-
ICMag with help from Landrace Warden and The Vault is running a NEW contest in November! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!
G
Guest
Not Hiroshima size much higher yield, multiple warhead multiple target.
Yet "cleaner" their words not mine.
Yet "cleaner" their words not mine.
Mr.Rogers
Member
seriously WHAT the FUCK!! that can't really be true can it? we seriously have enough nukes to destroy russia 1,666 times!?!?!? that's just fuckin insane there's no need for that shit, some warmongering powerhungry military leaders need to be replaced. I wonder how often they are replaced... the president is replaced every 4-10 years but what about the top military leaders that are no doubt corrupt with power after a few years?
W
Wunderkind
so are you guys pissed at the wasted resources of building 10,000 nukes or the fact we have 10,000 nukes?
Because if it's the latter, seriously, who cares. It's not like we're using them.
Because if it's the latter, seriously, who cares. It's not like we're using them.
G
Guest
The US sets an image and the image of having that many nukes is crazyWunderkind said:
Not to mention, it costs almost 20 billion a year to maintain the nukes which could be used for better things, like rebuild every school in the nation, etc
Last edited:
Why, are all the schools broken? The figures are a little distorted considering hiroshima was the first nuke. Fair to say most of them after were considerably stronger. Seems they like BB's and drama more than they do accurate math. They arent going to suddenly abandon them no more than we are going to give up our military.
journies said:
I think that dude ^^^ needs to save his rounds and buy a bbgun. honestly looks like wasted ammo to me...
G
Guest
We know the force of the hiroshima bomb, that that was used as a unit of measurement.Verite said:
The fact is that there is no reason to maintain that many nukes. NO REASON.
And the school argument was used as an example. We could be spending billions more on domestic issues that MATTER rather than keeping all these nukes for no reason whatsoever.
Rather than shell excuses out, why don't you JUSTIFY having the equivalent of 150000 hiroshima bombs? What's it take to wipe out russia, again? 900?
You still dont get the math as much as they dramatize it. They use the first nuke as a measurement because they know it skews the facts when we have bombs that are 20 times and more as powerful as what was dropped on hiroshima.
If you spent half the time looking for solid facts instead of drama ladden bullcrap you might have a serious point. Heres the dramaless accurate version.
Country ................ Warheads active/total
United States ...............5,163 / 9,938
Soviet Union (now Russia) 5,830 / 16,000
United Kingdom ...............<200
France ............................350
China ..............................200
India ............................70-120
Pakistan ........................30-80
North Korea .....................1-10
Israel ...........................75-200 [unconfirmed]
Even at the highest point the US only had 33,000 active nukes back in 1965. Since then they have been constantly reduced in numbers.
" As of 2007, the total number was expected to continue to decline by 30%-50% over the next decade. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_arsenal
Those are the facts, no drama, no bullshit, no 150,000 bombs. What more can you ask for besides a 30-50% reduction? They arent going to get rid of them all until the technology gets better to take them out. Even then they will be used as a deterrent.
If you spent half the time looking for solid facts instead of drama ladden bullcrap you might have a serious point. Heres the dramaless accurate version.
Country ................ Warheads active/total
United States ...............5,163 / 9,938
Soviet Union (now Russia) 5,830 / 16,000
United Kingdom ...............<200
France ............................350
China ..............................200
India ............................70-120
Pakistan ........................30-80
North Korea .....................1-10
Israel ...........................75-200 [unconfirmed]
Even at the highest point the US only had 33,000 active nukes back in 1965. Since then they have been constantly reduced in numbers.
" As of 2007, the total number was expected to continue to decline by 30%-50% over the next decade. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_arsenal
Those are the facts, no drama, no bullshit, no 150,000 bombs. What more can you ask for besides a 30-50% reduction? They arent going to get rid of them all until the technology gets better to take them out. Even then they will be used as a deterrent.
G
Guest
He wasn't talking number of nukes. He was using it as a unit of measurement. Sorry.
All I know is whatever that was coming out of his mouth wasnt factual at all. Facts are it takes an entire army to back a nuclear arsenal. Even if you didnt have one you would still have an army thats still going to take 17 billion a year or more to run. Nukes are probably what kept us from the draft so Im plenty glad for that.
I also know we could 'fix' all the schools by not using that 17 billion to police the rest of the free world too but thats never going to happen either.
I also know we could 'fix' all the schools by not using that 17 billion to police the rest of the free world too but thats never going to happen either.
G
Guest
Verite said:
How do you know it wasn't factual? I'm assuming they added the total force of all the nukes we have and compared it to the force of Hiroshima. Is it REALLY that hard to estimate that? Of course not. Obviously they're not gonna go public with a celeb like that and just spew random crap, they're going to have roughly estimated it. So I trust that number is right. If you wanna go prove it wrong and do the tedious math, go for it, but we know it isn't THAT far off, even if it is "wrong"
And yes taking away bombs means less maintenance, it's simple common sense. Storage, testing, inventory, security, labor, logistics, etc.
