/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
Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu

/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
...
+487
Views: 24921
Favorited: 70
Submitted: 07/05/2013
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to daggry Subscribe to 4chan E-mail to friend submit to reddit
Share image on facebook Share on StumbleUpon Share on Tumblr Share on Pinterest Share on Google Plus E-mail to friend

Comments(57):

[ 57 comments ]

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Show:   Top Rated Controversial Best Lowest Rated Newest Per page:
Order:
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 (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 - xxxsonic fanxxx (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.
#49 - xxxsonic fanxxx (07/06/2013) [-]
yes but the US only needs to nuke high populates areas of china, they aren't gonna nuke the forest, so it should only take 2-3 nukes to obliterate each major city plus one for each smaller one
#41 - xxxsonic fanxxx (07/05/2013) [-]
This website should help clarify matters for you, also its quite fun to use:

[url deleted] /nukemap/
User avatar #33 - zapgod (07/05/2013) [-]
yes but why waste energy covering every inch of china, just take out every large city and china or any other country would still be crippled.
#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.
#30 to #20 - bluejolt (07/05/2013) [-]
What is sauce on that gif? It looks....interesting.
[ 57 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)