Nuclear Family Fun!
July 7, 2009 11:58 AM   Subscribe

How many nuclear warheads are within rainge of YOUR town? Finally, a webgadget to let us know.
via The Ridiculant
posted by wendell (167 comments total) 5 users marked this as a favorite
 
6460
nuclear warheads
Are within range of
stockholm, sweden

.
posted by Foci for Analysis at 12:02 PM on July 7, 2009


6404. crap.
posted by Mach5 at 12:02 PM on July 7, 2009


192 warheads from the UK are in range of Seattle.

You guys still haven't gotten over that whole Tea Party thing, have you?
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 12:03 PM on July 7, 2009 [5 favorites]


6404 nuclear warheads
Are within range of
new york, usa


I kinda like the fact that, in the (highly) unlikely event of a nuclear war, I'll be utterly vaporized before I have the chance to realize that I just lost everything and everyone that's ever mattered to me.
posted by Afroblanco at 12:04 PM on July 7, 2009 [4 favorites]


Please, please, please do not make any important decisions based on this information.
posted by anastasiav at 12:05 PM on July 7, 2009 [1 favorite]


The whole point of ICBMs: "range? screw range"
posted by smackfu at 12:05 PM on July 7, 2009 [3 favorites]


Holy hell. 6404 nuclear warheads are within range of New York, NY.

By Country: 2347 from USA / 3684 from Russia / 192 from UK / 121 from China / 60 from France

By Delivery: / 2490 from long range ICBMs / 0 from short range missiles / 1143 from bomber aircraft / 2771 from nuclear submarines

The instructions in this video still work, though, right? RIGHT?!
posted by zarq at 12:05 PM on July 7, 2009


8187 are within range of Columbus, Ohio!

Does that mean I win?
posted by Solon and Thanks at 12:05 PM on July 7, 2009


8187 within range of Minneapolis. But half of those are American, and they're not likely to allow the destuction of an American city. Right?

Oh, that reminds me. I hope to visit New Orleans soon.
posted by Astro Zombie at 12:05 PM on July 7, 2009 [12 favorites]


My undersea base is outside of any national territorial boundaries so I'm not sure what to enter. None of my henchmen have been able to get this to work either. I think I'll shoot one to motivate the rest of them to come up with a solution.

Sorry: henchpeople.
posted by GuyZero at 12:06 PM on July 7, 2009 [7 favorites]


6283 nuclear warheads
Are within range of
The Moon, Space


Damn it, I thought I was safe up here.
posted by burnmp3s at 12:06 PM on July 7, 2009 [15 favorites]


So, there are 8,000 of the little buggers that can hit my town, but only 6,000 (give or take) that can hit the town 8 miles away...

hmmmmm...
posted by HuronBob at 12:06 PM on July 7, 2009 [2 favorites]


I've been playing Fallout 3 recently, and I live in DC. I laugh in the face of nuclear armageddon.
posted by empath at 12:08 PM on July 7, 2009 [5 favorites]


8127nuclear warheads
Are within range of
Springfield, USA

posted by Pollomacho at 12:08 PM on July 7, 2009 [6 favorites]


omigod this is just like that show jericho
posted by billysumday at 12:08 PM on July 7, 2009


2892 nuclear warheads are within range of Invercargill, New Zealand.

If New Zealand is on your hit list, I think you have bigger aggression problems to deal with than a silly little nuclear war.
posted by mdonley at 12:09 PM on July 7, 2009 [8 favorites]


8187! Go Muncie!
posted by Thorzdad at 12:10 PM on July 7, 2009


Your megatonnage will vary.
posted by wendell at 12:12 PM on July 7, 2009


8127 nuclear warheads
Are within range of
Springfield, USA


The Simpsons are fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuucked.
posted by educatedslacker at 12:13 PM on July 7, 2009 [1 favorite]


Wait, we have reliable information on Israel's nuclear program now?
posted by Navelgazer at 12:13 PM on July 7, 2009 [3 favorites]


5521 nuclear warheads
Are within range of
MeFi

posted by not_on_display at 12:13 PM on July 7, 2009


2892 nuclear warheads
Are within range of
Melbourne, Australia

Hot damn! I thought that being down here in The World's Own Rarely-Visited Bomb-Shelter would afford me some protection, but apparently (and I'm speculating here) most of the dolphins around our coastlines are, in fact, adorable little nuclear submarines.
posted by Rumpled at 12:14 PM on July 7, 2009 [1 favorite]


6404 nuclear warheads are within range of washington dc, usa

How can we have fewer than Muncie??? I demand a recount.

