Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Can ours still obliterate the entire world 11 times over? Yes? So what's the problem? We can't do it faster?   (cnn.com) divider line
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

2004 clicks; posted to Politics » on 21 Apr 2021 at 2:33 PM (2 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



75 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2021-04-21 9:48:19 AM  
If those old style nukes aren't good enough, why are we peeing our pants over North Korea and Iran?
 
2021-04-21 10:58:59 AM  
Eleven's good. True... But wouldn't 12 be better?
 
2021-04-21 11:11:16 AM  
But the deciding factor was when we learned that your country was working along similar lines, and we were afraid of a doomsday gap.

Fark user imageView Full Size


Yes, but the whole point of the doomsday machine is lost if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world?
 
2021-04-21 11:20:48 AM  
The top US military official who runs the American nuclear arsenal

This is the person in charge of the budget for the American nuclear arsenal, yes?

Why are they opining?  They should be taking orders, not bloviating for a bigger budget.

And if they want more money, should scare mongering on CNN be the way to get it?  What kind of people are these?  I'm not sure I want them handling nuclear weapons.  They're highly irresponsible.
 
2021-04-21 12:34:10 PM  

edmo: If those old style nukes aren't good enough, why are we peeing our pants over North Korea and Iran?


Because there is a concern that those countries may not be "rational actors"
 
2021-04-21 2:37:32 PM  
Maybe we can reconstitute the nuclear ramjet bomber that once it drops its nukes, just flies around Russia for a few years spitting out radiation.
 
2021-04-21 2:38:50 PM  
Oh, thank god!  I was so worried we might actually get a moment to spend money on the US infrastructure.  Back to bomb-buying!
 
2021-04-21 2:40:06 PM  

johnny_vegas: edmo: If those old style nukes aren't good enough, why are we peeing our pants over North Korea and Iran?

Because there is a concern that those countries may not be "rational actors"


Did you forget who you have in elected office right now?  Or who was in charge of your country in 1980, 2000, and 2016?
 
2021-04-21 2:41:40 PM  
Advances in the area of nuclear weaponry are just terrible no matter which country it comes from. Armageddon devices simply have no good reason to exist
 
2021-04-21 2:42:52 PM  
The top US military official who runs the American nuclear arsenal warned that China and Russia are modernizing their nuclear weapons and capabilities faster than the US, saying during a congressional hearing on Tuesday that if it does not start investing more in nuclear defense and infrastructure, the US will be "at risk of losing credibility in the eyes of our adversaries. those lavish, defense contractor all-paid party junkets he's come to know and love, complete with booze, steak and hookers, will become a thing of the past.  He'd hate to see a thigh-gap gap develop.
 
2021-04-21 2:43:49 PM  
"Without the recapitalization of the existing weapons we risk obsolescence and irrelevance, and we could reach a point where no amount of money will adequately mitigate the operational risks we'll be facing," he said.

Bezos and Gates have money. Ask them. Schulz. Ballmer. I haven't even left Washington state yet. Maybe they can do a bake sale for you.

Washington Billionaires Got $151 Billion Richer Over First 10 Months of Pandemic, Their Collective Wealth Jumping Nearly One-Half
 
2021-04-21 2:44:15 PM  
We put Rick Perry in charge of nukes stockpile. Has anyone checked that he didn't trade them for magic beans?
 
2021-04-21 2:44:24 PM  

Murkanen: johnny_vegas: edmo: If those old style nukes aren't good enough, why are we peeing our pants over North Korea and Iran?

Because there is a concern that those countries may not be "rational actors"

Did you forget who you have in elected office right now?  Or who was in charge of your country in 1980, 2000, and 2016?


Thanks for your concern
 
2021-04-21 2:44:48 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size


/is tongue tied he's so upset with subby
 
2021-04-21 2:45:16 PM  
Oh look, the military suddenly found threats abroad when they felt their budget was threatened.  This type of bullshiat needs to become punishable just like public criticism of public officials, look up Revolt of the Admirals as to why that happened.
 
2021-04-21 2:46:02 PM  

johnny_vegas: edmo: If those old style nukes aren't good enough, why are we peeing our pants over North Korea and Iran?

Because there is a concern that those countries may not be "rational actors"


Add up the number of civilians we've killed with nukes, and then add up the number of civilians every other country combined has killed with nukes. Which number is higher?
 
2021-04-21 2:46:25 PM  
The top US military official who runs the American nuclear arsenal warned that China and Russia are modernizing their nuclear weapons and capabilities faster than the US, saying during a congressional hearing on Tuesday that if it does not start investing more in nuclear defense and infrastructure, the US will be "at risk of losing credibility in the eyes of our adversaries."

