thing while yelling.
User avatar #4 to #2 - quesocnkane ONLINE (04/26/2013) [-]
I wish i coud memorize it, then whip it out at parties and just school a ***** .
User avatar #25 - schmuxy (04/26/2013) [-]
that fact talks about the radiation...
User avatar #34 to #25 - derpmageddon (04/26/2013) [-]
How can you destroy 100% of the land mass of the world, several times over, with radiation?
User avatar #36 to #34 - schmuxy (04/26/2013) [-]
with that much radiation?

Almost certainly.

You're forgetting, for example that one nuclear reactor meltdown ****** up half of europe.
#38 to #36 - derpmageddon (04/26/2013) [-]
I agree that it would kill living things, possibly all of them many times over. However, my point, and the point of the post, was that it was claimed that the land mass of earth would be destroyed. Radiation does not destroy rock and water.
User avatar #39 to #38 - schmuxy (04/26/2013) [-]
Stop being a pedant for the sake of it.
User avatar #58 to #38 - ctenop (04/26/2013) [-]
What you are doing is the definition of a faggot. Stop being a faggot, you faggot.
#17 - spectralbanshee (04/26/2013) [-]
ha! Glorious.
#22 - Rascal (04/26/2013) [-]
Chinese don't occupy 100% of the land tho ?
User avatar #23 to #22 - dunkleosteus (04/26/2013) [-]
The quoted text says "enough to take out 100% of the land mass"
User avatar #53 - recoveryone (04/26/2013) [-]
He makes a good point, but that doesn't mean the US couldn't just drop a bunch of ******* nukes, and let radiation make China uninhabitable.
#64 to #53 - meowthenin (04/26/2013) [-]
Yeah, the fallout is worse than when they used to salt the Earth when conquering.

Also, is your name a RvB reference? If so, you make me giddy.
#48 - Rascal (04/26/2013) [-]
way to remember nuclear fallout
#3 - dashandsmash (04/26/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #35 - salts (04/26/2013) [-]
90% of population...not area...china's population is not anywhere near evenly distributed ..not saying hes right ..but think things through before you post
User avatar #61 to #35 - quantumlegend ONLINE (04/26/2013) [-]
"The quoted text says 'enough to take out 100% of the land mass'"
User avatar #75 to #61 - salts (04/27/2013) [-]
ah that part went by me
User avatar #45 - occamsrazor (04/26/2013) [-]
Wow I didn't know we had that few nukes, really makes ya think...
#50 to #45 - dashgamer (04/26/2013) [-]
I see what you did there, and you did it like a boss.
I see what you did there, and you did it like a boss.
#37 - Rascal (04/26/2013) [-]
that's only the average yield, though. there are some multi-megaton explosives.
User avatar #42 to #37 - zarcos (04/26/2013) [-]
if you multiply the avg by the amount you get the total.
User avatar #43 to #37 - HOLYCARP (04/26/2013) [-]
Quite. Aswell I dont believe anyone would waste a nuke on a field of rice. Should re-calculate for total area of tactical targets, military bases, major cities and such.
User avatar #47 to #43 - techketzer (04/26/2013) [-]
The fag insisted on the US being able to nuke 100% of earth's landmass several times over.
That's what he got told for.
User avatar #73 to #47 - HOLYCARP (04/27/2013) [-]
Aw **** lol, the empires entire fleet couldnt do that much damage.

>its a failed star wars reference
>time to watch star wars again
User avatar #44 to #37 - CaptainWaffles (04/26/2013) [-]
That, and that's only the fireball. There is still leveling of buildings and intense thermal, xray, and gamma radiation in addition to the massive blastwave well beyond that. The killing radius of a bomb like that could easily get a few more miles in radius.
User avatar #54 - EFGsBrother (04/26/2013) [-]
In reality, the total amount of fissionable materials we have at our possession is incredible. At the highest point of the U.S.'s nuclear stockpile, we had roughly 20,491 MEGAtons worth of explosives. Using this ********* math would give about 1533.9 megatons. By a factor of 13.35 times, he's off. Using his equation that 0.3Mt=98.5 sq kM, the actual area the US arsenal could level is about 6,727,878 Km. Considering that much of China's population is near the ocean, even leveling that would provide sufficient death so that China would be sufficiently ****** .
Of Course this is done under the assumption of the U.S. height of nuclear power, but is nuclear war was really that eminent the U.S. would stock up a hell of a lot more on the nukes.

TL;DR This faggot sucks
User avatar #57 to #54 - ctenop (04/26/2013) [-]
I was gonna say, because I knew the hiroshima and nagasaki bombs were kilotons, but since then most are quite a few megatons.....
#51 - tylosaurus ONLINE (04/26/2013) [-]
#1 - Rascal (04/25/2013) [-]
4chan at it's finest.
User avatar #74 - biggrand (04/27/2013) [-]
there's a pc thread going on right now in /b/ that is half spec, half porn. just browse the thumbnails of this ****

You need to login to view this link
User avatar #66 - Chizypuff (04/26/2013) [-]
All the people questioning the logic, he said 100% of the landmass-not the population
meaning it doesn't matter how scattered Chinese people are or aren't- People aren't landmass
#65 - bozhko (04/26/2013) [-]
**bozhko rolls 85**
User avatar #56 - bitterfall (04/26/2013) [-]
The fact that Chinas inhabitants doesn't live evenly scattered over all of China makes it kind of possible for the US missles to wipe out all of Bejing and some other mayor cities.

But hey, how the **** would I know?
User avatar #55 - gimlithedwarf (04/26/2013) [-]
His logic is flawed ,it would be right if all the people of china lived over all territory equally (yeah I know i don't make much sense ,not exactly sure how to say).The truth is that most of the people in China live on the far east of the country,if I remember well around 90% people live in that part,so the bombs would probably get at least 50% of the people if they used them right.
#60 to #55 - meowthenin (04/26/2013) [-]
Right. Not to mention, if they overlap the fallout areas it'd take even LESS to destroy the population. That's why nukes are so feared. It vaporizes the close surroundings, it destroys within a few miles, and kills all life for tens of miles with the fallout.
User avatar #62 to #55 - quantumlegend ONLINE (04/26/2013) [-]
"The quoted text says 'enough to take out 100% of the land mass'"
User avatar #6 - grimmreaperz (04/26/2013) [-]
almost every thread there gets derailed somehow
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)