Refresh Comments
Anonymous comments allowed.
26 comments displayed.
#10
-
daiemio ONLINE (12/10/2015) [-] The Nuke is actually the WORST kind of a "ideal" weapon, sure its destructive power is unrivaled, but the aftermath of its usage is rubbish, nothing but scorched earth, ruins and radiation, for up to five years nothing will grow there.
A bomb that could somehow only destroy humans at a molecular level would be more ideal.
A bomb that could somehow only destroy humans at a molecular level would be more ideal.
#75 to #10
-
peanutsaurusrex ONLINE (12/10/2015) [-] Hm
Either Destroy all humans in a 3 Milie radius
Or Destroy all humans AAAAAND BUILDINGS in a 3 Mile radius
I'm going to go with the nuke
Because When I'm going to bomb something, I expect nothing to be left
Either Destroy all humans in a 3 Milie radius
Or Destroy all humans AAAAAND BUILDINGS in a 3 Mile radius
I'm going to go with the nuke
Because When I'm going to bomb something, I expect nothing to be left
#78 to #77
-
peanutsaurusrex ONLINE (12/10/2015) [-] What you think the whole world works like Civilization 5?
Do you know how much MORE money it would cost to forcibly take lands from another country?
Do you know how much MORE money it would cost to forcibly take lands from another country?
#79 to #78
-
daiemio ONLINE (12/10/2015) [-] Clearly not, you twat, I'm simply saying, the nuke is ALWAYS a bad choice.. you want to **** someone up, Bio weapons, killer viruses with a kill-switch, ROBOTS, hell, a thermal nuke would be preferable.
I would KILL someone if I could just drop a huge ass napalm bomb and burn away a whole city, then you can just clean up the place, bury the unsightly things and rebuild on top of it.
But a nuke? that will **** up the earth way more then needed, we have already pretty much broken the sea, the rain-forest, the polar caps, AND the ozon layer in the last 200 years or so, the earth ain't going to last us much longer.
I would KILL someone if I could just drop a huge ass napalm bomb and burn away a whole city, then you can just clean up the place, bury the unsightly things and rebuild on top of it.
But a nuke? that will **** up the earth way more then needed, we have already pretty much broken the sea, the rain-forest, the polar caps, AND the ozon layer in the last 200 years or so, the earth ain't going to last us much longer.
#91 to #80
-
anon (12/10/2015) [-]
Yes we ******* did you retard.
They were our excuse
and if you think otherwise then why did we receive word of their attack then, in preparation for their attack, put all of our planes next to eachother in one big easy to hit pile.
....oh wait... it's you peanut... you ******* anti-american troll ************
They were our excuse
and if you think otherwise then why did we receive word of their attack then, in preparation for their attack, put all of our planes next to eachother in one big easy to hit pile.
....oh wait... it's you peanut... you ******* anti-american troll ************
#97 to #91
-
peanutsaurusrex ONLINE (12/10/2015) [-] Fact Check: Yes we did recieve warning, 3 days before. It was a message of Japan "President Franklin D.Roosevelt was warned three days before the attack that the Japanese empire was eyeing up Hawaii with a view to "open conflict."
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8932197/Pearl-Harbour-memo-shows-US-warned-of-Japanese-attack.html
We didn't know ******* six entire aircraft carriers came out of nowhere 3 days later to suicide bomb everything in sight
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8932197/Pearl-Harbour-memo-shows-US-warned-of-Japanese-attack.html
We didn't know ******* six entire aircraft carriers came out of nowhere 3 days later to suicide bomb everything in sight
#93 to #91
-
peanutsaurusrex ONLINE (12/10/2015) [-] "Yes we wanted war with Japan that's why we totally saw pearl harbor coming"
#41 to #10
-
innocentbabies (12/10/2015) [-]
That's the whole point.
"The day when two army corps can annihilate each other in one second, all civilized nations, it is to be hoped, will recoil from war and discharge their troops."
It's not perfect, but since Mutually Assured Destruction came about, we've entered the most peaceful era in human history. It's a psychological weapon more than it is a practical weapon. The nukes we dropped on Japan did much less damage than the conventional bombs we were dropping at the same time, and yet, they were terrifying enough that the use of those two bombs, killing less than a quarter of a million people, are more terrifying than the bombs that killed well over a million during the rest of the war.
