In order to continue posting, please submit a timestamped photograph of your anus (known colloquially as 'bussy') to one of our immigration officers for detailed inspection. Failure to do so would mean immediate deportation
The only point you'll ever have is that you represent the sad, fedora-wearing, bloated face of capitalism in the 21st century.
Unfairly made famous and rich through copied ideas and appealing to kids. And yet is driven by some bizarre need for attention to spout insane, teenage edge lord style views. You are clearly not all that up on politics (or anything, maybe you can code?) yet your wealth has given you an oversized platform of confused 12 to 16 year olds to yell "sjwjjwjwj" at over and over again.
Honestly, I don't give a shit if you've been driven mad by fame or some bullshit. When I see amazing creative people dying depressed in poverty every day and you get to sit on twitter and make half assed 'now yur the nazi' comments, it's fucking sickening.
Glass with what, nukes? If so you just ended the world because both Russia and China are going to respond with nukes of their own. You can't "glass" a country like that without a response. You have fallout all over the place, it'd be a complete disaster.
With conventional weapons? How'd that work out for Vietnam? Not so good because bombing campaigns aren't that effective in countries like Afghanistan and especially not cave-dwelling talies and random tribes scattered all over the place.
The reality is, it is not possible to "win a war" in a country like Afghanistan because you will never break them. You will never change their culture. And you could drop a trillion dollars in bombs and that'd still be true. You want to beat that country? You build a fucking wall around it and call it a day.
Killing an entire country counts as a win and you could do that. Anyone who thinks russia and China would nuke the united states because we nuked an unrelated country 1000 miles away is retarded. They do not care at all about Afghanistan
Like when North Korea launched multiple ICBMs over Japan and the world ended because Russia and China were terrified a missile had launched somewhere in the world?
Oh I forgot that North Korea called all the nuclear superpowers and told them it was a test of a missile that could only go 2,000 miles so everyone knew it wasn't a legitimate threat.
You're still missing the point you mongo. NK has no ability to disable the nuclear arsenals of Russia or China in a first strike.
The US does. How are you not following this?
How many ICBMs do you think it would actually even take to destroy Afghanistan?
Way more than you think, and it doesn't matter how many it'd take, if Russia or China saw the US launching ICBMs they are pressing that button. You'd have to be retarded to not understand why.
Of course, I forgot everyone knew North Koreas capabilities and intent and Japan never felt threatened by the minor nation launching missiles overhead. Your idea that the other superpowers would instantly launch without looking at the trajectories first is retarded.
There is no way for Russia/China to know where those ICBMs are going. Do you just not know how ICBMs work, how hard it is to track them? How fast they are moving?
Show that, because what I've seen shows that we have nukes sitting less than 1000 miles from Afghanistan and those missiles can travel at least 4 miles per second.
Those numbers are realistic, yes. Peak speed for an ICBM is in the ballpark of 6-7km/s (any faster and the payload would go orbital), and it takes about 10 minutes to accelerate to that speed.
New York to Moscow is 7500km, at 6.5km/s is ~20 minutes. Add in the acceleration time and you're looking at about 30 minutes total.
London to Moscow is 2500km; most of the flight time there would be accelerating on ascent and decelerating in re-entry rather than coasting; as TildalWave indicates, 15 minutes is about right for that.
We have nukes in Turkey, and assuming a conservative 2km per second it's less that 15 minutes for the nukes to land. And that's significantly slower than you're own source says they would be.
So you were wrong when you said "No.. Try like 15-20. Maybe longer,"?
And if you don't think 25 ICBMs, which have a payload we could only speculate on, would be enoughn then we could always bring in a couple of the 16 Ohio class submarines carrying 24 nuclear SLBMs.
Oh we actually agree. No way we are ever nuking anyone again. I think everyone should have nukes barring some African/the more underdeveloped countries
I'm honestly convinced you have a severe learning disability. The poor reading comprehension, the inability to grasp points, the forming of strong opinions on subjects you have no understanding of.
Why would US use ICBMs on Afghanistan you mong? If they did nuke it, they'd likely use air dropped ones or ship launched ones for sheer cost efficiency. ICBMs are meant to be used on targets around which you can't gather enough conventional launch platforms to hit all critical sites, a single sortie from a CVN could carry all the nukes necessary to neuter Afghanistan.
Why in God's retarded name would the US launch missiles from their own soil halfway across the world when we have allies all over that area to launch them from?
