GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum
Page 3 of 4 < 12 3 4 >
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)
-   Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   What Countries Would Be Safest In Nuclear War? (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=1149653)

Plutocracy 09-10-2014 09:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rummyboy (Post 20220519)
best places in the usa? Holy shit......... I think russia would be safer than the usa.

As for location and self sufficient so that's why:

Canada
australia
new zealand
indonesia
malaysia
what about ireland?
What about iceland?

Most of these countries are in a good location and most have some level of energy/agricultural independence.
canada ;)

aka123 09-10-2014 10:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWB (Post 20221434)
If you are lucky, you'll be vaporized before you even know what happened and won't feel a thing.
Not very lucky in my point of view. As I can't see into future, I will rather have the "painful death", as it might be that it turns out to be just painful and I will die sometimes later. Or not even painful, maybe I will be totally okay.

just a punk 09-10-2014 10:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 20220834)
Anyone that compares a nuclear detonation with Chernobyl does not really understand the difference between an accident and a strategic nuclear weapons.
You are 100% correct here. Looks like Rochard didn't learn in the school :) Chernobyl accident was caused by a steam explosion followed by a massive fire of graphite rods. The Uranium fuel was turned into a dust an thrown far away into the atmosphere. In two words it was the biggest dirty bomb in the history of mankind.

The nuclear weapon does not seriously pollute the environment (course if the warhead has no shell of cobalt, but it's a way another story... ;)) Almost all energy of explosion will be transformed into the shock wave, heat and ionizing radiation. In other words, even a serious nuclear blast will be 1000's times "safer" for the environment. In terms of radioactive contamination, but not a physical damage of course.

just a punk 09-10-2014 10:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 20221470)
That's why there are no longer nukes arsenal with >1mt.
SS-18/Mod 3 are still equipped with 20 Mt warheads.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 20221470)
There will be many places on this planet free from radioactivity from a nuke war.
But it won't be free from a nuclear winter, however... It will be caused not by radiation. It will be caused by massive firestorms which will burn out the cities and forests in Europe, Asia and America. Plants and animals can't exists w/o sun. So I won't agree with you on the quoted above. It will be the end for a whole planet.

aka123 09-10-2014 11:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CyberSEO (Post 20221708)
SS-18/Mod 3 are still equipped with 20 Mt warheads.

But it won't be free from a nuclear winter, however... It will be caused not by radiation. It will be caused by massive firestorms which will burn out the cities and forests in Europe, Asia and America. Plants and animals can't exists w/o sun. So I won't agree with you on the quoted above. It will be the end for a whole planet.
Well, about the nuclear winter. It might be possible at some extent, depending of course about the amount of nukes, fires, etc. However, even on cloudy day sun will pass, dust is heavier of course, but I doubt that there will be that much of it. At least life wont end, as there is much living matter to consume and the nuclear winter will most likely end before the consumable matter is used (many seeds can wait at least tens of years). Not to speak of that Earth has life that is not dependent about sun, although most life is, but there is whole ecosystems based on other energy than sun energy. These ecosystems are on seafloor, and the base source for life in there is volatile Earth's mass.

Also, nuke scorched earth will act as a firewall. Well, anyways, total nuclear war is not the nicest of things.

just a punk 09-10-2014 12:05 PM
Oh, I forgot to mention. Not only Amazon and Siberian forests will die during a nuclear winter, but all the oceanic plankton as well, so the Earth will simple run out of oxygen pretty fast.

aka123 09-10-2014 12:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CyberSEO (Post 20221763)
Oh, I forgot to mention. Not only Amazon and Siberian forests will die during a nuclear winter, but all the oceanic plankton as well, so the Earth will simple run out of oxygen pretty fast.
Why would all the oceanic planktron die? Also, I don't think that all Amazon and Siberian forests would burn. Why would Amazon be on the target at the first place? Or Siberia for large part? That is quite empty space and simply having fires somewhere doesn't burn the whole Earth. Fires are natural part of life, well maybe not made by nukes, but in general.