The head of a department states that his/her department needs more resources.  Welcome to every large organization.
 
2021-04-21 2:47:20 PM  

splelps: Advances in the area of nuclear weaponry are just terrible no matter which country it comes from. Armageddon devices simply have no good reason to exist


Agreed.  Knowing what we have since at least the 1980s, on the effects of Nuclear Winter, you cannot win a nuclear war.  Even if some nation bombarded all our bases and cities and we made zero response, they would be devastated as their skies darkened from the stratospheric soot from our millions of dead.
 
2021-04-21 2:48:09 PM  
USSR: Let's use communism to seize our means of production from the hands of capitalists!

USSR: Let's start an arms race against goat herders abroad and our own people at home!

Americans, 1990: Yay, we bankrupted the USSR with an arms race! Capitalism works!

Americans, 1995: Literally because of Walmart's pricing, we will move the all our consumer product production to communist China and Free Trade Zones like that city in the Philippines.

Americans, 2002: Let's start an arms race against goat herders abroad and our own people at home!

Americans, 2021: Oh no China is bankrupting us in our arms race!
 
2021-04-21 2:48:34 PM  

johnny_vegas: Murkanen: johnny_vegas: edmo: If those old style nukes aren't good enough, why are we peeing our pants over North Korea and Iran?

Because there is a concern that those countries may not be "rational actors"

Did you forget who you have in elected office right now?  Or who was in charge of your country in 1980, 2000, and 2016?

Thanks for your concern


I wasn't talking about Biden, champ.  I was talking about Representative Space Lasers and her cohort of rancid assholes in Congress.
 
2021-04-21 2:49:03 PM  
DUH -- the whole point is to do it faster, subby!

Get them before they have a chance to get you.
 
2021-04-21 2:50:46 PM  

johnny_vegas: edmo: If those old style nukes aren't good enough, why are we peeing our pants over North Korea and Iran?

Because there is a concern that those countries may not be "rational actors"


What is the differentiating line for "rational" in: Global Thermonuclear War?

They don't have a big screen?
 
2021-04-21 2:51:05 PM  
It's actually fairly amazing no other countries have used Atomic/Nuclear weapons in war.
 
2021-04-21 2:51:05 PM  
Subby, the point is not how much of the world one can turn into rubble, the point is how high can one then make the rubble bounce.

Whoever has the best bouncies wins.

Do you know nothing of nuclear strategy?
 
2021-04-21 2:54:39 PM  

Bennie Crabtree: USSR: Let's use communism to seize our means of production from the hands of capitalists!

USSR: Let's start an arms race against goat herders abroad and our own people at home!

Americans, 1990: Yay, we bankrupted the USSR with an arms race! Capitalism works!

Americans, 1995: Literally because of Walmart's pricing, we will move the all our consumer product production to communist China and Free Trade Zones like that city in the Philippines.

Americans, 2002: Let's start an arms race against goat herders abroad and our own people at home!

Americans, 2021: Oh no China is bankrupting us in our arms race!


🎶It's the circle of strife🎶
 
2021-04-21 2:55:03 PM  

Murkanen: johnny_vegas: Murkanen: johnny_vegas: edmo: If those old style nukes aren't good enough, why are we peeing our pants over North Korea and Iran?

Because there is a concern that those countries may not be "rational actors"

Did you forget who you have in elected office right now?  Or who was in charge of your country in 1980, 2000, and 2016?

Thanks for your concern

I wasn't talking about Biden, champ.  I was talking about Representative Space Lasers and her cohort of rancid assholes in Congress.


media3.giphy.comView Full Size
 
2021-04-21 2:55:45 PM  

NathanAllen: It's actually fairly amazing no other countries have used Atomic/Nuclear weapons in war.


That was actually explained in a book published as a "novel" back in 1970 called The Jesus Factor, it's a pretty good read.

Study it out...
 
2021-04-21 2:56:57 PM  

LL316: johnny_vegas: edmo: If those old style nukes aren't good enough, why are we peeing our pants over North Korea and Iran?

Because there is a concern that those countries may not be "rational actors"

Add up the number of civilians we've killed with nukes, and then add up the number of civilians every other country combined has killed with nukes. Which number is higher?


You may not have liked the answer, but there you go
 
2021-04-21 2:57:15 PM  
The planet will be fine.

We'll kill humanity, and a decent chunk of life, but Gaia will survive, no problem.
 
2021-04-21 2:57:56 PM  

splelps: Armageddon devices simply have no good reason to exist


i.ytimg.comView Full Size
 
2021-04-21 2:58:11 PM  

Destructor: Eleven's good. True... But wouldn't 12 be better?


Yes.
 