Because a rogue nation testing their barely functional nukes is the same thing as a world superpower using a bunch of their nukes to glass a whole country in a strategic region
Russia/China are aware the US has the ability to disable their arsenals with a nuclear first strike.
Russia/China won't instantly detect the launch of ICBMs from the US. Likely some 10-20 minutes after.
Russia/China detect the launch and have no ability to know where said weapons are going.
Russia/China freak out and say "this could be a first strike."
Russia/China press the red button.
Why do you think mounting conventional weapons on ICBMs is retarded and dangerous? For this very reason. For example on 9/11, Bush personally called Russia and told them we would be preparing our nukes out of fear they'd see the movement and maybe react.
Just call Pooh bear daddy and Russian daddy ahead of time and launch like 10 missiles lmao they won't care about Afghanistan, fuck, Xi would probably do it himself
There’s this thing called “literally just informing the other fucking countries about your military plans before they happen so you can know whether they’ll intervene or not”?
Wait nvm this is pizzashill.
Got a question for you; are you just some elaborate troll that all of us here are too low IQ to understand or are you genuinely retarded?
when you think Russia would end the world by nuking America over fucking Afghanistan of all places then proceed to tell someone they don't know how the world works
We aren't only fighting Afghanistan, we're also fighting the dregs of Pakistan. It's not just Afghan culture that's the issue here. The border between Pakistan and Afghanistan is extremely porous and fighters cross it at will. Any Afghan casualty can easily be replaced by a Pakistani within a day or two. We'd also have to clean up the tribal areas of North and South Waziristan, and even though they aren't really under government control, obviously Pakistan isn't going to allow that to happen. So do we then nuke Pakistan, a country that also has nukes? I'm sure we could still "glass them", but like...why? For what purpose? None of this shit even matters. The median age in Afghanistan is 18. For Pakistan, it's 23. We've already been fighting there for 18 years, which means a large chunk of the people we're fighting were babies or not even born on September 11th, 2011. We're spending money and time on nothing, killing people who are only trying to kill us because we've been an occupying force in their pointlessly backward, landlocked and isolated country literally their entire lives.
The US could not turn Afghanistan into a functioning democracy that will work with us in a short period time. They can turn it into a smoldering wasteland in a day though.
Ehhh who cares if he flexes as long as he doesn’t actually do anything. For all of daddy’s faults I actually think he isn’t as excited to send Americans to die as the rest of our presidents have been
Drones cost shit tons of money. So does air support. I can't afford to feed my family of twelve at Olive garden ordering just one small salad and then demanding thousands of bread sticks if daddy keeps the money faucet on for jet fuel.
There was one person I know of who did that. Didn't work out for him though.
It was Evola's custom to walk around the city of Vienna during bombing raids in order to better "ponder his destiny." During one such raid in 1945, a shell fragment damaged his spinal cord and he became paralyzed from the waist down, remaining so for the rest of his life.
85 comments
1 BussyShillBot 2019-07-23
Hello refugee, welcome to r/Drama.
In order to continue posting, please submit a timestamped photograph of your anus (known colloquially as 'bussy') to one of our immigration officers for detailed inspection. Failure to do so would mean immediate deportation
Outlines:
I am a bot for posting Outline.com links. github / Contact for info or issues
1 SnapshillBot 2019-07-23
The only point you'll ever have is that you represent the sad, fedora-wearing, bloated face of capitalism in the 21st century.
Unfairly made famous and rich through copied ideas and appealing to kids. And yet is driven by some bizarre need for attention to spout insane, teenage edge lord style views. You are clearly not all that up on politics (or anything, maybe you can code?) yet your wealth has given you an oversized platform of confused 12 to 16 year olds to yell "sjwjjwjwj" at over and over again.
Honestly, I don't give a shit if you've been driven mad by fame or some bullshit. When I see amazing creative people dying depressed in poverty every day and you get to sit on twitter and make half assed 'now yur the nazi' comments, it's fucking sickening.
Snapshots:
I am just a simple bot, *not** a moderator of this subreddit* | bot subreddit | contact the maintainers
1 necrocannibal2 2019-07-23
that's one of the most obvious things he has said lol
1 professorshillphd 2019-07-23
The US could not win the Afghanistan war in a week no matter how many bombs they dropped.
1 Clean_lt_Up_Jannie 2019-07-23
You could glass the entire nation in a week, how does that not count as winning?