Just keep the Putin far from the trigger. Will be much easier that way.

dyna mo 09-10-2014 12:19 PM
ANuclear winter is speculation. Much controversy re:nuclear created climate change. One big problem with that assumption is the fact that modern day cities won't erupt into firestorms. No firestorm means no soot and smoke blocking the sun. Other issues also with the assumption.

RummyBoy 09-10-2014 12:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 20221774)
A Nuclear winter is speculation. Much controversy re:nuclear created climate change.
And it has been rejected by many scientists....

JA$ON 09-10-2014 12:56 PM
Aint ever going to happen. NOW, you may get a nut job that buys a dirty bomb or small device, but that would just be a horrific tragedy, not the end of life as we know it.

Mutually assured destruction is a 100% perfect deterrent. Why would a country fire off warheads at another knowing that by the time they were halfway to their target, the other country would have fired back themselves. All you'd get as the first strike country is about 30 min of being top dog before YOUR con tie was blown back to the dark ages as well

thus....no major nuclear war will ever happen 2c

2MuchMark 09-10-2014 01:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 20221470)
again, hollywood movie film science.

Nuclear weapons have been designed to have minimal fallout effect, radioactive fallout is not desired in the design of these weapons, it's not the goal.

That's why there are no longer nukes arsenal with >1mt. The blast does not go high enough to get into prevailing tradewinds, etc, and the half-life of a 1mt bomb means that by the time the radioactive contaminants come back to earth, they've died.

again, it's all documented, the prediction map I supplied earlier is a great example of the facts behind this.


localized/regional damage is the end goal, thus there will be many places that are not radioactive.

Also, many of you seem to think a nuke war means a strategy of mutually assured destruction, and while that is a realistic strategy, it is not THE strategy and it certainly is not the primary, go-to strategy.

There will be many places on this planet free from radioactivity from a nuke war. You might not be lucky enough to be at one or near one, and who knows ahead of time where they may be, but they will exist. the goal in a war is to defeat the enemy, not destroy every place to live on the planet.

Ok phew! For a minute there I thought we had something to worry about. Please tell me where I can sign up for your head-in-the-sand blog. I'm fascinated.

aka123 09-10-2014 01:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JA$ON (Post 20221811)
Aint ever going to happen. NOW, you may get a nut job that buys a dirty bomb or small device, but that would just be a horrific tragedy, not the end of life as we know it.

Mutually assured destruction is a 100% perfect deterrent. Why would a country fire off warheads at another knowing that by the time they were halfway to their target, the other country would have fired back themselves. All you'd get as the first strike country is about 30 min of being top dog before YOUR con tie was blown back to the dark ages as well

thus....no major nuclear war will ever happen 2c
The only problem is that "country" won't decide that, the hieharchy usually ends up to one guy. Like Adolf Hitler. He thought that if the Germans are not strong enough to rule, they deserve to be wiped out. I don't think he would have hesitated so much. We can just hope that the nutjob leaders are surrounded by some reasonable guys, those will either convince him/ her otherwise or take command.

2MuchMark 09-10-2014 01:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 20221774)
ANuclear winter is speculation. Much controversy re:nuclear created climate change. One big problem with that assumption is the fact that modern day cities won't erupt into firestorms. No firestorm means no soot and smoke blocking the sun. Other issues also with the assumption.
Really? Fan-tastic! I was really worried there. Can you imagine all those scientists and simulations getting that so wrong? Dynamo you are a truly special and upstanding person. The more you post the more fascinated I become. Torturing Animals? Meh! Nuclear Fallout? Bah! Oil, Coal, and Lung Cancer? Feh! All nothing to worry about in Dynaworld. Where do I sign up?

aka123 09-10-2014 01:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ********** (Post 20221820)
Ok phew! For a minute there I thought we had something to worry about. Please tell me where I can sign up for your head-in-the-sand blog. I'm fascinated.
No, you have something to worry about, but the fisherman at Tuvaly maybe not so much. Unless he really waits for the next Expendables (might be let down).

