America - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter ///M-Spec
  • 37,983 comments
  • 1,482,611 views
Who's 'we' and why are they nuking New York?

1708632788119.png



"Tsar Bomba" is American.... right?




Oh.
 
So it we have the bomb, is Trump saying he's going to use it on NYC? If he has to sell his properties in NYC to cover all these judgements against him, I wouldn't put it past him.
 
Unsurprisingly, there is no nuclear weapon that you can detonate in (more accurately, over) New York and have it make South Carolina "just gone". There isn't a nuclear weapon big enough to detonate in South Carolina and make South Carolina gone either.

I'd need to do some really stupid calculations, then give up, ask a proper nuclear physicist, have them stare at me in disbelief and go "Okay... but you know that would be more nukes than all the nukes we have and can possibly have given the amount of material we have on Earth to make them, and also it would probably strip the Earth's atmosphere entirely and render the whole 'destructive power' thing moot, right?", but a quick fag-packet calculation suggests you'd need to detonate something close to a teraton of a 99%+ fusion fraction warhead at more than 100,000ft over New York (for maximum destructive power, minimum fallout) to flatten South Carolina.

And I'm not sure how blowing something like that up in the stratosphere would even work, but I'd guess it would have fewer destructive effects from overpressure on the ground and more "setting the entire power grid of the western hemisphere on fire, but also probably setting the entire planet's atmosphere on fire" effects. Also it's about 500 times larger on its own than all the warheads we have on the planet combined (a rough guess, but in about the right order of magnitude ballpark).

But it's hardly the first time Trump has proven incapable of estimating the yield of nuclear weapons (among many other things of which he's equally incapable) after his suggestion in 2019 of nuking hurricanes to slow/stop them. The USA's largest single warhead right now is 1.2MT - releasing about 5 PJ (5 x 10^15) of energy. A particularly destructive hurricane releases that every 40 seconds...
 
Yeah. For the same reason.
Whatever things I list will just be used as fodder to ridicule me.
Maybe that's because your reasons are ridiculous. And you know this, because that's why you won't talk about them. But you still for whatever reason want people to respect you and your opinion that are based on these ridiculous reasons.

If you want someone who will admire and love you no matter what, get a dog. Or if what you actually secretly enjoy being negged and told that your opinions are **** and everything you do is wrong, get a cat.
 
Yeah. For the same reason.
Whatever things I list will just be used as fodder to ridicule me.
Well, supporting Trump is ridiculous in itself so it’s kind of hard to avoid.

I can understand why some people may have found him an interesting choice the first time (a wild card, something new, a “successful” businessman, a billionaire that’s somehow not considered to be part of “the establishment”, etc) but now that we have seen who he is and what he has done and what consequences it has had I can’t understand how a reasonable person could support him.

Four years of chaos, bullying, lies and egomania, ending with an attempted coup that nearly had the vice president killed for doing his constitutional duty and could have been the start of a new civil war. And yet there are people who would want to vote for that guy again? How is that possible?
 
Wonder whether this Fox News broadcast is what prompted sturk's tirade. If Kayleigh McEnany backs him up, it must be true. After all, real people know Trump was a way better president than Obama or Biden, right? I'm surprised she didn't use the phrase "normal people" instead.



Screenshot_20240223_144424_Chrome.jpg
 
Last edited:
Is this a joke? Any ranking that has Biden higher than 46 has to be satire.
There's no way that any president could have been worse than him.
Whoever defends him is either delusional or disingenuous.

Unsurprisingly, there is no nuclear weapon that you can detonate in (more accurately, over) New York and have it make South Carolina "just gone". There isn't a nuclear weapon big enough to detonate in South Carolina and make South Carolina gone either.

I'd need to do some really stupid calculations, then give up, ask a proper nuclear physicist, have them stare at me in disbelief and go "Okay... but you know that would be more nukes than all the nukes we have and can possibly have given the amount of material we have on Earth to make them, and also it would probably strip the Earth's atmosphere entirely and render the whole 'destructive power' thing moot, right?", but a quick fag-packet calculation suggests you'd need to detonate something close to a teraton of a 99%+ fusion fraction warhead at more than 100,000ft over New York (for maximum destructive power, minimum fallout) to flatten South Carolina.

