When the WW3 began? post a DATE

When the WW3 began? post a DATE

Other urls found in this thread:

quora.com/Whats-the-difference-between-an-airburst-and-surface-nuclear-explosion-and-what-are-the-pros-and-cons-of-each-one
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

9th july 2017

maybe 2070 when price energy was too high and some country fall

Year: 2020
Month: January
Day: 26th

16/10/2017

thats my birthday you cunt

That picture is dumb, an airburst detonation would be far more effective than a ground burst on a metropolitan target. So much wasted energy potential

10 April 1945

17/04-2017, around 12pm, korea will make their move. if nothing happens then, the war will not be

most of my friends don't believe ww3 is going to happen

1 October 2003
You know what's special of that date.

Trips and it'll be october 2017.

Rolling again for trips, october my bet.

Last chance and I´m done

October trips.

You can't go to war if all we see are these United airline memes

There's no 16th month faggot!

Around 2030.
As a war on water between China and India

Now

Tomorrow GO HIDE FAGGOTS

I'd pay good money to see that shit. Punjab get his ass blasted clean off the map by ShingChang

Pls explain

Rolling for this weekend

waiting for north korea to fuck up, give it a few hours

December 20th, 2012

You're obviously an idiot and probably underage

Airburst would direct a lot of the detonations energy downward, and extend the range of casualties as compared to a ground detonation, where the shockwave and heat wave can be diminished or blocked by various obstacles.

An airburst gets around those obstacles because of higher elevation.

That said, a groundburst would be good for kicking up irradiated dirt, dust and debris to create a rather large area of denial. Both have pros and cons depending on what you want to achieve.

quora.com/Whats-the-difference-between-an-airburst-and-surface-nuclear-explosion-and-what-are-the-pros-and-cons-of-each-one

You detonate the bomb some thousand meters above the earth. The shockwave therefore doesn't dissipate into the ground. It radiates further, killing more people and demolishing structures further out.

If the bomb embeds in the ground, lots of energy is dissipated into the ground.

Never hopefully

so supposing you just want to make a fucking mess, which is best?

I heard somewhere that an EMP would be more devastating than just a bomb, true?

me too. but the world is fuck up.

>quora
thats the reddit tier special ED version of Yahoo Answers

EMP would fry nearly anything not hardened against it, but I'm not sure how far the radius of that would be. It would definitely cause chaos if it were to take out a large portion of the power grid.

Ground detonation would be the best to make a huge fucking mess, but as explained earlier, the casualties and damage to infrastructure would be drastically reduced.

There's also a sub-surface detonation which would cause even less damage to surrounding structures and immediate casualties, but they're only really good for taking out hardened bunkers. I'd imagine the huge dirt and debris cloud would make massive amounts of fallout though. It all depends on what type of mess you want to create.

Nobody asked for your opinion. Go clean the toilets, maybe you'll make friends with some turds.

you're goddamn right

EMP is a meme. there hasnt been andthing built since at least 92 thta isnt shielded to EM/RF interference or damage. use a grounding power strip, and make sure your house is properly grounded out. your car is a rolling faraday cage.

the amount of chainlink fences in the united states would gobble down EMP like a whore swallowing cum.

its a non issue made to be a big bad sooopy scare to sell books and get speaking engagements to bilk the rubes and yokels out of their autismbux

t. quora user

I'm more upset you didn't get the reference.