(Also, I now have this going through my head...)
posted by JoanArkham at 12:16 PM on July 7, 2009


2892 nuclear warheads are within range of Invercargill, New Zealand.

Still...seven extra seconds.
posted by yoink at 12:16 PM on July 7, 2009


6,404.

Oh, what's the bright ass light off in the distance?
posted by sperose at 12:17 PM on July 7, 2009


6404 aimed directly at Greenville, South Carolina.

That certainly explains this town's fearful, conservative leaning...

They hate are freedum!
posted by LordSludge at 12:17 PM on July 7, 2009


3535 nuclear warheads
Are within range of
stanley, Falkland Islands
By country
1264 from USA
2079 from Russia
192 from UK
posted by anastasiav at 12:18 PM on July 7, 2009


Interesting... 6700 nuclear warheads Are within range of berlin, germany
1264 from USA
4568 from Russia
192 from UK
176 from China
300 from France
200 from Israel
posted by kolophon at 12:18 PM on July 7, 2009


Bah, I got you all beat!

9071 nuclear warheads
Are within range of
winnipeg, canada
posted by utsutsu at 12:19 PM on July 7, 2009


5521 nuclear warheads
Are within range of
MeFi


I'm pretty sure they're just here to keep MeTa in check. You never know when someone's gonna go nuclear.
posted by Afroblanco at 12:19 PM on July 7, 2009 [1 favorite]


6404.

The more important question is how many of those would likely be aimed at my area.

Unfortunately for me, I live within 50 miles of 3 military bases, one of the busiest international airports in the US, and a number of other unnamed strategic sites. So, I'm pretty much screwed, even in a strategic nuclear strike.

Yay.
posted by elfgirl at 12:19 PM on July 7, 2009


8187 nuclear warheads
Are within range of
Milwaukee, United States


Pfft, this is why I never trust the internet. The number should be 8188 They obviously didn't count the one I'm most worried about; the one hidden in my shed.

It's been buzzing lately.

Should they do that?
posted by quin at 12:20 PM on July 7, 2009 [6 favorites]


Something I've never understood is the sheer volume of warheads. I mean, you have the macho bullshit nationalism stuff, but wouldn't that account for, say, 100 warheads for every enemy country? "We can destroy your cities ONE HUNDRED TIMES!!!"

...but... thousands? What? What the hell is the point? Even insanely militant people should be able to recognize the illogical nature of such warfare, right? I really don't get it.
posted by odinsdream at 12:20 PM on July 7, 2009


So Los Angeles, California is potentially safer than Pittenweem, Fife?
posted by infinitewindow at 12:23 PM on July 7, 2009


8127 in Little Rock, too. Also Nome. I might be a mite skeptical about these numbers.

The good news, though, is that as long as I stay on the left side of the Mississippi, I don't have to worry about French nukes.
posted by box at 12:24 PM on July 7, 2009


The number of nuclear warheads which can destroy you is OVER 9000!
posted by adipocere at 12:24 PM on July 7, 2009 [2 favorites]


There are apparently no nuclear warheads in "My Pants." Whew! Safe!
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 12:24 PM on July 7, 2009 [2 favorites]


...but... thousands? What? What the hell is the point? Even insanely militant people should be able to recognize the illogical nature of such warfare, right? I really don't get it.

You have to realistically be able to survive a survive first strike and still launch a devestating counter attack.

In order for MAD to work, there should be a 0% chance of survival for a country that launches a first strike.
posted by empath at 12:25 PM on July 7, 2009 [1 favorite]


7228 nuclear warheads
Are within range of
The North Pole


I'm not all that worried cause I just know Santa's got one heck of an elf-built fallout shelter.
posted by Spatch at 12:26 PM on July 7, 2009


2771 nuclear warheads
Are within range of
south pole, antarctica
posted by moonroof at 12:27 PM on July 7, 2009


...but... thousands? What? What the hell is the point? Even insanely militant people should be able to recognize the illogical nature of such warfare, right? I really don't get it.

