Jump to content

WWIII - Oh teh noes...


M_D_K_48117

Recommended Posts

I wasn't talking about dropping atomic bombs on naval ships lol.

 

 

 

The statement was that no country could overpower the US, maybe not in a head-to-head battle using only traditional weapons, but with nukes and atomic bombs of course Russia or China could "over-power" the US. The US could be completely annihilated in a war, it would just require the whole world to be destroyed in the process.

 

 

 

It irks me when people think that the world is going to be destroyed in a modern 3rd world war. Speaking hypothetically, lets suppose Russia and China [despite them hating each other] team up against the US and the EU, and fight a world war, and lets say all the countries involved get their major cities and government offices taken down. Even in the countries involved in the war, there will still be millions of people left in the US, as well as all the other countries. No one would bomb North Dakota, no one gives a [cabbage] about North Dakota, as well as many other states. Even if they bombed all the major cities in California, there would still be thousands of people there. Same goes for Russia, there are people that live all over the place in Russia. Same goes for China, and Europe.

 

 

 

And this is just counting the countries involved. Granted, there's still Canada, all of South America, all of Africa, all of Australia, some of Europe and America, and all of Antarctica, in case subzero temperatures are your thing. Not to mention the rest Asia [minus Russia and China]

happiehour.jpeg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 134
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I wasn't talking about dropping atomic bombs on naval ships lol.

 

 

 

The statement was that no country could overpower the US, maybe not in a head-to-head battle using only traditional weapons, but with nukes and atomic bombs of course Russia or China could "over-power" the US. The US could be completely annihilated in a war, it would just require the whole world to be destroyed in the process.

 

 

 

It irks me when people think that the world is going to be destroyed in a modern 3rd world war. Speaking hypothetically, lets suppose Russia and China [despite them hating each other] team up against the US and the EU, and fight a world war, and lets say all the countries involved get their major cities and government offices taken down. Even in the countries involved in the war, there will still be millions of people left in the US, as well as all the other countries. No one would bomb North Dakota, no one gives a [cabbage] about North Dakota, as well as many other states. Even if they bombed all the major cities in California, there would still be thousands of people there. Same goes for Russia, there are people that live all over the place in Russia. Same goes for China, and Europe.

 

 

 

And this is just counting the countries involved. Granted, there's still Canada, all of South America, all of Africa, all of Australia, some of Europe and America, and all of Antarctica, in case subzero temperatures are your thing.

 

 

 

I believe those people are talking about the effects of atom bombs. Sure the bomb itself wouldn't hit a desolite region of the world, but the radiation could have an effect on their water, food, etc. (depending on where the bomb went off and several other variables) Also, a high amount of radiation would destory our environment in general. There's always a chance that people would be left, but not without consequences (ranging between genetic make up and standard of living).

Cowards can't block Warriors.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe those people are talking about the effects of atom bombs. Sure the bomb itself wouldn't hit a desolite region of the world, but the radiation could have an effect on their water, food, etc. (depending on where the bomb went off and several other variables) Also, a high amount of radiation would destory our environment in general. There's always a chance that people would be left, but not without consequences (ranging between genetic make up and standard of living).

 

 

 

It's not actually as bad as you think, for example, a few weeks after the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and radiation emissions from the ground [after the bomb, as the effect of the bomb] were measured and were at surprisingly low levels, and Hiroshima was deemed inhabitable. [Taken from the nonfiction book Hiroshima. Thats out of my memory reading it around 2 weeks ago for school]. Yes, nuclear weapons are more powerful now, but they wont be causing any type of incredibly serious world-spread contamination anytime soon.

happiehour.jpeg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not actually as bad as you think, for example, a few weeks after the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and radiation emissions from the ground [after the bomb, as the effect of the bomb] were measured and were at surprisingly low levels, and Hiroshima was deemed inhabitable. [Taken from the nonfiction book Hiroshima. Thats out of my memory reading it around 2 weeks ago for school]. Yes, nuclear weapons are more powerful now, but they wont be causing any type of incredibly serious world-spread contamination anytime soon.

