You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
9
Supermatmike on scored.co
2 days ago9 points(+0/-0/+9Score on mirror)1 child
very interesting Idea Mr beaner. However, I have a better one: a nine megaton thermonuclear warhead detonated directly over Mexico City.
I don't remember who said it exactly, I think it might have been Taylor, but leaving Mexico as an existing nation was a mistake of colossal proportions. The existence of the Mexican state poses an existential threat to to the safety and security of the United States and her people.
Nuking Mexico City is overkill but showing the beaners mercy by giving back half we took and fucking paying for the other half we kept, is noble in principle, but foolish in hindsight.
We should’ve kept it all and driven the rest of the Mexicans down into Central and South America. They would’ve settled into the various other countries and the very concept of a Mexican and Mexico would’ve become a distant memory by now.
Yes but that would’ve been a LONG coastline boarder between the peninsula and mainland with Mexico to patrol.
EDIT: don’t get me wrong, I would LOVE for us to have Baja and we already should’ve had that long coastline of resort beachfront property. But we wouldn’t needed to annexed more of Mexico to secure its safety.
2 days ago-3 points(+0/-0/-3Score on mirror)2 children
Anyone who mentions nukes is a joke. Do you even have any idea how nuclear fallout works? Have you thought about wind patterns? The wind blows up from Mexico into the U.S., up and around the whole eastern seaboard. All that nuclear fallout would be smeared across Texas, Kansas, etc. All over our fucking crops, rivers, cities, *everything!*
Modern day nuclear weapons have very little fallout, especially when air-bursted. Please see the Tsar bomb test, researchers were on the ground at the detonation site in less then 48 hours and the radiation levels were minimal.
Please educate yourself before you spout off on shit you know nothing about.
PS. you ain't as slick as you think editing your comment to get rid of that mention to my old as shit activity on GW.
2 days ago2 points(+0/-0/+2Score on mirror)1 child
For reference on what I'm about to say, my dad was one of the chief NBC (nuclear, biological, chemical) warfare specialists in the Marine Corps. He taught me a lot, and I read a few of his books on this subject matter.
Most nuclear fallout is created when the nuclear fireball mixes with the dirt on the ground, vaporizing it, and kicking it up into the atmosphere, where it's spread by the wind.
Radioactive materials are very heavy, though, and fall out of the sky quite rapidly. The farther away from detonation, the less radioactive fallout there will be. Furthermore, all modern nuclear warheads (fired by missile) are detonated above ground, to magnify the destruction of the blast wave, at heights variant upon the yield of the warhead. These above ground detonations mean the fireball doesn't interact with the ground, severely depressing the radioactivity downwind, in terms of longevity and magnitude. And, with these above ground detonations, almost all of the radioactivity of the byproducts is gone within 2 weeks.
Mexico City is roughly 400 miles away from the closest section of border to the U.S. (the southern tip of Texas). Even in the worst weather conditions possible, it would be extremely unlikely that any radioactive fallout would reach the U.S. from nuking Mexico City, and if any did, it would be negligible.
I don't remember who said it exactly, I think it might have been Taylor, but leaving Mexico as an existing nation was a mistake of colossal proportions. The existence of the Mexican state poses an existential threat to to the safety and security of the United States and her people.
If you think of a serious comment to make later, feel free to share, okay?
We should’ve kept it all and driven the rest of the Mexicans down into Central and South America. They would’ve settled into the various other countries and the very concept of a Mexican and Mexico would’ve become a distant memory by now.
EDIT: don’t get me wrong, I would LOVE for us to have Baja and we already should’ve had that long coastline of resort beachfront property. But we wouldn’t needed to annexed more of Mexico to secure its safety.
What do you mean "Wut?"
Please educate yourself before you spout off on shit you know nothing about.
PS. you ain't as slick as you think editing your comment to get rid of that mention to my old as shit activity on GW.
Most nuclear fallout is created when the nuclear fireball mixes with the dirt on the ground, vaporizing it, and kicking it up into the atmosphere, where it's spread by the wind.
Radioactive materials are very heavy, though, and fall out of the sky quite rapidly. The farther away from detonation, the less radioactive fallout there will be. Furthermore, all modern nuclear warheads (fired by missile) are detonated above ground, to magnify the destruction of the blast wave, at heights variant upon the yield of the warhead. These above ground detonations mean the fireball doesn't interact with the ground, severely depressing the radioactivity downwind, in terms of longevity and magnitude. And, with these above ground detonations, almost all of the radioactivity of the byproducts is gone within 2 weeks.
Mexico City is roughly 400 miles away from the closest section of border to the U.S. (the southern tip of Texas). Even in the worst weather conditions possible, it would be extremely unlikely that any radioactive fallout would reach the U.S. from nuking Mexico City, and if any did, it would be negligible.