2021-04-21 2:59:09 PM  

splelps: Advances in the area of nuclear weaponry are just terrible no matter which country it comes from. Armageddon devices simply have no good reason to exist


Two reasons: asteroids and aliens

Neither are likely to ever actually be a problem. But if they ever are, we'd rather have nukes as an option than not.
 
2021-04-21 2:59:28 PM  
It is estimated that China has only about 320 warheads

Oh my god. They probably can't even blow up the world.
 
2021-04-21 3:02:30 PM  
pbs.twimg.comView Full Size


/in a weird & exhausted mood
 
2021-04-21 3:02:44 PM  
Are we actually able to launch them?

Some of those systems are ancient....
 
2021-04-21 3:03:42 PM  

Gonz: The planet will be fine.

We'll kill humanity, and a decent chunk of life, but Gaia will survive, no problem.


Not only that but all that free radiation will spur lots of mutations so the evolution of whatever replaces us gets a jump-start!
 
2021-04-21 3:05:03 PM  

meat0918: Are we actually able to launch them?

Some of those systems are ancient....


B-52s are pretty ancient but I don't want a flock of them pissed at me...
 
2021-04-21 3:05:23 PM  
I might be mistaken, but updates to nuclear weapons tend to exist to make them some combination of,
1) Longer range, this allows them to retaliate without needing to place missile bases, submarines, and aircraft in the other super power's sphere of influence.
2) Higher velocity, allowing weapons to avoid counter measures in order to hit their targets, this can also mean a first strike hitting before a counter strike can be launched, potentially allowing for a killing blow first strike victory.
3) Faster deployment, allowing for a counter strike to be launched before a site is destroyed by an initial attack.
4) Greater Accuracy, this is the one that is good for humanity.  It means less incidental explosions and more of a chance of the disparate and rural populations to survive the nuclear war... They are still farked, but the initial slavo is less chaotic.
5) Less Residual Radiation, also good in that it means the planet will not be rendered uninhabitable by radiation... I mean the loss of infrastructure due to all the military bases and cities being destroyed means that people will suffer unimaginable harm from famine and other widespread issues due to lack of coordination, communication, imports, exports, and utilities... but you know, not too many mutations.

Anyone know of any other improvements?  And what they mean for the lingering issue of nuclear holocaust?
 
2021-04-21 3:06:26 PM  

Jubeebee: splelps: Advances in the area of nuclear weaponry are just terrible no matter which country it comes from. Armageddon devices simply have no good reason to exist

Two reasons: asteroids and aliens

Neither are likely to ever actually be a problem. But if they ever are, we'd rather have nukes as an option than not.


but haven't we proven that both of those can be taken care of with hastily-assembled ragtag teams?
 
2021-04-21 3:08:56 PM  

Murkanen: johnny_vegas: edmo: If those old style nukes aren't good enough, why are we peeing our pants over North Korea and Iran?

Because there is a concern that those countries may not be "rational actors"

Did you forget who you have in elected office right now?  Or who was in charge of your country in 1980, 2000, and 2016?


Which countries did Trump invade?  (I'll give a hint - It's 0).

Bill Clinton and Obama did more than their share of bombing of brown people.
 
2021-04-21 3:09:49 PM  

LL316: johnny_vegas: edmo: If those old style nukes aren't good enough, why are we peeing our pants over North Korea and Iran?

Because there is a concern that those countries may not be "rational actors"

Add up the number of civilians we've killed with nukes, and then add up the number of civilians every other country combined has killed with nukes. Which number is higher?


On the other hand, the U.S. also holds the record for length of time spent having nukes and not using them in anger.
 
2021-04-21 3:10:00 PM  

Rocketboy1313: Anyone know of any other improvements?


Also countermeasures.
 
2021-04-21 3:10:53 PM  

Rocketboy1313: I might be mistaken, but updates to nuclear weapons tend to exist to make them some combination of,
1) Longer range, this allows them to retaliate without needing to place missile bases, submarines, and aircraft in the other super power's sphere of influence.
2) Higher velocity, allowing weapons to avoid counter measures in order to hit their targets, this can also mean a first strike hitting before a counter strike can be launched, potentially allowing for a killing blow first strike victory.
3) Faster deployment, allowing for a counter strike to be launched before a site is destroyed by an initial attack.
4) Greater Accuracy, this is the one that is good for humanity.  It means less incidental explosions and more of a chance of the disparate and rural populations to survive the nuclear war... They are still farked, but the initial slavo is less chaotic.
5) Less Residual Radiation, also good in that it means the planet will not be rendered uninhabitable by radiation... I mean the loss of infrastructure due to all the military bases and cities being destroyed means that people will suffer unimaginable harm from famine and other widespread issues due to lack of coordination, communication, imports, exports, and utilities... but you know, not too many mutations.