 

 

 

Let's see...

 

 

 

Hiroshima: "little boy" - from 13 to 16 kilotons

 

Biggest bomb ever used: "Tsar bomba" - 50 megatons

 

Average US bomb: .3 kilotons to 1.2 Megatons

 

 

 

First of all, Little boy was a small nuclear bomb with today's scale. Second, it was one bomb. If someone bombed US for example with nukes, they for sure wouldn't retaliate with only 1 or 2 bombs. Also if we for some reason managed to avoid the fallout, we also would have a risk of a nuclear winter.

 

 

 

In a nuclear war there are no winners, there are only losers. In the worst scenario everyone loses everything.

signaturehoh.jpg

 

I'd rather die for what I believe in than live for anything else.

Name Removed by Administrator ~Turtlefemm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

South Korea doesn't send food to North Korea...

 

 

 

Remind me to never take you seriously

 

 

 

I stand corrected. <.<

Ah, this reminds me about the noob on the Runescape forums who was upset with the quest "Cold War" because apparently his grandparents died in the war. :wall:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

South Korea doesn't send food to North Korea...

 

 

 

Remind me to never take you seriously

 

 

 

I stand corrected. <.<

 

 

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/korea/article ... 64,00.html

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiap ... index.html

 

 

 

They temporary suspended the food aid in 2006 because of the little bombs NK were talking about, tested and so on. However they did send before that AND they are currently sending again. In the other words: you, Sir, are wrong.

signaturehoh.jpg

 

I'd rather die for what I believe in than live for anything else.

Name Removed by Administrator ~Turtlefemm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didnt the russia Invent the Tsar bomb or the hydrogen bomb?

 

Its was like a thoudsand times stronger than the bomb dropped on hiroshima.

 

And the shockwave travels around the earth 3 times.

 

 

 

oo thats ownage

 

but there probably wont be a WWIII

Hey Nicrune007 , Whats Your Username?

twss.jpg

99 Ranged on 2/6/07 99 Hit Points on 9/5/08 99 Defense on 26/4/08 99 Attack on 14/2/09 99 Strength on 25/2/09 99 Slayer on 13/9/09\:D/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didnt the russia Invent the Tsar bomb or the hydrogen bomb?

 

Its was like a thoudsand times stronger than the bomb dropped on hiroshima.

 

And the shockwave travels around the earth 3 times.

 

 

 

oo thats ownage

 

but there probably wont be a WWIII

 

 

 

People after WWI:"Oh there probably won't be a WWII"

 

 

 

Exact same thing you are saying, you never know, but someday, a WWIII will happen.

I shall take my flock underneath my own wing, and kick them right the [bleep] out of the tree. If they were meant to fly, they won't break their necks on the concrete.
So, what is 1.111... equal to?

10/9.

 

Please don't continue.

wm1c2w.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's see...

 

 

 

Hiroshima: "little boy" - from 13 to 16 kilotons

 

Biggest bomb ever used: "Tsar bomba" - 50 megatons

 

Average US bomb: .3 kilotons to 1.2 Megatons

 

 

 

First of all, Little boy was a small nuclear bomb with today's scale. Second, it was one bomb. If someone bombed US for example with nukes, they for sure wouldn't retaliate with only 1 or 2 bombs. Also if we for some reason managed to avoid the fallout, we also would have a risk of a nuclear winter.

 

 

 

Regardless of the power the radioactive half life should be the same when you compare the bombs. As to how intense the initial radiation is when comparing an fusion vs a fission bomb that I am not sure of. As long as initial radiation levels were comparable then his Nagasaki example would still hold true.

Ambassadar.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People after WWI:"Oh there probably won't be a WWII"

 

:lol: .

 

 

 

Hell no. Treaty of Versailles buddeh.

[if you have ever attempted Alchemy by clapping your hands or

by drawing an array, copy and paste this into your signature.]

 

Fullmetal Alchemist, you will be missed. A great ending to a great series.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.