/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: 25004
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) [+] (16 replies)
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.
#21 - teamrocketninja (07/05/2013) [+] (1 reply)
Butt why?
#35 - shishiko **User deleted account** (07/05/2013) [-]
OP comes back like   
   
"dez 			*******		"
OP comes back like

"dez ******* "
#27 - brainy (07/05/2013) [+] (2 replies)
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 #44 - christheace (07/05/2013) [-]
[] NOT OWNED
[] OWNED
[X] ******* OWNED
[X] TOLD LIKE A BITCH

^^^ Saving for future copy paste needs
+4
#1 - velvetunderground has deleted their comment [-]
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.
#48 - SirSheepy ONLINE (07/06/2013) [+] (1 reply)
>implying the fall out wouldn't take out almost all of the rest of China.
#32 - giggleassasin (07/05/2013) [-]
But.. radiation...
User avatar #52 - ishallsmiteyou (07/06/2013) [+] (1 reply)
That's the blast radius, but think of all the radiation. China would not be destroyed, but completely irradiated.
#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.
#58 - anonymous (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.
0
#39 - casadue has deleted their comment [-]
#20 - dehymenator (07/05/2013) [+] (4 replies)
This guy totally ignores the concussive blast radius (high pressure wave) and the spread of large ammounds of radioactive debris that will do significantly more damage over time than the blast its self over a much wider area.
This guy totally ignores the concussive blast radius (high pressure wave) and the spread of large ammounds of radioactive debris that will do significantly more damage over time than the blast its self over a much wider area.
User avatar #25 to #20 - masdercheef ONLINE (07/05/2013) [-]
and the fact that the population isn't spread out evenly across the entire area of the country. Target population centers.
#19 - anonymous (07/05/2013) [-]
Um, America has bombs over 500 times the one's dropped on Hiroshima, so yeah..300 kilatons is nothing..
#18 - anonymous (07/05/2013) [+] (1 reply)
The 5,113 warheads in the stockpile do not account for all assembled nuclear warheads currently in the U.S. inventory. We estimate that there is an additional 4,500 retired warheads in storage awaiting dismantlement for a total inventory of approximately 9,600 warheads.

[ 57 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)