Avatar of FacePunch
  • Last Seen: 6 yrs ago
  • Joined: 12 yrs ago
  • Posts: 1516 (0.36 / day)
  • VMs: 6
  • Username history
    1. FacePunch 12 yrs ago
  • Latest 10 profile visitors:

Status

Recent Statuses

10 yrs ago
Current Nerds.
1 like
10 yrs ago
How many more people need to die before we do something about ISIS?
1 like
10 yrs ago
These status updates are...odd. I approve.
4 likes
10 yrs ago
Butts. They are so round, so squishy, so perfect. Bootiful.
5 likes
10 yrs ago
We are all massive nerds.
4 likes

Bio

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gaq62VCcnew

Things you need to know:

I'm eighteen years old. I'm American. I'm a Protestant Christian. I don't like anime. I like comic books. I once killed a shark.

My roleplaying interests change periodically, and I am not currently looking to join any more roleplays at the moment.

Most Recent Posts

Damn. That's one very, very.. Rude sandstorm.

One could even say that it's The Rude Sandstorm.


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2HQaBWziYvY
Work In Progress
Interested. Considering making a super strength/brute type.
You're kinda scaring me, [Grey Warden]. Every time I mention complete and total devastation of mankind, he gives me this creepy thumbs up. I think he might want to kill all of us.

I dunno. Just a hunch.
<Snipped quote by FacePunch>Oh yeah.
And how many Tzar Bombas exist in the world? None.
Megaton yield stockpiles are also relatively small.
Besides, that "calculation" is deeply flawed because it uses the near total fatalities assumption of 5 PSI blastwave...which is completely useless for actually destroying anything in note.
That's the maximum range where a nuclear blastwave can potentially still ruin houses. Using it as an absolute measure is rather incorrect.
The geography of the Earth alone would work like a natural shelter against far-reaching blasts like that.
Or hell, just a house-sized hill.
The row of houses in your street would effectively absorb this pressure and leave only a fraction of this to the next row of houses. Especially if we count for the inverse square law.
This just further proves how exaggerated the fear of nukes had become.
We cannot literally destroy ourselves with them.
Maybe we can mess up the planet to be damn annoying to live in and destroy the population centers but anything further is just mere fantasy.
For the record we can barely use our nuclear stockpiles to defend ourselves against an average asteroid impact or comet that can land on Earth, even if we ignore the issue with the range of our missiles.
KT Impact which supposedly killed the dinosaurs? We'd be still fucked.


I guess. I'm no expert on this kinda stuff, so I can't really argue. I'd bet that we could still kill almost every human being on the planet if a full on nuclear war was started with the intention of killing everyone.
@Willy Vereb



According to this webside here:http://web.net/~cnanw/a3.htm and the image posted above, there are more than enough nuclear weapons on the earth to destroy it. Russia alone, if it was in the mood, could wipe out multiple continents with its nuclear stockpile.
<Snipped quote by FacePunch>

No Norway is taken I believe, Finland is not.


Suddenly thousands of Finnish people cried out in anguish as I once again show my top tier geography skills.
@ASTA There's a map on page 39. All the grey nations are unoccupied.

A few notes, though:

Britain mentioned that they wanted to take control of Canada, so that might be considered taken already.

Iran, while not technically apart of any player's nation, was invaded by South Asian forces. It's also been heavily influenced by the Caliphate, it's neighbor. So those would be things to keep in mind if you wanted to sign up as Iran.

The Caliphate is looking to add Saudi Arabia into it's fold, so that's probably out too.

I've already signed up for Spain so don't you dare take that away from me.

I think that might be it. But, yeah. The southern nations of Africa are mostly open, Norway is open, some countries to the east of India are open, and Brazil and its neighbors are open.
A different note, nukes.
What would be the current stance on nuclear weapons?
They were used in WW3 and many nations have stockpiles even now.
Are nuclear weapons allowed but refrained from as it prompts the other nation to similarly use nukes?
Or is there an international law preventing nukes?
I'm just wondering.
Personally I think the latter would be counterintuitive.
Though I say this because I have tactical nuclear artillery shells and even tank shells (mind it, the two are effectively the same diameter).
Antimatter-induced "clean" fusion nukes could be also the way for future nukes. Greater or more compact power without the fallout or other drawbacks.


I'd imagine you wouldn't want to use your nukes for anything. They ruin the country they're launched into making conquest impossible, and you open yourself up to being nuked by that nation or its allies. The only reason to ever use them would be because someone else did, or you want to destroy the entire planet in a massive nuclear war.
© 2007-2026
BBCode Cheatsheet