It makes sense once you understand that the purpose of a nuclear warhead, like most military-industrial expenditures, is to be built and stored, never actually used.
posted by Kandarp Von Bontee at 12:28 PM on July 7, 2009 [1 favorite]


I'm not really sure I trust these results:
6645 nuclear warheads
Are within range of
Adolph, Hitler
By country
1264 from USA
4568 from Russia
192 from UK
121 from China
300 from France
200 from Israel
By delivery
2690 from long range ICBMs
240 from short range missiles
944 from bomber aircraft
2771 from nuclear submarines
posted by blue_beetle at 12:28 PM on July 7, 2009 [5 favorites]


8127 nuclear warheads
Are within range of
austin, usa


Duck!.....And cover!
posted by spikeleemajortomdickandharryconnickjrmints at 12:29 PM on July 7, 2009


200 from Israel

"Nuclear? These missiles? No no no. These are conventional weapons. Standard, run of the mill. Can barely reach Lebanon, even. Nuclear shmuclear. G-d forbid. Can you imagine? Our mothers would kill us."
posted by zarq at 12:30 PM on July 7, 2009 [2 favorites]


You have to realistically be able to survive a survive first strike and still launch a devestating counter attack.

Indeed. Which is why nuclear submarines were/are so strategically useful. Even we don't know where all of our subs are at any given moment. Any one of them could wipe out most of a large country.

Whole lotta trust we have in those guys. We sure they're getting paid enough? May I freshen your drink, Mr. Submarine Commander, sir?
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 12:31 PM on July 7, 2009


4678 nuclear warheads
Are within range of
The Bottom, Of the Sea

I guess it really isn't better under the sea.
posted by Diskeater at 12:31 PM on July 7, 2009


6223 nuclear warheads / Are within range of / Safe Haven, USA

I want my money back.
posted by rokusan at 12:32 PM on July 7, 2009 [1 favorite]


May I freshen your drink, Mr. Submarine Commander, sir?

Give me a ping, Vasili. One ping only, please.
posted by DreamerFi at 12:33 PM on July 7, 2009 [2 favorites]


192 warheads from the UK are in range of Seattle.

Seattle nuclear winter       | Seattle winter
Zombie hordes                | Hipster hordes
EMP destroys all electronics | Experience Music Project museum


I dunno, maybe we could give nuclear war with UK a chance. Just sayin'
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:34 PM on July 7, 2009 [3 favorites]


8187 nuclear warheads
Are within range of
Bloomington, Indiana


Oh dear.
posted by Pope Guilty at 12:35 PM on July 7, 2009


Question. I recently acquired a poster from my grandmother that says "What is the sound of 51,304 nuclear weapons not exploding?" It's from 1982. Were there a lot more nuclear weapons in 1982?
posted by diogenes at 12:36 PM on July 7, 2009


How many of those Russian nukes still have both fissile material and fuel that hasn't been pilfered and sold on the black market by unpaid soldiers and nuclear technicians?
posted by Pollomacho at 12:36 PM on July 7, 2009


Oddly enough, there are more nuclear warheads in range of Madison than there are of Washington.
posted by kldickson at 12:36 PM on July 7, 2009


Not to be a pooper but the page is ridiculous. Even assuming it were accurate, does it matter if you have 6200 or 4800 nuclear warheads within range? No. And for the vast majority of us it is roughly as accurate as simply picking a random number between 5000 and 7000. The error bars on their "estimate" are so high it might as well be using a magic eight ball.
posted by Justinian at 12:38 PM on July 7, 2009


Give me a ping, Vasili. One ping only, please.

Y'know, I seen me a mermaid once. I even seen me a shark eat an octopus. But I ain't never seen no phantom Russian submarine.
posted by zarq at 12:39 PM on July 7, 2009


Whatever. Just finished a disaster preparaness training class for my city and nukes were low on the list of potential disasters and we have one buried offshore.

Now, the chemicals at your local waste water plant? Oooo boy....
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:40 PM on July 7, 2009


Duck!.....And cover!

Yeah... if there's nukes on their way to Austin, I'm going to just start downing some Shiner. Maybe some Tito's.
posted by Talanvor at 12:40 PM on July 7, 2009


In the town where I was born
Lives no one - not even me
Only cockroaches are still alive
Except in ships under the sea

So we never see the sun
And our skin is turning green
As we starve beneath the waves
In our yellowcake submarine

We all live in a yellowcake submarine
A yellowcake submarine
A yellowcake submarine...
We all lived in a yellowcake submarine
A yellowcake submarine
A yellowcake submarine
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 12:41 PM on July 7, 2009 [3 favorites]


Aren't you basically fucked if the number is > 1. I mean, does it matter if you get nuked by one nuke versus 10? Or 100?

