By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Hillary Clinton won. How much time till Nuclear War?

Tagged games:

 

Hillary Clinton won. How much time till Nuclear War?

There will be no nuclear ... 168 47.19%
 
Nuclear World war in 2017... 64 17.98%
 
Nuclear Armaggedom in 2018. 15 4.21%
 
We will be living like Fallout 4 in 2019. 55 15.45%
 
Nuclear war before her term ends. 54 15.17%
 
Total:356
AsGryffynn said:
Netyaroze said:

It really depends on the nuclear bomb.

Actually 100 Hiroshima Bombs would not do that much. 

The strenght of the bombs is measured in kilo/mega tons its the equivalent of tons of TNT.

The Hiroshima Bomb had 20 Kilotons which is equivalent to 20000 kgTNT exploding.

100 times that would be 2 Megatons. Which is 2 Million kg TNT.

Tsar Bomba had 50 Megtons which is 50 Million Tons of TNT. 

A single Tsar Bomba is as strong as 2500 Hiroshima bombs. 

The impact that wiped out the dinosaurs. Was like 2 Million Tsar Bombas or 240000 GigaTons of TNT. We have 15000 atomic bombs currently. All far weaker then Tsar. 

The second most energetic eruption after that impact was a supervulcano which was 5000 times stronger than Tsar. To impact all the earth severly and alot of people it is enough to fire 15000 Bombs. But to extinct the human race everywhere on the planet we need much much more power. 

Ofcourse there would be nuclear winter and Billions dead however in the history of earth there were way more energetic events than the combined energy of all nuclear weapons in existance which brought way more dust in to the atmosphere and fauna and flora survived.  

The Fallout is also survivable, ofcourse life expectancy would go back to like 25 in heavily contaminated areas.

The USA fired 1200 Nuclear Bombs for test purposes in the past 50 years which is a third of all fired bombs in the past fifty years and most people ahve no clue ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_weapons_tests_of_the_United_States )

100 bombs evenly fired would impact all of as a bit and kill many millions. Maybe temperatures would drop enough to cancel the increasing of temperatures in the past decades. 

The earth is a huge place and asteroids, meteors can unload all the bombs we ever produced in milliseconds on us and we would still survive.  The dinausaur impactor was 10 kilometers in diameter thats bigger than the everest. We would barely be able to blow up everest with every single nuclear bomb we have.

We would have to drill into everest and place the bombs there. 

People think nukes will lead us to extinction thanks to eggheads using the word "end of life as we know it" even though the actual lingo translates to "end of civilization"... 

We'll be alright. If Fallout's anything to go by, we'll be better than they were and they had a lot of tech to prop themselves up...

The big problem is nuclear winter and the common misunderstanding of this concept is due to its poor naming as it is in no way related to the size of the nuclear bomb, just nukes were the most likely cause when the term was coined. Nuclear winter doesn't require huge megatons of nukes it just requires 100+ cities to be firestormed (by nuke or conventional weapons), a number that would be massively surpassed by a war between the US/China/Russia, the resulting soot and ash would remain in the upper atmosphere for a decade or more reducing the amount of the suns radiation that hits the earth and result in large global drops in temperature thus wiping out much of tld agricultural crops for years to come.

That Nuclear winter would likely escalate hostilities the world over as starving people have nothing left to lose.



Around the Network

Wagner, US media was treating Trump like a clown because he is one.
He is a rich, politically illiterate clown and a bigot. There is no other way to handle people like that.
If you are so dismayed by corruption and criminality in politics, why don't you fill us in on the state of corporate coup d'etat in Brazil. Temer is another Donald Trump but probably smarter.
Your whole congress is the worst Brazil could display to the world.



Gotta love these comedy threads, I loled...