And I'm not sure how blowing something like that up in the stratosphere would even work, but I'd guess it would have fewer destructive effects from overpressure on the ground and more "setting the entire power grid of the western hemisphere on fire, but also probably setting the entire planet's atmosphere on fire" effects. Also it's about 500 times larger on its own than all the warheads we have on the planet combined (a rough guess, but in about the right order of magnitude ballpark).

But it's hardly the first time Trump has proven incapable of estimating the yield of nuclear weapons (among many other things of which he's equally incapable) after his suggestion in 2019 of nuking hurricanes to slow/stop them. The USA's largest single warhead right now is 1.2MT - releasing about 5 PJ (5 x 10^15) of energy. A particularly destructive hurricane releases that every 40 seconds...
I like this. I did some further math's and that would be about oh...2x-5x the size of Mt. Everest in deuterium (assuming 167kg / M^3) alone. I'm not remembering how fusion bombs work, but I'm not sure you could even produce enough explosives with all the material on earth to detonate that much deuterium.
 
I like this. I did some further math's and that would be about oh...2x-5x the size of Mt. Everest in deuterium (assuming 167kg / M^3) alone. I'm not remembering how fusion bombs work, but I'm not sure you could even produce enough explosives with all the material on earth to detonate that much deuterium.
I'd have to imagine that even if you reached that point, we'd probably be dead as is.
 
Unsurprisingly, there is no nuclear weapon that you can detonate in (more accurately, over) New York and have it make South Carolina "just gone". There isn't a nuclear weapon big enough to detonate in South Carolina and make South Carolina gone either.

I'd need to do some really stupid calculations, then give up, ask a proper nuclear physicist, have them stare at me in disbelief and go "Okay... but you know that would be more nukes than all the nukes we have and can possibly have given the amount of material we have on Earth to make them, and also it would probably strip the Earth's atmosphere entirely and render the whole 'destructive power' thing moot, right?", but a quick fag-packet calculation suggests you'd need to detonate something close to a teraton of a 99%+ fusion fraction warhead at more than 100,000ft over New York (for maximum destructive power, minimum fallout) to flatten South Carolina.

And I'm not sure how blowing something like that up in the stratosphere would even work, but I'd guess it would have fewer destructive effects from overpressure on the ground and more "setting the entire power grid of the western hemisphere on fire, but also probably setting the entire planet's atmosphere on fire" effects. Also it's about 500 times larger on its own than all the warheads we have on the planet combined (a rough guess, but in about the right order of magnitude ballpark).

But it's hardly the first time Trump has proven incapable of estimating the yield of nuclear weapons (among many other things of which he's equally incapable) after his suggestion in 2019 of nuking hurricanes to slow/stop them. The USA's largest single warhead right now is 1.2MT - releasing about 5 PJ (5 x 10^15) of energy. A particularly destructive hurricane releases that every 40 seconds...
Sounds like an asteroid impact.

For reference, the K-T extinction event asteroid could have unleashed 300 ZJ of kinetic energy.
 
This has been a complete disaster for large chunks of the US yesterday and today. I needed an antibiotic and couldn't get it because almost no healthcare system is set up anymore for paper scripts (thanks to drug abusers). This just shows how vulnerable some of our systems are and how if an enemy nation wants to cause chaos and harm to the US, they don't need to fire a single shot.

 
Wonder whether this Fox News broadcast is what prompted sturk's tirade. If Kayleigh McEnany backs him up, it must be true. After all, real people know Trump was a way better president than Obama or Biden, right? I'm surprised she didn't use the phrase "normal people" instead.



View attachment 1330683

Complaining about "ivory tower elites" while earning multi-million dollar incomes at Fox News and related marketing gigs and living comfortably in NYC wearing a dress and heels every single day, having your makeup and hair done for you, etc.

Not many things infuriate me but rich people acting poor is one of them.
 
Complaining about "ivory tower elites" while earning multi-million dollar incomes at Fox News and related marketing gigs and living comfortably in NYC wearing a dress and heels every single day, having your makeup and hair done for you, etc.

Not many things infuriate me but rich people acting poor is one of them.
They really need to change to torn dungarees with straw hats and red baseball caps to host these segments so they can further identify with their target audience :D
 
Last edited:
So you're saying we need to weaponize hurricanes...
Or, like, get a real big fan into them to suck all the energy into the power grid. A Minuteman warhead's of useful power every 30 seconds...
 
They really need to change to torn dungarees with straw hats and red baseball caps to host these segments so they can further identify with their target audience :D
If they were legit they'd set the show next to a farmers market cart like in Letterkenny.

letterkenny_still.jpg
 
Clearly it is not only Biden's fault that her son was caught but also Biden's fault that the robberies he committed are even classified as robberies!
 
I'm fairly sure that more members have been arrested and charged with more crimes in the last 20 years in the Boebert family than in the Biden family.

And indeed the last two days for the Boeberts.
 
Yeah but but "Biden crime family":

View attachment 1332345
As an adult and father, Tyler will take responsibility for his actions and should be held accountable for poor decisions just like any other citizen.

Wait, what? The dude is 18 and has a child as well?

I hesitate to ask how old his girlfriend is, but she's not going to have been legal when he impregnated her, is she?
 
I hesitate to ask how old his girlfriend is, but she's not going to have been legal when he impregnated her, is she?
Looks like they were 17 and 15, with him being the older of the two. As of 2018, Colorado has what it terms a "close-in-age exemption" (Romeo and Juliet statutes elsewhere). The age of sexual consent in the state is 17, but the state recognizes the consent of minors up to two years under 17 when an individual with whom they've had sexual contact is no more than ten years older and of minors more than two years under 17 when the individual with whom they've had sexual contact is no more than four years older.
 
Republicans: "Let the voters decide."

Also Republicans:
The Missouri Republican Party announced this morning that it has begun the process of removing Darrell Leon McClanahan III from the primary ballot after a photo resurfaced showing him giving a Nazi salute next to a man in white robes in front of a burning cross. McClanahan is running for governor as a Republican.

The photo and an accompanying article on the Anti-Defamation League's website had previously been the subject of a lawsuit filed by McClanahan. In that suit, McClanahan argued that what appeared to be a cross-burning was a mere "Christian Identity Cross lighting ceremony,” and while he acknowledged he was a “honorary” member of the local Ku Klux Klan,” said he’d never been a full-fledged member.

McClanahan echoed those statements via text message to the RFT yesterday.

The excuse doesn't appear to have flown with many Republican leaders. The state party's official Twitter account posted this morning that McClanahan's affiliation with the KKK "fundamentally contradicts our party's values and platform. We have begun the process of having Mr. McClanahan removed from the ballot as a Republican candidate. We condemn any association with hate groups and are taking immediate action to rectify this situation."

McClanahan's would-be opponents, state Senator Bill Eigel and Lieutenant Governor Mike Kehoe, have both posted to Twitter saying that McClanahan should be removed from the ballot immediately.

"There is no place for racism or anti-semitism in the party of Lincoln," wrote Kehoe.

The third major candidate in the race, Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft, issued a similar statement, writing, "The allegations against Darrell McClanahan are serious and the photos damning…should immediately investigate them and, if confirmed, remove him from the ballot."

St. Louis-based gun control activist Laura Burkhardt subsequently posted a reply to Ashcroft's statement displaying a photo that McClanahan appears to have posted last month showing himself with Ashcroft. (If you squint you can see the Mark McCloskey campaign sign in the background as well.)
 
Looks like they were 17 and 15, with him being the older of the two. As of 2018, Colorado has what it terms a "close-in-age exemption" (Romeo and Juliet statutes elsewhere). The age of sexual consent in the state is 17, but the state recognizes the consent of minors up to two years under 17 when an individual with whom they've had sexual contact is no more than ten years older and of minors more than two years under 17 when the individual with whom they've had sexual contact is no more than four years older.
Okay, so legal but icky.

Good to know that 17 year olds can sex 13 year olds and 25 year olds can sex 15 year olds though, that seems legit and not creepy.
 
Okay, so legal but icky.

Good to know that 17 year olds can sex 13 year olds and 25 year olds can sex 15 year olds though, that seems legit and not creepy.
Moral perfection regularly gives way to legal expediency. I'd suggest that, while not ideal, and absolutely icky when focusing on the extremes of the provision, such a provision is preferable to a hard age of consent which may see minors prosecuted for statutory rape.
 
As an adult and father, Tyler will take responsibility for his actions and should be held accountable for poor decisions just like any other citizen.

Wait, what? The dude is 18 and has a child as well?

Wonderful parenting going on in that household. I'm glad these folks know what's best for the rest of us.
 
Last edited:
Back