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

Forums - Politics - 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

Reading the comments about the Satan 2... what are these weapons for? Alien invasion or something because you don't need that kind of fire power on earth.



Around the Network
CosmicSex said:
Reading the comments about the Satan 2... what are these weapons for? Alien invasion or something because you don't need that kind of fire power on earth.

The USA has enough nukes the kill every single one of the humans 20 times over. Russia has the same amount. Combined they have enough to kill 40 times the population of Earth.

It is the cold war legacy.

To understand the consequence of it, consider just this:

A 2014 report published in the journal Earth's Future found that even a regional war of 100 nuclear detonations would produce 5 teragrams of black soot (that's 5,000,000,000 kg!) that would rise up to Earth's stratosphere and block sunlight. This would produce a sudden drop in global temperatures that could last longer than 25 years and temporarily destroy much of the Earth's protective ozone layer. This could also cause as much as an 80% increase in UV radiation on Earth's surface and destroy both land and sea-based ecosystems, potentially leading to global nuclear famine.



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

WagnerPaiva said:
CosmicSex said:
Reading the comments about the Satan 2... what are these weapons for? Alien invasion or something because you don't need that kind of fire power on earth.

The USA has enough nukes the kill every single one of the humans 20 times over. Russia has the same amount. Combined they have enough to kill 40 times the population of Earth.

It is the cold war legacy.

To understand the consequence of it, consider just this:

A 2014 report published in the journal Earth's Future found that even a regional war of 100 nuclear detonations would produce 5 teragrams of black soot (that's 5,000,000,000 kg!) that would rise up to Earth's stratosphere and block sunlight. This would produce a sudden drop in global temperatures that could last longer than 25 years and temporarily destroy much of the Earth's protective ozone layer. This could also cause as much as an 80% increase in UV radiation on Earth's surface and destroy both land and sea-based ecosystems, potentially leading to global nuclear famine.

Which is really dumb because there is only one earth.  You can only blow it up once.  This is why there is no such thing as a nuclear war.  Because no one wins and everyone dies and to those that inheret the earth, its a devestated heap of death. 



Wait, Hillary would be the one to start a nuclear war? Sure, I believe you...:)



Ariakon said:

Wait, Hillary would be the one to start a nuclear war? Sure, I believe you...:)

It is very easy: the one that tries to destroy Russia is the one that will cause nuclear war. All other countries are child´s play compared to Russia ´s arsenal.

Obama started with the OPEP plan to down gas and oil and Hillary wants to take down Bashar Al Saad, which China and Russia said: if you do it, it is war.

China alone has 250 nukes, Russia has 7000. Hillary says Russia must go down, so, yes, I say she is the one that will do it.

Trump said: let´s work together against ISIS, Clinton created ISIS by arming the rebels, it is easy math.

Is Trump a weirdo? Yes. But at least he will leave Syria alone.

Anyways, there is no remedy right now, the wikileaks emails are clear: the election is rigged and Hillary is a shoe in, does not matter who votes in her. It is decided.

The question is: how much time till nuclear war.



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

Around the Network

Hillary can't possibly start a war, she's an angel! That darn Trump though, man, he says the meanest things!



Faelco said:
NobleTeam360 said:

Lol, I was thinking the same thing. I'm like, I extremly doubt Russia or any country has a nuke capable of destroying that big of an area. 

It's been almost possible for years, since the cold war. The Tsar Bomba exists since 1961 and is able to blow up basically half of a country like France.

 

Nobody ever used it, and nobody will anytime soon. The "if my opponent win, we all die" thing is an election strategy worthy of a 5 years old who never learned about nuclear dissuasion. Nothing to do with Hillary being good at her job or anything, it just won't happen.

Tsar Bomba has a blast radius of about the size of Paris.

Orders of magnitude smaller than half of France.



I LOVE ICELAND!

KungKras said:
Faelco said:

It's been almost possible for years, since the cold war. The Tsar Bomba exists since 1961 and is able to blow up basically half of a country like France.

 

Nobody ever used it, and nobody will anytime soon. The "if my opponent win, we all die" thing is an election strategy worthy of a 5 years old who never learned about nuclear dissuasion. Nothing to do with Hillary being good at her job or anything, it just won't happen.

Tsar Bomba has a blast radius of about the size of Paris.

Orders of magnitude smaller than half of France.

Do not forget this: the Tzar Bomb is 50 years old tech, with no precision delivery. It weighted 27tons. The Satan 2 missile delivers 10 state of the art 10 tons (weight) nukes into a spread area, with pinpoint precision accuracy.

So, yes, overkill.



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

Hopefully she doesn't win.



Assuming Hillary does want to take Russia down, I think there are for more covert ways of doing it that wouldn't involve direct confrontation to Russia. The US excels at stirring up revolutions in other countries to throw out leaders, I'm sure they could do the same to Russia (Of course it would be a lot harder to do and take a lot longer to pull off)

That's just one way, I'm sure there are dozens of other ways that are even better. Of course this is all hypothetical and based on the assumption Hillary does want to take down Russia; which she may want but doesn't mean she will do so.