6404. Son of a bitch. I guess that's what you get being next to the US.
posted by chunking express at 12:43 PM on July 7, 2009 [1 favorite]


Holy hell. 6404 nuclear warheads are within range of New York, NY.

By Country: 2347 from USA


Erm. Is there an impending civil war we should know about? What's the point of counting these?

9071 nuclear warheads
Are within range of
winnipeg, canada


You can never go home again.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 12:45 PM on July 7, 2009


...but... thousands? What? What the hell is the point? Even insanely militant people should be able to recognize the illogical nature of such warfare, right?

The point is the assured in Mutual Assured Destruction. The point is to have enough nuclear weapons so that even after a first strike, you have enough to devastate the offending country.

This sets up a best-response cycle* that ends up with very large numbers of warheads. At their peak inventories, the US and USSR had something on the order of 75000--100000 warheads between them, the vast majority of them targeting the other side's nuclear weapons.

You can tell who the children of the 70s and 80s are -- I was astonished to see a number less than 10000.

*Your best response to their apparent arsenal is to have enough to (a) take a hit from theirs and still be able to strike all their major cities and (b) launch a counterforce first strike if necessary. Their best response is then to increase their arsenal so that they have enough for those purposes, your best response is to increase, etc. It wouldn't really equilibrate until the marginal cost of additional warheads became very, very high.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:48 PM on July 7, 2009 [4 favorites]


I wonder where the site's creator got his numbers — in particular, he doesn't seem to have included nuclear submarines belonging to the French or the Chinese. (In case you didn't think those numbers were worrying enough.)
posted by Johnny Assay at 12:51 PM on July 7, 2009


kldickson : Oddly enough, there are more nuclear warheads in range of Madison than there are of Washington.

We've confused our enemies by setting up Madison as a decoy.
posted by quin at 12:51 PM on July 7, 2009


6283
nuclear warheads
Are within range of
The Moon, Space

By country
2347 from USA
3684 from Russia
192 from UK
60 from France

By delivery
2369 from long range ICBMs
0 from short range missiles
1143 from bomber aircraft
2771 from nuclear submarines

Bomber aircraft?
posted by ageispolis at 12:52 PM on July 7, 2009 [2 favorites]


Were there a lot more nuclear weapons in 1982?

Yes. See START I, START II, and SORT.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:54 PM on July 7, 2009


Shanghai, China has two NK nukes in it's threat range. Let's hope that doesn't become an issue any time soon. All of you worrying about your home town...
posted by longbaugh at 12:56 PM on July 7, 2009


The figures are loosely based on this data.

Loosely, because, seriously, The North Pole? Any random string of letters will provide a return.
posted by jabberjaw at 1:01 PM on July 7, 2009 [1 favorite]


6404 nuclear warheads
Are within range of
Boston, Massachusetts


Including 60 from France. Dear France, please don't kill me. I like your fries and your letters. Love, Boston.
posted by marginaliana at 1:03 PM on July 7, 2009


7228 in range of Olympia, WA. I wonder how many would have to hit before we noticed?
posted by EatTheWeak at 1:10 PM on July 7, 2009


6645 for both adolph, hitler and jesus, christ.
posted by sageleaf at 1:13 PM on July 7, 2009


8127, but even if it was just one, my question remains unanswered: Where's the big red 'X' that I'm supposed to stand on? I sure as hell don't want to survive it.
posted by davelog at 1:15 PM on July 7, 2009


6275 nuclear warheads are within range of Emerald City, Oz.
posted by Navelgazer at 1:17 PM on July 7, 2009


My dad used to say: "Once the water is over your head, it doesn't really matter how deep it is..."

Sort of applies here.
posted by LakesideOrion at 1:18 PM on July 7, 2009


Rainge, eh?
posted by Mister_A at 1:19 PM on July 7, 2009


6344 nuclear warheads
Are within range of
Ventura, California

Actually shouldn't the grammar here should be X town is within range of Y nuclear weapons?