And what I took out of the school thing was 'hey, we could be using this money we are wasting on unnecessary nukes and apply it to schools rather than the stupid nukes. At least this would be a positive thing for our society, rather than wasting money on unnecessary weapons."
I didn't actually thing we could fix all schools like a magic wand. Although thats what the guy says I believe, which is stupid, of course. But the point is that this guy is a) telling you something the media NEVER talks about and b)is spreading information to spur people on a topic that is never talked about really. And this is a good thing. We don't need to spend this much money.
He also on that site has another good video
http://www.truemajorityaction.com/oreos/
How do I know it wasnt factual? Easy, because it had people like you running around like a chicken with their head cut off passing misinformation as facts in forums about how we had 17 billion wasted in 150,000 bombs. Thats the whole point of posting dramatic misdirection.
Do you think the guy would have made his overdramatic point if he came out and said the truth and dumped 5200 BBs to represent actual nukes instead of dumping 30000 BB's and making up some bullshit math/old bomb technology crap up? He sure goinked you for a ride but it didnt fool me.
Do you think the guy would have made his overdramatic point if he came out and said the truth and dumped 5200 BBs to represent actual nukes instead of dumping 30000 BB's and making up some bullshit math/old bomb technology crap up? He sure goinked you for a ride but it didnt fool me.
G
Guest
Are you kiddin? If you watch the video you can easily see that it isnt 150k bombs, its the equivalent hiroshima bombs in force/damage/whatever. You haven't had me do anything cept explain over and over what you should have gleaned from the damn vid, man! it isn't anything dramatic - it's a representation using the hiroshima bomb as a freakin unit of measure.
it very damn well works that he used that many bbs because i don't give a crap how many bombs we actually have, and that shouldn't matter - what we need to do is look at how much detonation power we have total.
why would you ever want to just skimp out on total detonation power and further deceive the public by giving them a miniscule number that seems like nothing? people need something to RELATE to and this is the best way to do it - to use Hiroshima, which everyone is familiar with, as a unit of measure. there is nothin deceiving about that.
edit - sorry for sounding so heated, it wasnt intended, id rather apologize than go through and edit it all out, can barely type right now!
it very damn well works that he used that many bbs because i don't give a crap how many bombs we actually have, and that shouldn't matter - what we need to do is look at how much detonation power we have total.
why would you ever want to just skimp out on total detonation power and further deceive the public by giving them a miniscule number that seems like nothing? people need something to RELATE to and this is the best way to do it - to use Hiroshima, which everyone is familiar with, as a unit of measure. there is nothin deceiving about that.
edit - sorry for sounding so heated, it wasnt intended, id rather apologize than go through and edit it all out, can barely type right now!
Last edited:
G
Guest
This country gives TOO MUCH funding to military, period. Schools over war any day. This is sickening. Nice to see you again Ben.
Ok.. you keep on talking about crap that doesnt matter like detonation power when the other fact is its been since 1945 when the last time one of these was detonated during war. Who cares what its detonation power is if its never used??
If your second video is another guy who cant explain shit without some lame drama that misrepresents the facts I think I'll pass.
If your second video is another guy who cant explain shit without some lame drama that misrepresents the facts I think I'll pass.
G
Guest
and it's just soooo incredibly cheap.......beyond cheap.......to dispose of all these nuclear weapons 
the facts are that they are there, it is expensive to remove them, it is expensive to keep them, and all the whining in the world isn't going to make a difference.
The deterance provided by the weapons will be cited by each and every president or congress. Doesn't matter if it's true or not.
At least sitting in the missiles, they're not contaminating our groundwater as much with leaking radioactive material. Those concrete storage casks don't last all that long for the most part.....
don't get me wrong, i'd love to see more money shifted to education and helping the homeless.......just don't see the complete removal of our nuclear arsenal happening too soon.
the facts are that they are there, it is expensive to remove them, it is expensive to keep them, and all the whining in the world isn't going to make a difference.
The deterance provided by the weapons will be cited by each and every president or congress. Doesn't matter if it's true or not.
At least sitting in the missiles, they're not contaminating our groundwater as much with leaking radioactive material. Those concrete storage casks don't last all that long for the most part.....
don't get me wrong, i'd love to see more money shifted to education and helping the homeless.......just don't see the complete removal of our nuclear arsenal happening too soon.
Last edited:
G
Guest
Wtf? The point is that you only need X amount of nuke power to wipe out Y amount of land. So WHY on earth are you gonna justify having ANY more power we need, assuming backups are taken care of? How? I'm curious. How are you gonna tell me that money is being correctly spent...on needless nukes....being maintained....FOREVER? Wtf!?Verite said:
