Obama To Destroy American Nukes While Russians Prepare "Pre-emptive" Nuclear Doctrine
- Thread starter hellblazer
- Start date
He's certainly headed that way. Politics aside, those that voted for him must be wondering when he plans on actually doing any of the things he promised.
oh well thank god he created a White House office on Urban Policy. I guess I won't worry about being able to read bills they pass, transparency, or the wiretap that's probably on my phone.
Obama didn't keep a lot of promises. But he made sure that it only was important to a few niches of voters. You'll notice a lot fall under privacy rights.
His approval numbers have been up and down a lot though. Mostly he's rupturing support from Independents, but holding steady with the democratic faithful. I've seen some polls(decent polls, not like foxnews.com) putting him in the low 40s. A recent one (which gave him ~56%) actually put his approval rating below that of Hillary Clinton.
Here's a recent poll...
Obama Job Approval at 56% After Nobel Win
The Nobel Prize has obfuscated his approval ratings for the near future. The third graph is especially interesting (to me, at least) because of the pop in the independent and republican columns. But, again, the Nobel Prize has muddied the waters.
As for whether he has a chance in 2012, maybe. He has a lot of levers at his disposal and a populace with a very short-term memory.
For the article I linked to they mention that is the first rise for that particular poll. I assume that is a monthly poll. Those done daily will have the ups and downs, but the ones I've seen had all been trending downward overall.
For whatever reason, the gallup poll with Hillary (62%) also asked people about John Edwards (21%) and Sarah Palin (40%).
Notice though that it says he was at 53% before the prize was announced. 3% is the margin of error for the poll.
His Gallup low of 50% so far is double of that for Bush last year. They had Bill Clinton down around 40% at six months in and he went on to get re-elected over Dole by a big margin.
I love how this guy posted nothing politically motivated except perhaps the implication that disarming in a state of mutual destruction is stupid, and the liberal nutbag crowd jumps on everything he posts as retarded.
Nuclear war sucks. The concept of nuclear war sucks. That INFOGRAPHIC*~ attributed the fact that people live in small parts of the world and not the whole thing by reducing the total size of the world to the 12.5% populated part. I have no idea how it got that number, but it already accounted for the rebuttal train that happened right after he posted it.
I don't think anyone here would disagree that it's a little bit silly to not disarm all at the same time if you're going to disarm. Which basically rules out disarmament entirely.
Nuclear war sucks. The concept of nuclear war sucks. That INFOGRAPHIC*~ attributed the fact that people live in small parts of the world and not the whole thing by reducing the total size of the world to the 12.5% populated part. I have no idea how it got that number, but it already accounted for the rebuttal train that happened right after he posted it.
I don't think anyone here would disagree that it's a little bit silly to not disarm all at the same time if you're going to disarm. Which basically rules out disarmament entirely.
Oh fuck off. You've gotten your ass soundly smacked in nearly every political discussion you've gotten into. Generally not just by the left, but by others on the right and libertarians as well.Sigh...you guys are so dumb.
Anyways, here's my "fuck you":
That's a population density map.
Nothing peach or yellow is worth bombing. Even Orange is debatable (11-40 people/km isn't a lot), but I'll leave it in as your handicap.
So let's remove the parts of the world that wouldn't be worth bombing.
Hmmm. That seems like..not very much land at all.
Now a Hydrogen bomb has a range of ~150 miles(vaporized) and fallout that covers ~800 miles.
So factoring in the immediate fallout(and not the fallout shifted around by the wind), 800x5192 (I'm even using your number here) means we can effectively kill off 4,153,600 miles(6,684,571 km) worth of people pretty quickly.
Now you said there is 18,617,500km worth of populated land on the united states. So even using your figure, we could blow up roughly 33% the populated planet(assuming our nukes are top-end/powerful, which once again your own figures say they do).
So with those 2 maps, once we eliminate the inhabited, but hardly inhabited areas, we're losing a substantial portion of the map. Putting us pretty damn close to being able to instantly kill everyone on the planet.
Now, that's only the short-term deaths and radiation poisoning. Once you include all the ash blocking out the sun/spreading in the water/infecting the water/spreading in the air, it's much, much higher and could easily wipe out the planet several times over.
A non-politically motivated post may have been :
"Hey guys, what do you think about Russia's new nuclear doctrine? According to this article, the military experts say it is just Russia flexing their muscles, but I'm wondering if there is more to it than that?"
A reply could have been :
"Hillary Clinton was in Russia to negotiate about how both nations are going to do a bit of disarming. Some people over there may have interpreted the meeting as the USA forcing Russia to get rid of nukes. This "muscle flexing" may just be a way for them to remind their citizens and neighbors of how powerful they still are."
Populated as in enough humans to qualify as inhabited, not as in cities. Below is the one they made for cities. It's also misleading because they are assuming that everything that qualifies as a city has the same population density and they again aren't taking fallout and such into account. :
Iran signed the 1968 treaty. A bit of disarming allows the USA to say they are following the treaty, which might help get world support for concerns about other countries violating it.
This, basically. Most of the libs on this board(i.e. 99.9%) LOVED to change the subject from Obama's mindblowingly stupid move to the logistics of destroying the planet, which frankly I don't really care too much about. What is funny is that for a crowd of libs that loves to sneeringly dismiss 'alarmism', they sure have swallowed a shitload of propaganda from the nuclear-alarmists, anxiously fretting about how many times we can 'blow the planet up'.
xmcp backs up his foolish assertion by saying 33% of the population would be destroyed(makes sense lol), along with some other 'interesting' opinions. And the rest of the Obama nut-munchers dutifully bray along. But wait, wait...you're all 'independents'. My bad. Talks like a duck, quacks like a duck, ya know..
Most of the liberal morons here haven't really thought about Russia, or if they have all they know is it 'collapsed' years ago. That's awesome - maybe you should study some history of Russia's true nature and how they're not really our friends. Maybe you should have read the part where Russia just legalized a pre-emptive 'nuclear' strike against unspecified 'aggressors'.
Or you can keep daintily sipping the Kool-Aid. Your choice. But I think we all know which way you'll go.
Because there is evil in the world. Real evil. And they would never agree to disarm.They are hellbent on destruction. Why would you give them the upper hand and disarm your superior armory.
The article you quoted doesn't even mention him and everyone from Reagan to McCain have said they want the world to be rid of nuclear weapons.
Maybe you should read the entire article or the replies here. Russia's policies haven't really changed and this was done as muscle flexing, which serves as a counterbalance of sorts to their disarming agreement with the US.
Elder Bush sees 'ugliness' in attacks on Obama - Yahoo! News
Name a single substantial group that does not at least believe themselves to be on the side of 'good'.
No substantial group wants destruction for destruction's sake. Some individuals maybe, but not groups.
Ignoring that reality though, even if someone were truly "evil" and just wanted to destroy, do you really think nukes are going to help?
Even allowing for the idea that this 'evil' actually ran a country, someone truly 'evil' isn't going to care about civilian casualties on his end. Beyond that whatever that 'evil' could be is probably not going to be a world leader, and hence won't be affected by nukes anyways.
Nukes are too overpowered. They're expected(so it's hard to hit the people that matter), you can't use them without hitting civilians, and you can't use them without hitting allies or at least causing a lot of radioactive shiite to flow over an ally's country.
Edit: Oh. And even if we 'disarm our superior armory' substantially, there's a very limited number of places that could compete anyways. Not many places that are even close.