The top statement implies that Ventura poses some threat to the nukes...you know, like sun bleached surfer dudes are going to pack up the VW and head to Minot, North Dakota.
posted by Xoebe at 1:20 PM on July 7, 2009


Oddly enough, there are more nuclear warheads in range of Madison than there are of Washington.

Well, all you really need is one.
posted by lullaby at 1:20 PM on July 7, 2009


Believe me when I tell ya, I'm nostalgic for that good old atomic bomb...

... and the other 6222 of its friends it's brought over!
posted by cmyk at 1:24 PM on July 7, 2009


6404 for Atlantis, The Ocean. Kiss your caudal peduncles goodbye, mer-scum!
posted by thinman at 1:25 PM on July 7, 2009


> 6275 nuclear warheads
> Are within range of
>
> EMERALD CITY, OZ
>
> By delivery
> 2565 from long range ICBMs
> 0 from short range missiles
> 939 from bomber aircraft
> 2771 from nuclear submarines

Not even one by silver (the book) or ruby (Hollywood) slippers. The slippers, they do nothing.
posted by jfuller at 1:27 PM on July 7, 2009 [1 favorite]


Erm. Is there an impending civil war we should know about?

We residents of North Dakota, Montana, and Wyoming are taking the nuclear ICBMs on our lands and starting our own country. All 12 of us are going to be president. You got a problem with that?
posted by AzraelBrown at 1:27 PM on July 7, 2009 [1 favorite]


Winnipeg FTW!
posted by bonobothegreat at 1:28 PM on July 7, 2009


192 warheads from the UK are in range of Seattle.

Seattle nuclear winter | Seattle winter
Zombie hordes | Hipster hordes
EMP destroys all electronics | Experience Music Project museum


A case for nuclear war if I ever saw one.

Never really thought of the zombie-hipster analogue, but good god, San Francisco and Oakland are screwed on that count.
posted by spitefulcrow at 1:29 PM on July 7, 2009


Moving to the southern hemisphere gets you targeted by a mere 2000+ warheads as opposed to 6000+.
posted by Artw at 1:30 PM on July 7, 2009


2892 nuclear warheads are within range of Invercargill, New Zealand.

I've been there. It looked like the warheads had beaten me to it.
posted by i_cola at 1:32 PM on July 7, 2009


3535 nuclear warheads
Are within range of
Betelgeuse


You're going to get a non-zero figure wherever you are in the universe, it seems.
posted by randomination at 1:35 PM on July 7, 2009


Everybody Dies
posted by Artw at 1:35 PM on July 7, 2009


6404
nuclear warheads
Are within range of
Burlington, Vermont

Woo Hoo! More fireworks!
posted by garnetgirl at 1:36 PM on July 7, 2009


6404.

A suspiciously popular number!
posted by Sys Rq at 1:43 PM on July 7, 2009


The point is the assured in Mutual Assured Destruction. The point is to have enough nuclear weapons so that even after a first strike, you have enough to devastate the offending country.

That's why at a certain point, the idea of a missile defense system is a lot scarier than thousands more missile silos. If one side has the ability to launch a sneak attack, and then successfully defend against the inevitable counter-attack, the whole MAD system collapses.

Luckily, building an effective missile defense is a lot harder than building enough bombs to blow up the entire planet, so it's never gotten to that point. And (hopefully) everyone realizes that if enough nuclear weapons went off anywhere in the world, there would be a nuclear winter bad enough to completely halt food production for a long enough time to kill all or nearly all of the world's population.
posted by burnmp3s at 1:47 PM on July 7, 2009


Vancouver scores 7228. None of these are directly dangerous, since none of the four countries owning them hates Vancouver.

The main problem for Vancouverites is that if 6404 nuclear warheads get dropped on Boston we'd be breathing radioactive ash for decades. Or not breathing it...
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 1:47 PM on July 7, 2009


9011 nuclear warheads
Are within range of
calgary, canada


Fuck it, launch 'em.
posted by Artw at 1:53 PM on July 7, 2009


Vancouver scores 7228. None of these are directly dangerous, since none of the four countries owning them hates Vancouver.

You should probably be hoping really hard that they don't get too caught up in the 2010 medal count.
posted by Sys Rq at 2:00 PM on July 7, 2009


6344 in range of Berkeley, CA. So much for being a "nuclear free zone."
posted by brundlefly at 2:01 PM on July 7, 2009 [1 favorite]


Macaulay Culkin, may you find peace.

