tvashtarkatena

That nipple looks inflamed.

I just thought I'd post something destructive and inflamatory. And pink. Shit. Full board now. Gotta go!

7SEhCGBC9co

0s4cce6xVkE

GYGhmJD9LKc

Your loss.

MY OTHER CAR IS A STRATEGIC BOMBER

AU3waheTGRE&feature=bz303

ASK ME HOW I'M SAVING THE CLIMATE

I've checked out Ascenionist a couple of times. Quite a bit of what little conversation happens there is about CC.comers. Fairweather posted a long and very interesting treatise on the characteristics of the various races. The Mexicans were "hardworking" etc, but the Arabs were "basically worthless". In about 2 minutes he'll deny it, but it was there, and it was LONG. Mike Adamson describes himself as the "Big Bad Wolf". Pretty much your standard white boy circle jerk. There were a handful of TRs about mountain biking the Capitol Forest,etc. Riveting stuff. Given the tiny genepool it attracted, it should come as no surprise that they all post here almost exclusively now.

GLORY BE 52

SotBQE51Wh0

GzROXViBl7k

cy3UnP81ujI

CARPET BOMBING: NO WAR REQUIRED

HUG YOUR CHILDREN WITH NUCLEAR ARMS

ARE WE BOMBING YET?

Have you called your congressmen yet about the bombing campaign?

I'm a shitty typist with OCD issues.

No bragging, little man. There a lots and lots of folks on this site who can run me into the ground. No, mine is a simple challenge for you personally; one that offers you a chance to prove what you've been spraying about; that you can leave this old fat fuck in the dust. Call it a modern day duel, if you will. And tell you what, I'll even throw in a pull up contest so to give you a second chance to prove your point. Even better for you; if I win, I won't post a thing about it. Not one word. If you win, you can spray away to your heart's content. Now, if you don't have the guts to accept, that's fine too. That's the great thing about posing on the interwebs; you can be just as fit and smart as you want to be.

So the bottom line is this: The U.S. can, within a short period of time, deploy about 10,000 thermonuclear warheads with an average payload of 170 kilotons each. That's over nine times the yield of the Hiroshima bomb, which neutralized over 100,000 collateral targets. Assuming each warhead, if properly placed, could double that to say, 200,000, the United States could reduce the population of the world's most oil gluttonous nations (ourselves excepted, of course) by 2 billion people in very short order. Such a 'correction' would eliminate global warming for centuries to come while allowing Americans to continue to burn as much oil as they want, in addition to making virtually all of the world's remaining oil reserves available to use practically free of charge. \ Think about it, people. Cruisin' up I 5 to the state of Canada (once it's cooled off a bit) in a '63 Fleetwood convertible sloshing with $.49 a gallon gas. No more fuckin' Iranian this and Saudi that in the paper. All you'd need to do is flip to the entertainment section: Where's the fuckin' party, man!? FUCK. YEAH. Write your congressman today.

Now, a properly targeted 170 kiloton device can easily kill 100,000 individuals, er, excuse me, collateral targets. Each B52 sortie, then, could easily reduce the planet's population by 5 million, regardless of how tweaked out the crew is on uppers. We save the planet even more when we bomb countries that use more oil per capita than Iran. Six B52s could pretty much take out Canada, for example, which is the next country below the U.S. in per capita consumption. Peferably when a strong southerly is blowing. Per capita oil consumption by country Bermuda, Aruba, the Bahamas, hey, that's just a back yard milk run. UAE, Qatar, Kuwait and, oh yeah! Saudi Arabia; I would think pilots would be fighting over who gets that one. The solution to Global Warming is right in front of us, but do we have the WILL to execute?

It gets better. A Minuteman ICBM's payload is limited by the START I Treaty to a single MK 12 thermonuclear warhead with a yield of 170 kilotons. A single B52 can carry as many as 50 B61 thermonuclear bombs, each of which can be configured for the same (or less) yield. Anyway you look at it, the B52 is the much more frugal delivery option.

Now let's just take a looksie at that. A Minuteman ICBM costs $70 million sans payload. A single B52 can carry a much higher payload to target for (assuming 3x fuel costs) for about $500,000. You could send 140 B52 sorties for the price of just one ICBM. It's not just about the polar bears, ya know.

Nowadays, we should be asking this question about everything we do. So let's take a look at bombing Iran. Would it be good for the planet? A B52 burns 3300 gallons of fuel per hour and has a top speed of 650 mph. The nearest B52 base to Iran is Moron, Spain; a 6400 mile round trip. That means each B52 burns about 32000 gallons of fuel per sortie. The average Iranian uses about 1 gallon of oil per day. Once released into the atmosphere, the CO2 emissions from both of these activities stay airborn for an average of 100 years. The B52 sortie is a one time release of 32000 fuel gallons worth of emissions. The average Iranian and their offspring, generously assuming zero population growth, burns about 35000 gallons of oil over a 100 year period, roughly the same as a B52 sortie. These figures indicate that a B52 sortie need only kill one Iranian to be carbon neutral. Each sortie would, of course, kill many times that. Bombing Iran is better than carbon neutral; it's practically the greenest thing we can do.