1 professorshillphd 2019-07-23
Glass with what, nukes? If so you just ended the world because both Russia and China are going to respond with nukes of their own. You can't "glass" a country like that without a response. You have fallout all over the place, it'd be a complete disaster.
With conventional weapons? How'd that work out for Vietnam? Not so good because bombing campaigns aren't that effective in countries like Afghanistan and especially not cave-dwelling talies and random tribes scattered all over the place.
The reality is, it is not possible to "win a war" in a country like Afghanistan because you will never break them. You will never change their culture. And you could drop a trillion dollars in bombs and that'd still be true. You want to beat that country? You build a fucking wall around it and call it a day.
1 Clean_lt_Up_Jannie 2019-07-23
Killing an entire country counts as a win and you could do that. Anyone who thinks russia and China would nuke the united states because we nuked an unrelated country 1000 miles away is retarded. They do not care at all about Afghanistan
1 professorshillphd 2019-07-23
Lol, if Russia or China detected those nukes being launched (and they would) you could bet your ass they're pressing the red button.
1 Clean_lt_Up_Jannie 2019-07-23
Like when North Korea launched multiple ICBMs over Japan and the world ended because Russia and China were terrified a missile had launched somewhere in the world?
1 professorshillphd 2019-07-23
Very big difference between a medium-range missile test is taking place and a massive launch of ICBMS from the united states.
Seriously you are underestimating the massive threat:
https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-2006-11-29-0611290038-story.html
With the fear of a nuclear first strike that could disable most of your arsenal, you don't play games.
1 Clean_lt_Up_Jannie 2019-07-23
Oh I forgot that North Korea called all the nuclear superpowers and told them it was a test of a missile that could only go 2,000 miles so everyone knew it wasn't a legitimate threat.
1 professorshillphd 2019-07-23
You're still missing the point you mongo. NK has no ability to disable the nuclear arsenals of Russia or China in a first strike.
The US does. How are you not following this?
Way more than you think, and it doesn't matter how many it'd take, if Russia or China saw the US launching ICBMs they are pressing that button. You'd have to be retarded to not understand why.
1 Clean_lt_Up_Jannie 2019-07-23
Of course, I forgot everyone knew North Koreas capabilities and intent and Japan never felt threatened by the minor nation launching missiles overhead. Your idea that the other superpowers would instantly launch without looking at the trajectories first is retarded.
1 professorshillphd 2019-07-23
Are you like illiterate?
There is no way for Russia/China to know where those ICBMs are going. Do you just not know how ICBMs work, how hard it is to track them? How fast they are moving?
1 Clean_lt_Up_Jannie 2019-07-23
I know they are moving fast enough that the nukes would have detonated before Putin had heard that they had launched.
1 professorshillphd 2019-07-23
Not true, they'd likely know within 10-20 minutes.
1 Clean_lt_Up_Jannie 2019-07-23
Missiles would be there in 5 max.
1 professorshillphd 2019-07-23
No.. Try like 15-20. Maybe longer, 30 minutes is what I've seen cited typically.
1 Clean_lt_Up_Jannie 2019-07-23
Show that, because what I've seen shows that we have nukes sitting less than 1000 miles from Afghanistan and those missiles can travel at least 4 miles per second.
1 professorshillphd 2019-07-23
1 Clean_lt_Up_Jannie 2019-07-23
We have nukes in Turkey, and assuming a conservative 2km per second it's less that 15 minutes for the nukes to land. And that's significantly slower than you're own source says they would be.
1 professorshillphd 2019-07-23
Lol, you don't have enough nukes in Turkey to do shit. Russia would still know even if it was sub 20 minutes, just so you know.
Bush, for example, called Putin and told them they were moving nukes during 9/11 so Russia wouldn't sperg.
Like, at some point you're going to have to admit there's no way anyone is letting the US nuke another country.
It's not happening.
1 Clean_lt_Up_Jannie 2019-07-23
So you were wrong when you said "No.. Try like 15-20. Maybe longer,"?
And if you don't think 25 ICBMs, which have a payload we could only speculate on, would be enoughn then we could always bring in a couple of the 16 Ohio class submarines carrying 24 nuclear SLBMs.
1 Kat_B0T 2019-07-23
Oh we actually agree. No way we are ever nuking anyone again. I think everyone should have nukes barring some African/the more underdeveloped countries
1 MightiestPhallus 2019-07-23
I'm honestly convinced you have a severe learning disability. The poor reading comprehension, the inability to grasp points, the forming of strong opinions on subjects you have no understanding of.