Anyone know of any other improvements?  And what they mean for the lingering issue of nuclear holocaust?


Improving accuracy also means you can get the job done with a lower yield, so you can just turn down the Dial-A-Yield wheel...
 
2021-04-21 3:15:34 PM  

splelps: Jubeebee: splelps: Advances in the area of nuclear weaponry are just terrible no matter which country it comes from. Armageddon devices simply have no good reason to exist

Two reasons: asteroids and aliens

Neither are likely to ever actually be a problem. But if they ever are, we'd rather have nukes as an option than not.

but haven't we proven that both of those can be taken care of with hastily-assembled ragtag teams?


Yes, but those poorly-trained schlubs always end up hand-deploying nukes at critical moments to save the world. You don't leave a hammer out of your toolbox just because someone might use it to murder tens of millions of people on a whim.
 
2021-04-21 3:18:21 PM  

Rocketboy1313: I might be mistaken, but updates to nuclear weapons tend to exist to make them some combination of,
1) Longer range, this allows them to retaliate without needing to place missile bases, submarines, and aircraft in the other super power's sphere of influence.
2) Higher velocity, allowing weapons to avoid counter measures in order to hit their targets, this can also mean a first strike hitting before a counter strike can be launched, potentially allowing for a killing blow first strike victory.
3) Faster deployment, allowing for a counter strike to be launched before a site is destroyed by an initial attack.
4) Greater Accuracy, this is the one that is good for humanity.  It means less incidental explosions and more of a chance of the disparate and rural populations to survive the nuclear war... They are still farked, but the initial slavo is less chaotic.
5) Less Residual Radiation, also good in that it means the planet will not be rendered uninhabitable by radiation... I mean the loss of infrastructure due to all the military bases and cities being destroyed means that people will suffer unimaginable harm from famine and other widespread issues due to lack of coordination, communication, imports, exports, and utilities... but you know, not too many mutations.

Anyone know of any other improvements?  And what they mean for the lingering issue of nuclear holocaust?


Also, too, one of the worst things the anti-nuclear movement ever did was, with Soviet help, kill the "Neutron" bomb. Properly known as the Enhanced Radiation Weapon it was designed to kill tank crews by devoting most of its energy budget to initial radiation, thereby reducing blast and residual radiation, leaving a battlefield littered with tanks full of dead crews but minimal collateral damage, a good idea when the battles were expected to be fought in Germany.

The Soviets, with a willing assist from some who knew better, framed it as intended to kill the inhabitants of cities while leaving the infrastructure intact for American take-over for use as disco party venues. It worked. Congress killed the ERW and if any were actually deployed without the American Public knowing I don't know anything about it and wouldn't be able to comment if I did.
 
2021-04-21 3:20:40 PM  

Wobambo: [pbs.twimg.com image 815x593]

/in a weird & exhausted mood


Easy there, friendo.  No need to rush our extinction.  Climate change has a chance for that.
 
2021-04-21 3:21:44 PM  
The US's Minuteman missiles are approaching 60 years old. Russia is debuting several new ICBMs like the Satan II and China debuted the DF-41 very recently as well.

Would you drive a 60-year old car that you never took out of the garage in all that time?

Ask yourself why Russia and China are modernizing their arsenals, and think about the fact that our arsenal being equal to theirs is what stops them from using it. Then realize our arsenal will no longer be equal to theirs, and realize that the world then becomes what Russia and China dictate.
 
2021-04-21 3:33:23 PM  
We're always working towards ballistic missile defense.  I'm sure we're getting closer and closer.  Ballistic missiles will have to be craftier in order to avoid destruction.

I'm sure russia and china are working towards missile defense as well...or maybe they're just waiting for us to figure it out so they can steal it.  Either way, if our delivery systems aren't crafty enough to avoid destruction but theirs are then we're at a strategic disadvantage.
 
2021-04-21 3:33:26 PM  
In a pissing contest, there is no room for logic
 
2021-04-21 3:34:16 PM  

Bennie Crabtree: USSR: Let's use communism to seize our means of production from the hands of capitalists!

USSR: Let's start an arms race against goat herders abroad and our own people at home!

Americans, 1990: Yay, we bankrupted the USSR with an arms race! Capitalism works!

Americans, 1995: Literally because of Walmart's pricing, we will move the all our consumer product production to communist China and Free Trade Zones like that city in the Philippines.

Americans, 2002: Let's start an arms race against goat herders abroad and our own people at home!

Americans, 2021: Oh no China is bankrupting us in our arms race!


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
Displayed 50 of 75 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.