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n29CicBxZuw

01001011 01101001 01110011 01110011 00100000 01101101 01111001 00100000 01110011 01101000 01101001 01101110 01111001 00100000 01101101 01100101 01110100 01100001 01101100 00100000 01100001 01110011 01110011 00100001

CosmicSex said:
WagnerPaiva said:

The new model of Russia´s intercontinental nuclear missile. It can leven down a area as big as the state of Texas and it travels at 5000MPH, also, it can reach any spot in the planet with pinpoint accuracy.

I am very sure that America as nukes that are even deadlier than this one by the way. Nuclear War has no winners.

Well, in this case we have to admit that it depends on how much Russia wants to destory the planet.  The reason why nuclear war with a super power is unlikely no matter what is because no one want to die and nuclear wars can't be won.  See, because if everyone dies, no one gets to claim victory... on account of the fact that no one can because everyone is dead...

Russia has FAR more nuclear bunkers than we do. They have enough bunkers in Moskow to house all 12 million citizens there. So in terms of survivors, they would win. They also recently approved a program to provide rations to 5 million people in bunkers as the threat of nuclear war approaches (it was the biggest news story in Russia a week ago when I read about it). Putin also made TWO warnings to US citizens saying that peace is being threatened by the US gov and that he doesn't want war. He also said he knows that the mainstream media wont report this and he was right.

 

Yes the likelyhood of us nuking each other is low but why would anybody want to increase these chances by initiating a war with Russia? Hell, even without nukes war with Russia would be devastating but Clinton seems to be pushing it for some reason. War with Russia is a very real concept and only the US media seems to think that it is impossible all the while Russia is literally preparing for war. I don't understand what is so crazy about the idea of Clinton causing a war when she already publicly stated to use "millitry force" against Russia and plans to set up a no fly zone in Syria (a Russian ally) that will shoot down Russian planes and would definately lead to war. Also Joe Biden said the US will initiate "covert cyber attacks" against russia which is an act of war. Obama approved a missile defense system that can shoot down half of Russia nukes and violates the agreement that ended the cold war. We are going to overthrow a Russian allied government. tensions are building, how can people not see this?

 

Putin warning: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqD8lIdIMRo)

Putin 2nd warning: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nnqx6PYLqoQ) on this he claims the threats against russia (by HRC and Biden) is simply scapegoating



Russian owners would never want a war with a powerful country.
Just the sanctions on Russia had them running with their heads cut off with their money.
No conventional war is needed, just apply some economical restrictions and Russia will implode from discontentment.



Around the Network
Goatseye said:
Russian owners would never want a war with a powerful country.
Just the sanctions on Russia had them running with their heads cut off with their money.
No conventional war is needed, just apply some economical restrictions and Russia will implode from discontentment.

I have a new headline... Current Russia says no! 

Sanctions only slowed down an economy already slowing down. If anything, the West gave Putin someone to scapegoat... 

Then there's Russia... Either they win the war or everyone will be dragged down... Russia only cares whether they are able to win or not... 



AsGryffynn said:
Goatseye said:
Russian owners would never want a war with a powerful country.
Just the sanctions on Russia had them running with their heads cut off with their money.
No conventional war is needed, just apply some economical restrictions and Russia will implode from discontentment.

I have a new headline... Current Russia says no! 

Sanctions only slowed down an economy already slowing down. If anything, the West gave Putin someone to scapegoat... 

Then there's Russia... Either they win the war or everyone will be dragged down... Russia only cares whether they are able to win or not... 

Russia might have gotten a scapegoat with that sanction, but oligarchs know better and most of them have money and investments out of Russia.

A sanction on Russia affects them sometimes more than the common Russian citizen. 



Thuglas said:

Even without nukes war with Russia would be devastating but Clinton seems to be pushing it for some reason. War with Russia is a very real concept and only the US media seems to think that it is impossible all the while Russia is literally preparing for war. I don't understand what is so crazy about the idea of Clinton causing a war when she already publicly stated to use "millitry force" against Russia and plans to set up a no fly zone in Syria (a Russian ally) that will shoot down Russian planes and would definately lead to war. Also Joe Biden said the US will initiate "covert cyber attacks" against russia which is an act of war. Obama approved a missile defense system that can shoot down half of Russia nukes and violates the agreement that ended the cold war. We are going to overthrow a Russian allied government. tensions are building, how can people not see this?