It all adds up.
1 BannedAccountNumber6 2019-07-23
You’re a drain on this sub
1 MightiestPhallus 2019-07-23
It would take one if it was big enough.
1 Sasanka_Of_Gauda 2019-07-23
Why would US use ICBMs on Afghanistan you mong? If they did nuke it, they'd likely use air dropped ones or ship launched ones for sheer cost efficiency. ICBMs are meant to be used on targets around which you can't gather enough conventional launch platforms to hit all critical sites, a single sortie from a CVN could carry all the nukes necessary to neuter Afghanistan.
1 CucksLoveTrump 2019-07-23
This. Also, assuming missile launches from the US mainland is ridiculous. They would almost assuredly be ship or sub based
1 aqouta 2019-07-23
Why in God's retarded name would the US launch missiles from their own soil halfway across the world when we have allies all over that area to launch them from?
1 professorshillphd 2019-07-23
Even more risky, closer launches, less travel time, more likely to get a response.
1 AlveolarPressure 2019-07-23
Because a rogue nation testing their barely functional nukes is the same thing as a world superpower using a bunch of their nukes to glass a whole country in a strategic region
1 BernieMadeoffSanders 2019-07-23
They would nuke a US protectorate like Japan or South Korea. They wouldn't nuke the US mainland.
1 Clean_lt_Up_Jannie 2019-07-23
Now I want it to happen even more.
1 BernieMadeoffSanders 2019-07-23
I know... me too. Not seeing a downside here.
1 ThousandQueerReich 2019-07-23
Cultural victory?
1 diggity_md 2019-07-23
😂😂😂
1 professorshillphd 2019-07-23
You really just don't know how the world works.
1 diggity_md 2019-07-23
How can I compare to a man in a trailer in Florida?
1 professorshillphd 2019-07-23
Considering you don't understand why the US firing off ICBMs would trigger a reaction from Russia/China, not very easily it seems.
2 diggity_md 2019-07-23
You're going to have to post a longform essay with journal links for me before I get it
1 professorshillphd 2019-07-23
I don't have to.
Russia/China are aware the US has the ability to disable their arsenals with a nuclear first strike.
Russia/China won't instantly detect the launch of ICBMs from the US. Likely some 10-20 minutes after.
Russia/China detect the launch and have no ability to know where said weapons are going.
Russia/China freak out and say "this could be a first strike."
Russia/China press the red button.
Why do you think mounting conventional weapons on ICBMs is retarded and dangerous? For this very reason. For example on 9/11, Bush personally called Russia and told them we would be preparing our nukes out of fear they'd see the movement and maybe react.
1 diggity_md 2019-07-23
Just call Pooh bear daddy and Russian daddy ahead of time and launch like 10 missiles lmao they won't care about Afghanistan, fuck, Xi would probably do it himself
1 professorshillphd 2019-07-23
Yeah nobody would care about fallout and nuclear weapons being used.
1 diggity_md 2019-07-23
Tbh the world would thank us
1 ThousandQueerReich 2019-07-23
Ok I'm hard. Can you take me to the finish line?
1 PvtMcNuggets 2019-07-23
There’s this thing called “literally just informing the other fucking countries about your military plans before they happen so you can know whether they’ll intervene or not”?
Wait nvm this is pizzashill.
Got a question for you; are you just some elaborate troll that all of us here are too low IQ to understand or are you genuinely retarded?
1 professorshillphd 2019-07-23
Yeah better inform other countries you're about to fire off a giant nuclear attack on another country.
What could go wrong.
1 Mayos_side 2019-07-23
Dad will just call other-dad first and make sure it's cool.
1 JuliusEvolasSkeleton 2019-07-23
Based and pizzapilled.
1 BernieMadeoffSanders 2019-07-23
Pizza, stick to foids. You are out of your depth here.
1 professorshillphd 2019-07-23
No, this subreddit is, I'm perfectly correct.
1 BernieMadeoffSanders 2019-07-23
I literally can't even imagine being as wrong about something as you are right now.
1 professorshillphd 2019-07-23
Say, why do you think they avoid mounting conventional weapons on ICBMs?
1 ThousandQueerReich 2019-07-23
No, broken bottles. What r u on about mate?