aka123 09-10-2014 01:17 PM
Now I got it: Bikini atols. It's nuked already and no one lives there, that it's great place to settle.

dyna mo 09-10-2014 01:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ********** (Post 20221820)
Ok phew! For a minute there I thought we had something to worry about. Please tell me where I can sign up for your head-in-the-sand blog. I'm fascinated.
The adults with an understanding of what's known are having a discussion mark prince. Your looking for the thread on Lego land.

dyna mo 09-10-2014 01:31 PM
I've mentioned this to you before ********** in an effort to help you: the real world isn't like a Transformers/Michael Bay movie.

2MuchMark 09-10-2014 01:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 20221836)
The adults with an understanding of what's known are having a discussion mark prince. Your looking for the thread on Lego land.
I have been completely wrong about you! You are a genius! Not just a genius; A fucking great fantastic incredible wonderful sexy genius!!! You have taken all my fears and cares away, Dynamo! Or should I call you Dr.Mo? Are you a doctor? or a scientist? I bet you are! I bet you've got a certificate of doctorology hanging on your wall! So proud!! No, seriously, Wow, just wow....one day I hope to be a smart as you!

_Richard_ 09-10-2014 01:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RummyBoy (Post 20220408)
Chile - why?

Indonesia - Why not?

Austalia - I agree, it would be a total waste of ammo.

Canada - Why didn't you mention this? Canadians don't have many enemies and its not THAT close to the USA. It would also be a total waste of ammo, I mean why even bother?
we're close to the USA, and we have ports.

dyna mo 09-10-2014 01:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ********** (Post 20221846)
I have been completely wrong about you! You are a genius! Not just a genius; A fucking great fantastic incredible wonderful sexy genius!!! You have taken all my fears and cares away, Dynamo! Or should I call you Dr.Mo? Are you a doctor? or a scientist? I bet you are! I bet you've got a certificate of doctorology hanging on your wall! So proud!! No, seriously, Wow, just wow....one day I hope to be a smart as you!
There is hope for stupid people after all! Nice to see you can embrace reality.

dyna mo 09-10-2014 01:39 PM
100 megaton Canadian retards.

aka123 09-10-2014 02:07 PM
Let's just agree that nuclear war would be very, very shitty thing, but not the end of life in Earth and probably not even the end of humankind. Although might be the end for most of humankind, but not all.

So, the end conclusion doesn't change either way: keep the fingers out of the trigger.

2MuchMark 09-10-2014 02:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 20221855)
100 megaton Canadian retards.
You are truly a mental giant. A obvious professor in a world of Gilligan's. Everyone should listen to every word and read every sentence to commit to the web. I cannot praise you enough. I am humbled sir, HUMBLED I SAY, by your incredible intellect, care and empathy for your fellow man, and all around awesomeness.

just a punk 09-10-2014 02:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 20221774)
ANuclear winter is speculation.
Unfortunately it is not. Even eruption of Yellowstone may cause it. The global nuclear war will launch massive firestorms all over the globe. Some may say that it's impossible in the big cities because the modern buildings won't burn. As far as I remember 9/11 has showed that they burn and burn very intensive. Not mention the forests that will be affected too. Lots of Russian launch sites are located in Siberian taiga. Course they will be nuked and there will be forest firestorms the human civilization has never seen. The same will happen in America (especially in Canada).

Did you see my calculations above? A single 20 Mt explosion will burn out up to 4486 square km directly. The further possible spreading of fire is not even counted... Guys you start panic because of some really small fires in the LA area almost every year. Now imagine it all over the globe involving super huge snowforests and Amazonian area.

dyna mo 09-10-2014 02:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ********** (Post 20221872)
You are truly a mental giant. A obvious professor in a world of Gilligan's. Everyone should listen to every word and read every sentence to commit to the web. I cannot praise you enough. I am humbled sir, HUMBLED I SAY, by your incredible intellect, care and empathy for your fellow man, and all around awesomeness.
you misspelled Gilligans.

mineistaken 09-10-2014 02:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDSmith (Post 20220655)
Discussions like this, it's like it's the 1950's and '60's all over again. :(

Thanks Putin.