 

Putin warning: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqD8lIdIMRo)

Putin 2nd warning: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nnqx6PYLqoQ) on this he claims the threats against russia (by HRC and Biden) is simply scapegoating

That is what I am talking about. Hillary´s psycho mind blocks her from understand the value of human life, this is why she does not care about the risks of trying to destroy Russia.

She thinks the USA has a fair chance to win and any loss of life would be welcome cause she is a globalist, and globalists want population control.

What she fails to see, cause every single evil person is also stupid, is that such a war would have no winners, only losers.



My grammar errors are justified by the fact that I am a brazilian living in Brazil. I am also very stupid.

Goatseye said:
Wagner, US media was treating Trump like a clown because he is one.
He is a rich, politically illiterate clown and a bigot. There is no other way to handle people like that.
If you are so dismayed by corruption and criminality in politics, why don't you fill us in on the state of corporate coup d'etat in Brazil. Temer is another Donald Trump but probably smarter.
Your whole congress is the worst Brazil could display to the world.

Donald Trump is a entertainer and hotel entrepeneus, a bilionaire business man that never ever was in politics before.

Michel Temer was a Law teacher and law scholar, one of the most respected in Brazil before entering actevely politics. He co-wrote the brazilian constitution and was considered the number one authority in Constitutional Law in Brazil before he became vice president. He was vice presidente for two diferent presidentes, a senator and was involved in law and politics his own life.

So, I see no way in which you can compare him to Trump. Specially because in brazilian law, when the president is impeqached, it IS LAW that the vice-president takes his place for the rest of the term.

He already anounced he will retire from politics after the 2018 election, he is a elder, 75 years old;

He never had a tv show, always made his money writting books and teaching in universities, and as a public elected servant.

His IRS declaration is about 2 million dollars, Trump has 2 billion.

So, I think you made a huge mistake comparing these two.

If you think Dilma was honest, think again. Her party destroyed my country and stole almost300 billion reais (100 billion dollars) in public money. We had a miracle in Brazil in the person of aroun 30 federal policemen, 10 federal sheriffs and 5 federal judges that decided to open the Pandora Box of brazilian corruption, risking their own lives. It is called Operation Lava JAto (Car Wash). It is the most incredible and shocking thing that ever happened in Brazil, and sen 5 of the 10 most rich people from the country to jail.

I am talking Fortune 500 people and a scheme that destroyed the once biggest oil company of this planet, Petrobras.

Imagine seeying Bill Gates and Zuckberg in jail in the US. This is the kind of event Brazil is living through. The people suffered greatly in the hands of Dilma and she tried her best to steal our very little liberties, controling the press and trying to destroy the Judiciary.



My grammar errors are justified by the fact that I am a brazilian living in Brazil. I am also very stupid.

Goatseye said:
AsGryffynn said:

I have a new headline... Current Russia says no! 

Sanctions only slowed down an economy already slowing down. If anything, the West gave Putin someone to scapegoat... 

Then there's Russia... Either they win the war or everyone will be dragged down... Russia only cares whether they are able to win or not... 

Russia might have gotten a scapegoat with that sanction, but oligarchs know better and most of them have money and investments out of Russia.

A sanction on Russia affects them sometimes more than the common Russian citizen. 

The sanctions do very little to the oligarchs who all have enough dealings with non sanctioned banks and like all people with money thy operate under enough alias's to be fine. The sanctions did little to the Russian economy, though was inconvenient for a lot of smaller businesses and people that previously would buy goods through europe. What hit the Russian economy hard was the price of Oil which ironically crashed due to OPEC trying to drive a lot of the American Shale Oil interests Bankrupt (which they have done a pretty affective job of), Russia's economy was the casualty in that war.