What Countries Would Be Safest In Nuclear War? - Page 3 - GoFuckYourself.com

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

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

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 **********

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 **********

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

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_

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

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 **********

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.

just a punk · 09-10-2014, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

no. it's different due to the amount of ash produced and launched into the atmosphere.

Even a very big volcano can not be compared with a global firestorm

just a punk · 09-10-2014, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

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

Are we talking about the radioactive fallout (as I said already, just add a shell of cobalt and it will do the trick ;)) or about the destruction power? About 15% energy of a ground explosion will turn into a radioactive fallout (a regular nuke w/o a cobalt shell). On the other hand, in case of the high air explosion, there will be no radioactive fallout at all. But once again: it won't be a main problem of the total nuclear war. The global firestorms will finish our civilization. The survivors will envy those who died instantly in the blast area.

Rochard · 09-10-2014, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aka123

Well, hundreds of nukes have already been blasted on Earth's surface. Although it have contributed some change in radiation levels, but not that much.

Yes, but only one at a time. You do ten in a three day spread in North America.... And no place in North America would be safe. Ten more in Russia and no place in Russia is safe, not to mention Europe is going to get the radiation. Then factor in Europe will have to be attacked... Japan and Korea because of US troops... Not much left.

What ever is left will feel the fall out. If the radiation doesn't kill what's left, the nuclear winter that follows most likely will.

2MuchMark · 09-10-2014, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

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.

Using a fake name while spewing your own misguided beliefs as if they are facts may make you feel good about yourself, but your dismissal of the suffering of animals and the environment they need to live as inconsequential makes you fucking dogshit.

dyna mo · 09-10-2014, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

Using a fake name while spewing your own misguided beliefs as if they are facts may make you feel good about yourself, but your dismissal of the suffering of animals and the environment they need to live as inconsequential makes you fucking dogshit.

**********, posting while masturbating about michael bay is not a good look for you.

it makes you look desperate.

Let's get serious for a min here, the rest of us are shooting the shit about an arcane topic which really has no consequence and no real answers. We're all enjoying the to&fro and differing views, again about something that there is no real answer. Yet your getting butthurt about it all.

simmer down.

2MuchMark · 09-10-2014, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

**********, posting while masturbating about michael bay is not a good look for you.

it makes you look desperate.

Let's get serious for a min here, the rest of us are shooting the shit about an arcane topic which really has no consequence and no real answers. We're all enjoying the to&fro and differing views, again about something that there is no real answer. Yet your getting butthurt about it all.

simmer down.

Whatever you say, big guy!

dyna mo · 09-10-2014, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

Whatever you say, big guy!

aka123 · 09-11-2014, 02:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

Yes, but only one at a time. You do ten in a three day spread in North America.... And no place in North America would be safe. Ten more in Russia and no place in Russia is safe, not to mention Europe is going to get the radiation. Then factor in Europe will have to be attacked... Japan and Korea because of US troops... Not much left.

What ever is left will feel the fall out. If the radiation doesn't kill what's left, the nuclear winter that follows most likely will.

I don't know about the one at a time, I think that there have been multiple nukes blasted at the same time. At least for example the Tsar bomba was equivalent of 50-100 common nukes.

Anyhow, no one has said that nuking is safe, but there is a difference between a lot of destruction and death, and between total annihilation. In WWII there died about 73 000 000 people. War is not very safe, with or without nukes. I thought we got that already established.

09-10-2014, 01:39 PM	#101
dyna mo The People's Post Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: invisible 7-11 Posts: 64,888	100 megaton Canadian retards.

09-10-2014, 02:07 PM	#102
aka123 Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2014 Location: 64 00 N, 26 00 E Posts: 4,450	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.

09-10-2014, 03:31 PM	#117
dyna mo The People's Post Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: invisible 7-11 Posts: 64,888	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/