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
Ljink96 on 31 October 2016

lol, kk



Around the Network
WagnerPaiva on 31 October 2016
StarOcean said:
WagnerPaiva said:

Yes, but it is not trolling neither flamebait, just opinion. Also, everyone is being nice to each other, so, be cool  ok? No need to ban anyone, specially me.

Please...

I'm not going to ban you for having an opinion. However, I will say if you ACTUALLY believe we'll have nuclear war from her. Then either you do not know the extent of the presidents actual power or you're just wrong

I know Obama, a fun loving, cool guy, did a lot of stuff by executive decisions, things that are anticonstitutional. I wonder what a murdereous, war loving, bloodthirsty, well know as evil, woman will do in his place.

Specially one that said she WANTS to take down Russia.



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

COKTOE on 31 October 2016
WagnerPaiva said:
COKTOE said:

No fucking way. The biggest nuke ever tested, the tsar bomba, couldn't do that. Not even close. Source? Cause I would love to see a how many megatons this thing is purported to have. There is no theoretical limit to how big a single blast could be, but there are logistical problems, as well as a general lack of sanity and reason.

The Tsar Bomb is very old news.

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/us-news/2016/10/29/russia-unveils-satan-2-missile-reportedly-wipe-texas-speed-past-us-missile-defense-systems

Here is a report from Hillary´s favorite outlet, CNN

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/26/europe/russia-nuclear-missile-satan-2/

(CNN)A Russian missile design company has unveiled the first image of a new weapon in Russia's arsenal: the Sarmat intercontinental ballistic missile, nicknamed "Satan 2."

The RS-28 Sarmat rocket "is capable of wiping out parts of the earth the size of Texas or France," Russian state news outlet Sputnik reported in May.
This is a explanation of how the thing works:

The RS-28 Sarmat[2] (Russian: РС-28 Сармат; NATO reporting name: SS-X-30 Satan 2), is a Russian liquid-fueled, MIRV-equipped, super-heavy thermonuclear armed intercontinental ballistic missile in development by the Makeyev Rocket Design Bureau[2] from 2009,[3]intended to replace the previous R-36 missile. Its large payload would allow for up to 10 heavy warheads or 15 lighter ones, and/or a combination of warheads and massive amounts of countermeasures designed to defeat anti-missile systems;[4][5] it was heralded by the Russian military as a response to the U.S. Prompt Global Strike.[6]

In February 2014, a Russian military official announced the Sarmat was expected to be ready for deployment around 2020.[7] In May that year another official source suggested that the program was being accelerated and that it would, in his opinion, constitute up to 100 percent of Russia's fixed land-based nuclear arsenal by 2021.[6][8] At the end of June 2015, it was reported that the production schedule for the first prototype of the Sarmat was slipping.[9][10] The RS-28 Sarmat is expected to become operational in 2016.[11]

On 10 August 2016, Russia successfully tested the RS-28's first-stage engine named PDU-99 "ПДУ-99".[12] The first image of this new missile was declassified and unveiled in October 2016.[13]

Interesting. I have actually been reading up since my post. Multiple warheads. Scary stuff. It's a fairly new story in my defence. Most everything I could readily find was from the last few weeks.



- "If you have the heart of a true winner, you can always get more pissed off than some other asshole."

Jpcc86 on 31 October 2016

Lol, this threads are hilarious.
Hillary's worst case scenario is that things stay exactly just as they are now, which is what I fear will happen. I do not worry 1sec about this woman causing a war - any war-, cause she just wont. Shes too much of a diplomat/burocrat for that kind of thing.
This would've been an appropiate thread if Trump wins.



Mr.GameCrazy on 31 October 2016

I don't think Hillary Clinton would start a nuclear war. If anything, I think Donald Trump would be more likely to do that. He doesn't have a very good temperament compared to Clinton.



Around the Network
WagnerPaiva on 31 October 2016
COKTOE said:

Interesting, I have actually been reading up since my post. Multiple warheads. Scary stuff. It's a fairly new story in my defence. Most everything I could readily find was from the last few weeks.

I know, right?

It could actually deliver 10 tsar bombs like nukes in a single blow, and it has counter-measures against every single anti-missile defense know to man.

If one of those is used, the Fallout alone would probably make life miserable for all mankind for a long time.



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

Zkuq on 31 October 2016
WagnerPaiva said:
The RS-28 Sarmat rocket "is capable of wiping out parts of the earth the size of Texas or France," Russian state news outlet Sputnik reported in May.

Here's your problem. Not saying it's not correct, but I'd doubt anything coming from official Russian sources. Russia is the master of information warfare, and for them, everything seems to be related to information warfare. To get back to the point, it'd be great if there was a more reliable source for this effectiveness.



WagnerPaiva on 31 October 2016
Mr.GameCrazy said:

I don't think Hillary Clinton would start a nuclear war. If anything, I think Donald Trump would be more likely to do that. He doesn't have a very good temperament compared to Clinton.

But he said "I rather work with Russia, get along, we can fight ISIS together".

She said: "We will put Russia in line or take them down".

He wants peace with Russia, she wants to kill their ally Bashar Al Saad.

Let me remind you that all the other countries nuclear arsenal is pityful when compared to Russia and the US.

The one thing you do not do is to piss off Russia.



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

CosmicSex on 31 October 2016
Zkuq said:
WagnerPaiva said:
The RS-28 Sarmat rocket "is capable of wiping out parts of the earth the size of Texas or France," Russian state news outlet Sputnik reported in May.

Here's your problem. Not saying it's not correct, but I'd doubt anything coming from official Russian sources. Russia is the master of information warfare, and for them, everything seems to be related to information warfare. To get back to the point, it'd be great if there was a more reliable source for this effectiveness.

How would you even test something like that?  It doesn't exist because a test would be seen from Mars lol. and there would be reports of huge fallout levels acrooss a huge area.... liek the 'entireity of Russia' huge



JWeinCom on 31 October 2016
COKTOE 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.

No fucking way. The biggest nuke ever tested, the tsar bomba, couldn't do that. Not even close. Source? Cause I would love to see a how many megatons this thing is purported to have. There is no theoretical limit to how big a single blast could be, but there are logistical problems, as well as a general lack of sanity and reason.

The Satan 2 or whatever they're calling it is not a new kind of nuke, it's a new kind of missile.  It can carry something like ten warheads.

In theory the most powerful warheads can deliver about 50 MT.  But, they are heavy and usually used as bombs not as missiles.  But, if you suppose you could somehow get 10 of these warheads onto the missile, and somehow fire it all the way to Texas, then maybe it could actually destroy it, but even that seems unlikely.  

Of course, the weight involved would prohibit anything with that heavy of a payload from getting anywhere near Texas, or really any part of the US.  It's kind of like computer specs where often things are much more powerful in theory than in practice.