6344
nuclear warheads
Are within range of
Neverland Ranch, CA
posted by Fezzik's Underwear at 2:04 PM on July 7, 2009 [2 favorites]


It's just asked me if I'd like to play a game.
posted by Artw at 2:05 PM on July 7, 2009 [2 favorites]


7728 nuclear warheads
Are within range of
Gotham City,
posted by ALongDecember at 2:05 PM on July 7, 2009


6645
nuclear warheads
Are within range of
caprica, caprica


AND THEY HAVE A PLAN
posted by mazola at 2:14 PM on July 7, 2009 [6 favorites]


That's nothin'. There are over 3,000 warheads in a bunker roughly five miles away from where I'm sitting.
posted by signalnine at 2:19 PM on July 7, 2009 [1 favorite]


As someone who lives in Washington, DC, I can tell you, the important number is the number of nukes targeting where you live, not the number that could reach you.
posted by Ironmouth at 2:20 PM on July 7, 2009


6700 nuclear warheads
Are within range of
Boing Boing,


do it doit doitdoitdoitdoitdoitdoitdoitdoitdoit...
posted by logicpunk at 2:24 PM on July 7, 2009 [6 favorites]


8187 nuclear warheads
Are within range of
Wendell,


That will definitely not wendell.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:29 PM on July 7, 2009


6700. But I would not rule out the chance to preserve a nucleus of human specimens.
posted by pracowity at 2:30 PM on July 7, 2009 [1 favorite]


But surely, pracowity, that would mean the abandonment of the so-called monogamous sexual relationship—at least as far as men are concerned.
posted by vibrotronica at 2:33 PM on July 7, 2009 [1 favorite]


Taqlanvor: Maybe some Tito's.

Tito's is da bomb!!

*Ducks*


*and covers....*

posted by Skygazer at 2:36 PM on July 7, 2009


Hot damn! I thought that being down here in The World's Own Rarely-Visited Bomb-Shelter would afford me some protection,

Nuclear subs will get you every time.

Besides, ICBMs are basically the same things that took us to the moon.
posted by rodgerd at 2:36 PM on July 7, 2009


8127
nuclear warheads
Are within range of
santa's workshop, north pole


I am beginning to suspect that these numbers are... suspect.
posted by mazola at 2:40 PM on July 7, 2009


If one side has the ability to launch a sneak attack, and then successfully defend against the inevitable counter-attack, the whole MAD system collapses.

And thus we had the ABM Treaty.

And, oops, George W. Bush pulled us out of it. The jackass.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 2:42 PM on July 7, 2009


Aren't you basically fucked if the number is > 1. I mean, does it matter if you get nuked by one nuke versus 10? Or 100?

I believe the first one does hurt more. After that, it's not so bad.


Me? Im going to apply for a job as henchperson. I understand a position is opening up at Mr. GuyZero's base.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 2:50 PM on July 7, 2009


Earthlings sure are crazy:

6645 nuclear warheads
Are within range of
Martian, Mars
posted by movicont at 2:58 PM on July 7, 2009


Aren't you basically fucked if the number is > 1. I mean, does it matter if you get nuked by one nuke versus 10? Or 100?

The U.S. military plans for about 15-20 percent of all its nukes to be duds, and a not-insignificant amount of the others to simply miss their targets for various reasons (e.g. launch failure, re-entry failure, the bomber gets shot down on the way to the target, etc). Whether they are actually concerned about those numbers, or if they're just being conservative about things, is another question.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 3:09 PM on July 7, 2009


6404 nuclear warheads are within range of washington dc, usa
How can we have fewer than Muncie??? I demand a recount.


I suspect that, maybe, 1 or 2 might actually be targeted at Muncie. The number actually targeting DC, on the other hand, is probably well into 4-figures.

Feel better?
posted by Thorzdad at 3:10 PM on July 7, 2009


Is something supposed to happen when I click on "now what"? I am not doing it right?
posted by nax at 3:10 PM on July 7, 2009 [2 favorites]


See, if we don't launch all these nukes this year,
it means a decrease in our nuke budget next year.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 3:12 PM on July 7, 2009 [2 favorites]


I think we're all glibly missing an important question here, because short of a zombie/alien infestation, or the outlaw of bacon in that particular place, what would make the whole world, including its own country throw it's entire nuclear stockpile at one little city or town?? I mean c'mon. This is all academic. D'uh....
posted by Skygazer at 3:12 PM on July 7, 2009


After the spiffy treaty Obama just signed in Russia, 6404 could end up being as low as 4000 or so. So unclench, citizens!


