French have nukes

Imagine not having nukes

Attached: FB5C8C79-BFB0-4F2C-9408-38CC45BA5EE5.jpg (975x1280, 302.89K)

doesn't it take around 20 nukes to blow up this planet? why have that many?

They've already blew up literally hundreds in nuclear tests in the 50s and 60s to little discernible effect on the globe

>I like to think that we've always been responsible in that area.
jep, pretty based

Can't we nuke Luxembourg instead ? I want to see them suffer, don't know why.

No way it takes many thousands and then you don't really blow up the planet, you just kill a lot of stuff on the planet. I am not sure you could kill all humans, you probably could because you poison much of the natural resources like water and foodcrops.

No it should be Mongolia

tres bien
ils sont le seul pays capable d'atomiser a la fois les anglos aussie et le sauvages asiatiques

Attached: bones-timeline[1].jpg (550x388, 37.5K)

Nuclear winter hypothesis says 100 nukes should wipe out a few billion people.

Lots of nukes going off = dust clouds covering the globe leading to famine etc.

>doesn't it take around 20 nukes to blow up this planet?
no, far from it. A good nuke takes out a large city and most of its population.

>why have that many?
It's estimated that you need at the very least 16 missiles, with an average of 4 warheads each (they split some time before impact, so each missile creates several explosions, in a cute diamond pattern so the center is hit by all of them). This way, you take out 16 major cities and up to 100 million casualties. That's enough to wipe out most countries and deter the really big ones.
That's 64 warheads, ideally in a submarine.

Now, to be sure that this submarine will be able to launch at any given time (you don't want the enemy to nuke your country by surprise), you need two of them at sea (hidden and underwater) at any given time - a single sub can have an incident, or be sunk by the enemy by surprise.
This doubles to 128 warheads.
And since a nuclear submarine needs to spend about half its lifetime docked at base, for the crew to get shore leave after months at sea, and maintenance, you'll have one inactive for each at sea, at any given time.
Your two subs are now four, so 256 warheads.
Ideally, you need long range air launched cruise missiles, to deliver a final warning before launching the real deal.
Several squadrons distributed on different airbases, plus some carrier-based planes (never too careful). That's around 50 more warheads.

Total: around 300.

giga Chad move on our parts tbqh
virgin high hdi pci literacy non nuclear countries vs Chad India Pakistan with no sewage systems but nuclear weapons

remember what pakis told America when they got threatened for sanctions for make nukes?
"We will eat grass for a 1,000 years but we will have nuclear weapons"

I've never seen dust clouds after a nuke test. Unlike volcanos.

This is what the Pakistani military chief had to say,

"The Christians have nuclear weapons, the Confucians have nuclear weapons and now even the Hindus have nuclear weapons. It is the duty of us Muslims therefore to acquire nuclear weapons or perish."

Nuke Swis niggers instead, they deserve it

Leave the Ukraine now, Russia!
Leave or we nuke England!

Attached: 1640548594462.jpg (1836x3000, 540.09K)

Mushroom clouds are not enough for you?

Attached: mushroom-cloud-1[1].jpg (1600x1280, 150.25K)

And Nuclear Winter hypothesis......is wrong.

>implying nukes are real

Attached: 1646083259115.jpg (750x513, 42.14K)

/thread

He's bluffing

Yeah because they don't nuke cities during nuke tests.

They might just listen since most of their oligarchs live there.

It's mostly steam from the heated atmosphere, the dust is from the blast on the ground but it's nothing.

Attached: mururoa-nuclear-bomb-test-1430516392_org.jpg (1273x753, 80.76K)

nukes suck dick. 4/5 of them will get intercepted and the rest will barely do any damage other than polluting everything into oblivion for generations to come