I think I'll say Winnipeg, right where I am. I mean seriously, what could possibly be gained by nuking Winnipeg? :D

No, would probably have to move north, I'd say northern Canada 'd be about as safe as anywhere.

I'ma go play FALLOUT now...
How is the land for agriculture in the north?

dyna mo 09-10-2014 02:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CyberSEO (Post 20221877)
Unfortunately it is not. Even eruption of Yellowstone may cause it. The global nuclear war will launch massive firestorms all over the globe. Some may say that it's impossible in the big cities because the modern buildings won't burn. As far as I remember 9/11 has showed that they burn and burn very intensive. Not mention the forests that will be affected too. Lots of Russian launch sites are located in Siberian taiga. Course they will be nuked and there will be forest firestorms the human civilization has never seen. The same will happen in America.

Did you see my calculations above? A single 20 Mt explosion will burn out up to 4486 square km directly. The further spreading of fire is not even counted...
but it is speculation or else there would be proof supporting it, which there is not. Yellowstone eruption is far far different than a nuclear outbreak.

I'm not saying there won't be a nuclear winter, I'm positing that it's unknown. certainly there would be firestorms, enough to create a global nuclear winter is not understood.

just a punk 09-10-2014 02:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 20221892)
Yellowstone eruption is far far different than a nuclear outbreak.
Sure, because it would be just a local accident, while nuclear firestorms will be global. Everything will just burn out, and that's not a speculation.

aka123 09-10-2014 02:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CyberSEO (Post 20221877)
Unfortunately it is not. Even eruption of Yellowstone may cause it.
Even? Without exact numbers I would say that is much worse. That shit is huge, many kilometres big volcano (Wiki says 55-75 km) and it may push smoke and lava for years.

just a punk 09-10-2014 02:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 20221892)
I'm not saying there won't be a nuclear winter, I'm positing that it's unknown. certainly there would be firestorms, enough to create a global nuclear winter is not understood.
Sure there is no proof because nobody does it before (actually who knows, which exactly human generation we are...) When the Soviet Union tested the 50 Mt bomb (an equivalent of 2 "Satan" missiles), they could make it twice more powerful. Krustchev wanted a 100 Mt bomb, but the scientists told him its not a good idea because such an explosion may not stop till it suck out all the oxygen on the planet. That's a historical fact why it was "only" 50 Mt.

dyna mo 09-10-2014 02:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CyberSEO (Post 20221895)
Sure, because it would be just a local accident, while nuclear firestorms will be global. Everything will just burn out, and that's not a speculation.
no. it's different due to the amount of ash produced and launched into the atmosphere. I've yet to see any studies that are conclusive re: the amount of ash produced by a nuclear war. Let alone, realistically comparing it to a yellowstone super eruption.

the amount of ash released in a volcanic super eruption is massive.

aka123 09-10-2014 02:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CyberSEO (Post 20221895)
Sure, because it would be just a local accident, while nuclear firestorms will be global. Everything will just burn out, and that's not a speculation.
Everything won't burn out and even if it would, it wouldn't kill the forests per se. It just kills the competition for bigger trees. Also for example savannah relies on fires to keep the trees out (and turning into forest).

dyna mo 09-10-2014 02:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CyberSEO (Post 20221905)
Sure there is no proof because nobody does it before (actually who knows, which exactly human generation we are...) When the Soviet Union tested their 50 Mt bomb (an equivalent of 2 or 3 "Satan" missiles), they could make it twice more powerful. Krustchev wanted a 100 Mt bomb, but the scientists told him its not a good idea because such an explosion may not stop till it suck out all the oxygen on the planet. That's a hysterical fact why it was "only" 50 Mt.
the russian tzar bomb(s). fascinating history. That detonation is where much was learned about nuclear fallout. It was a big concern but what they realized is it launched the radioactive debris so high into the sky that by the time it came down, due to its half-life, the radioactivity had dissipated.