"The day when two army corps can annihilate each other in one second, all civilized nations, it is to be hoped, will recoil from war and discharge their troops."
It's not perfect, but since Mutually Assured Destruction came about, we've entered the most peaceful era in human history. It's a psychological weapon more than it is a practical weapon. The nukes we dropped on Japan did much less damage than the conventional bombs we were dropping at the same time, and yet, they were terrifying enough that the use of those two bombs, killing less than a quarter of a million people, are more terrifying than the bombs that killed well over a million during the rest of the war.
#67 to #21
-
horsecrab (12/10/2015) [-] You might be thinking of a Neutron bomb. It's basically a nuclear bomb with far more of its energy put into radiation with a short half life, instead of heat and blast. The Neutron bomb would blast the area with a radiation pulse 6-9x as powerful as an equivalent yield nuclear weapon. This exterminates all biological life while leaving the buildings and vehicles mostly intact. The radiation dissipates to safe levels almost immediately. They were designed for tactical use against invading armies such as a potential Soviet tank assault into Germany, a situation which might require using nuclear bombs over your own land.
#22 to #21
-
heartlessrobot (12/10/2015) [-] Nope, nevermind.
Don't know what I was thinking of then.
Don't know what I was thinking of then.
#13 to #10
-
EdwardNigma 
(12/10/2015) [-] No one said its ideal. No weapon is, they're all situational.
A bomb that would only kill humans in its radius would be useful if you were going to invade.
But in the case of WW2, the goal was not to invade, the point was to AVOID invading Japan by forcing them to surrender. A nuclear bomb did just that, as it inspired terror, killed a ******** of people in an instant and showed the United States was not **** assing around.
A bomb that would only kill humans in its radius would be useful if you were going to invade.
But in the case of WW2, the goal was not to invade, the point was to AVOID invading Japan by forcing them to surrender. A nuclear bomb did just that, as it inspired terror, killed a ******** of people in an instant and showed the United States was not **** assing around.
#14 to #13
-
daiemio ONLINE (12/10/2015) [-] Its still a weapon that's kept around and being tested almost for NO practical reason what so ever then to try and improve on the already broken design, sure, the US and Russia probably have 30,000 of these ******* ready to blow up the entire world if WW3 ever starts, but I would rather see them dismantled and studies being put in bombs that don't ruin the entire environment from their usage.
#15 to #14
-
EdwardNigma (12/10/2015) [-] But thats the thing!
More nukes = Less chance of one ever being fired.
If one nuke flies, they all fly, world leaders know this. They're not willing to risk the absolute destruction of the world.
That aside, if you're going to make a weapon that kills hundreds of thousands of people at once, I really don't think you've got any right to be saying "no but we need to make sure it doesn't hurt the environment"
Go hard or go home.
More nukes = Less chance of one ever being fired.
If one nuke flies, they all fly, world leaders know this. They're not willing to risk the absolute destruction of the world.
That aside, if you're going to make a weapon that kills hundreds of thousands of people at once, I really don't think you've got any right to be saying "no but we need to make sure it doesn't hurt the environment"
Go hard or go home.
#47 to #15
-
daiemio ONLINE (12/10/2015) [-] **daiemio used "*roll picture*"**
**daiemio rolled image**Look, dude, I'm all for Mass extermination, the human race is numerous as it is, we could afford to wipe off the US, Russia, or even China off the map and still have enough people, technology and viable farmland to last the rest of us, but think about it, if we radiate a THIRD of the entire world, we're basically bending us over and ******* ourselves in the ass.
I hate to say it, but a phyric victory is not a ideal win.
**daiemio rolled image**Look, dude, I'm all for Mass extermination, the human race is numerous as it is, we could afford to wipe off the US, Russia, or even China off the map and still have enough people, technology and viable farmland to last the rest of us, but think about it, if we radiate a THIRD of the entire world, we're basically bending us over and ******* ourselves in the ass.
I hate to say it, but a phyric victory is not a ideal win.