1 auralgasm 2019-07-23
We aren't only fighting Afghanistan, we're also fighting the dregs of Pakistan. It's not just Afghan culture that's the issue here. The border between Pakistan and Afghanistan is extremely porous and fighters cross it at will. Any Afghan casualty can easily be replaced by a Pakistani within a day or two. We'd also have to clean up the tribal areas of North and South Waziristan, and even though they aren't really under government control, obviously Pakistan isn't going to allow that to happen. So do we then nuke Pakistan, a country that also has nukes? I'm sure we could still "glass them", but like...why? For what purpose? None of this shit even matters. The median age in Afghanistan is 18. For Pakistan, it's 23. We've already been fighting there for 18 years, which means a large chunk of the people we're fighting were babies or not even born on September 11th, 2011. We're spending money and time on nothing, killing people who are only trying to kill us because we've been an occupying force in their pointlessly backward, landlocked and isolated country literally their entire lives.
1 Clean_lt_Up_Jannie 2019-07-23
Imagine writing all of this. Pizza claimed winning the war was impossible so I set him straight. I don't care about the conflict at all.
1 BernieMadeoffSanders 2019-07-23
So, glass them too. It's a week. There's plenty of time to glass every middle eastern backwoods shitberg out there.
1 aqouta 2019-07-23
The US could not turn Afghanistan into a functioning democracy that will work with us in a short period time. They can turn it into a smoldering wasteland in a day though.
1 Minimum_T-Giraff 2019-07-23
US could also replace the native population with US friendly people. That would solve the conflict but it's considered unethical.
1 aqouta 2019-07-23
Imperialism gets a bad wrap but it solves stability problems if you have the balls to follow through with it.
1 Minimum_T-Giraff 2019-07-23
Imperialism "stable". All empires has fallen due the instability the cause.
What i talk about ethnic cleansing.
1 xlhat 2019-07-23
Broke - Imperialism is bad.
Woke - Fuck imperialism, bring on the ethnic cleansing.
1 BannedAccountNumber6 2019-07-23
Dude you are on a roll with your shitty serious agenda posting
will you just go to politics already ?
1 BriefSquirt 2019-07-23
So he's saying he doesn't want to nuke them?
Boring drama tbh
1 scooterbraun 2019-07-23
Ehhh who cares if he flexes as long as he doesn’t actually do anything. For all of daddy’s faults I actually think he isn’t as excited to send Americans to die as the rest of our presidents have been
2 cochnbahls 2019-07-23
I can't believe people haven't figured this out yet. After his lukewarm response to Iran bom bombing the tanker, it should be obvious.
1 ManBearFridge 2019-07-23
We don't need to use troops anymore. Just offer air support with drones.
1 scooterbraun 2019-07-23
I actually think he’s against all needless death, outside of the Mexican kids he’s waterboarding in the extermination camps
1 Mayos_side 2019-07-23
Those are free.
1 BernieMadeoffSanders 2019-07-23
No, we pay a lot of money to waterboard those kids.
1 ThousandQueerReich 2019-07-23
It's still a pretty good deal at this point. My back of the envelope math is five waterboards per hundo.
Cheaper than a carnival ride.
1 ThousandQueerReich 2019-07-23
Thanks Mr Rumsfeld.
1 ManBearFridge 2019-07-23
Well please explain how Americans are dying in drones.
1 ThousandQueerReich 2019-07-23
Drones cost shit tons of money. So does air support. I can't afford to feed my family of twelve at Olive garden ordering just one small salad and then demanding thousands of bread sticks if daddy keeps the money faucet on for jet fuel.
1 aqouta 2019-07-23
But what if he found a way to only send gamers?
1 AltRitardando 2019-07-23
That's another one of his faults.
1 scooterbraun 2019-07-23
Based and amerikilled
1 Seattle_Bussy_Lmao 2019-07-23
Daddy boasting for Khan Daddy
1 TayloTayloBookito 2019-07-23
How have Afghans not developed an immunity to bombs by now? I feel like they should just be chad-strutting through explosions at this point.
1 JuliusEvolasSkeleton 2019-07-23
There was one person I know of who did that. Didn't work out for him though.
1 TayloTayloBookito 2019-07-23
Okay, so he couldn’t chad-strut, but could he chad-roll?
1 texanapocalypse33 2019-07-23
Reminds me of what Peter Quinn suggested to do to Syria https://youtu.be/_z4GvYB8xAY?t=113
1 Alicesnakebae 2019-07-23
Press F to commit war crimes
1 DramiMAMI 2019-07-23
I say do it. Afghans are among the worst refugees and there are metric tonnes of them everywhere