Bitch if you want to win a war aim at the elites of the country not the civilians

Exactly

Elites dont give a fuck about em

The average man does not have the money to buy a shelter and even then it's only a small chance you will be able to get to it before the bombs fall

True

I mean by the time you hear a siren you may only have minutes and whose to say your not out shopping miles from home

You'll become a burnt piece of toast

I just hope the key to turn off the bomb isn't wrapped in plastic...

The thought of nuclear warfare is horrible

I think they should re air the original movie of the day after from the 80s

If you can look up the day after it aired once on television in the 80s during the cold war

@Luftwaffe I remember when that came out...it was very dramatic..

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_After

Exactly

It scared many people

But what many dont realize is how it is completely true

What happens in it will happen

I graduated high school in 83..

I got stuff to do now

Just wanted to put my 2 cents in

What kind of retards think nukes are fake?

Bad

This is a debate not insulting

👍

Sometimes there r questions/comments that r so dum

It makes u say retard

666

🆙 | **Pre-LSD Swamp leveled up!**

Hell yea

Moving on up in the world

@.𝓽𝓱𝓮𝓮𝓬𝓱𝓪𝓭 so long as nukes exist the possibility of use of them exists. something exeedingly more alarming though is out of the 2202 nuclear detonations and tests that were planned theres been roughly 148,000 nuclear involved accidents involving either highlevel waste or a reactor/weapon platform. (not including low level waste pollution or accidents invokving low level waste or low level materials)

like the occurence rate of accidents sjows for every 1 planned usage of nuclear materials there are roughly 70 high level accidents/disasters.

thats pretty alarming and is evidence enough to demonstrate that nuclear energy is by far the most high risk and dangerous variety we have.

More nukes >

hm

NUkeS

asteroid bombardment = 500x yeild vs nukes per metric ton. aka 50,000% greater in damage(per metric ton) and if used right (proper selection in asteroid composition vs how it impacts target destination) no nuckear fallout.

so
asteroids>all nukes @Nickk

@darth_brando but doing that takes far longer then a nuke lol

not really. in 1994 we launched a satelite to photograph and land on asteroid eros. it achieved the softest robotic landing of a space craft in nasa history when it landed in 2001. this was the NEAR space probe project.

meaning in 6 years using 1990s tech you could launch a 16 kilometer asteroid at any target in the solar system and rig a trajectory that obfuscates its approach (such as approaching earth from the day side where we have zero visibility of approaching objects)

vs taking 24 years to get a missile system from R&D to production to launch status.

this means roughly 23 years ago asteroids were still 4x faster to utilize than nukes

*Mob psycho 100*

like sure you technically need an icbm platform to launch a payload into space, usa, russia, UK, China, Japan

all had these since the early to mid 80s.

but like only USA RU and Isreal have H bombs today. attempting to develop a warhead comes After developing the missile platform. developmemt of a nuclear war head is considerably more complex process than a satellite.

also regarding asteroid Eros
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci/tech/401227.stm