The castle bravo detonation, which was only 15 mt, had a much worse radioactive fallout due to not reaching that far into the atmosphere.

2MuchMark 09-10-2014 03:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 20221916)
the russian tzar bomb(s). fascinating history. That detonation is where much was learned about nuclear fallout. It was a big concern but what they realized is it launched the radioactive debris so high into the sky that by the time it came down, due to its half-life, the radioactivity had dissipated.

The castle bravo detonation, which was only 15 mt, had a much worse radioactive fallout due to not reaching that far into the atmosphere.
BRILLIANCE!!

Such Scientific accuracy! Such an Analytical Mind! Such a well read individual! You are such a fucking genius!! Move-over Bill Nye the Science Guy, All hail Dyna Mo the Science Joe! He'll learn your kin' a thang or 2, you betcha!

dyna mo 09-10-2014 03:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ********** (Post 20221954)
BRILLIANCE!!

Such Scientific accuracy! Such an Analytical Mind! Such a well read individual! You are such a fucking genius!! Move-over Bill Nye the Science Guy, All hail Dyna Mo the Science Joe! He'll learn your kin' a thang or 2, you betcha!
this post: the sure sign of someone who doesn't have one single fact re: this topic to add to the conversation. it's truly funny how insecure you are in your own doomsday scenario that this is the reaction you have when someone doesn't agree with your "the world is ending" fantasy.


don't worry **********, there's another michael bay movie due out soon enough.

_Richard_ 09-10-2014 03:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CyberSEO (Post 20221905)
Sure there is no proof because nobody does it before (actually who knows, which exactly human generation we are...) When the Soviet Union tested the 50 Mt bomb (an equivalent of 2 "Satan" missiles), they could make it twice more powerful. Krustchev wanted a 100 Mt bomb, but the scientists told him its not a good idea because such an explosion may not stop till it suck out all the oxygen on the planet. That's a historical fact why it was "only" 50 Mt.
dear lord.

'oh, ok, lets go with 50 mt then'

dyna mo 09-10-2014 03:31 PM
It is worth comparing BRAVO to the most powerful nuclear test ever, the Soviet Union's 50-megaton "Tsar Bomba" of 30 October 1961. That test's radiological consequences were far less severe because the "Tsar Bomba's" fireball never touched the earth's surface producing significantly less fallout than BRAVO.

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nukevault/ebb459/

aka123 09-10-2014 03:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Richard_ (Post 20221968)
dear lord.

'oh, ok, lets go with 50 mt then'
Hmm.. I actually watched a document about nukes within like 3 weeks and there was that tzar bomba too, but the reason wasn't oxygen depletion based on that document. Although I don't remember the exact reason stated if there even was some. The scientist just feared unknown consequences.

2MuchMark 09-10-2014 03:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 20221974)
It is worth comparing BRAVO to the most powerful nuclear test ever, the Soviet Union's 50-megaton "Tsar Bomba" of 30 October 1961. That test's radiological consequences were far less severe because the "Tsar Bomba's" fireball never touched the earth's surface producing significantly less fallout than BRAVO.

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nukevault/ebb459/
Every morsel of wisdom you type is more delicious than the one that preceded it. Forget Google! Forget history and science. Dynamo Mo Knows it all!

dyna mo 09-10-2014 03:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ********** (Post 20221978)
Every morsel of wisdom you type is more delicious than the one that preceded it. Forget Google! Forget history and science. Dynamo Mo Knows it all!
actually you trying to be a smartass by quoting my quotes of people much smarter than you and me put together is what's so fucking funny.

either way, it's sad to think you go through life so guilt-ridden with feelings you caused the end of the world and how you could have fixed it if only a gfyer named dyna mo agreed with you. not to mention all those dead birds you carry the burden of.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:54 AM.
Page 3 of 4 < 12 3 4 >
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123