ICBMs are basically the same things that took us to the moon.

One of these days, Alice.... one of these days....
posted by CynicalKnight at 3:14 PM on July 7, 2009


> I am beginning to suspect that these numbers are... suspect.

As are a whole lot of other scary numbers you see on the net. Or in the New York Times, come to that.
posted by jfuller at 3:19 PM on July 7, 2009


192 warheads from the UK are in range of Seattle.

You guys still haven't gotten over that whole Tea Party thing, have you?


You have tea in Seattle? I thought it was only coffee up there.
posted by filthy light thief at 3:30 PM on July 7, 2009


This thing isn't working for me. Wait. Has something already happened? Guys? HELLO!!!???

Now, what was that website...nukedoforeveryoneorjustme.com?
posted by orme at 3:34 PM on July 7, 2009 [1 favorite]


You have tea in Seattle? I thought it was only coffee up there.

They have stuff they call tea in most stores, which is basically just dirt in bags, but if you hunt around you can find PG Tips. But you should see how these barbarians heat water. They put it in the fucking microwave. Electric kettles can be found but you have to hunt around for them.
posted by Artw at 3:56 PM on July 7, 2009 [1 favorite]


6645 nuclear warheads
Are within range of
Martian, Mars


Careful.

Being disintegrated makes Martians very, very angry. Very angry indeed.
posted by rokusan at 4:19 PM on July 7, 2009


Not to be a pooper but the page is ridiculous.

Which is why I used the "wegetthepoint" tag.

8187 nuclear warheads
Are within range of
Wendell,


...but the threat is much less since I signed that Multilateral Nuclear Treaty with cortx, Astro Zombie and Blazecock Pileon. However, I have heard rumors that It's Raining Florence Henderson may have acquired Black Market technology to build Monty Python's Ultimate Joke and was considering testing it in the next thread about Sarah Palin or Michael Jackson. You have been warned.

(also, the Nukeometer has stopped working for me in Firefox. We may have overloaded it. Don't ya wish you could do that with actual nukes?)
posted by wendell at 4:20 PM on July 7, 2009


Now what? Nothing.
posted by battleshipkropotkin at 4:20 PM on July 7, 2009


but if you hunt around you can find PG Tips
PG Tips? Good Lord, nuclear oblivion would be preferable to drinking that. you poor things
posted by Miss Otis' Egrets at 4:22 PM on July 7, 2009 [1 favorite]


Let me say that no one in their right mind need suffer PG Tips. We got a perfectly good box of Tetley Masala tea at the local Indian grocery a while back. And it's not very hard to find Twinnings which is reliable if nothing else. Unfortunately, no Red Rose.

Only in Canada you say?
posted by GuyZero at 4:24 PM on July 7, 2009


Nowtwrong with PG Tips.

Every Twinnings tea I have tasted in North America has been nasty tasting dirt. I think they hit it with a special flavor-draining ray when they ship it or something.
posted by Artw at 4:30 PM on July 7, 2009


I have heard rumors that It's Raining Florence Henderson may have acquired Black Market technology to build Monty Python's Ultimate Joke and was considering testing it in the next thread about Sarah Palin or Michael Jackson.

I have, in fact, attempted to deploy said Joke on several occasions over the last few days, only to have the CORTEX ONE-MAN MONTY PYTHON ULTIMATE JOKE DEFENSE SYSTEM (COMPU JDS) nuke the entire extraneous Palin or Jackson thread from orbit before I can even hit Post Comment. I guess it's the only way to be sure.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 4:36 PM on July 7, 2009 [1 favorite]


Every Twinnings tea I have tasted in North America has been nasty tasting dirt.

Eh, it tastes fine (i.e. nothing like actual tea), but the bag is made of disintegratastical shitballs which causes rampant unmitigated fallout.
posted by Sys Rq at 4:43 PM on July 7, 2009


Geez Artw, it's only Super Fine Tippy Golden Flowery Orange Pekoe single-estate for you then, is it? Picked by virgins? From a specific 10 square metres of the Lengteng foothills? Or do you prefer the tea from the north side of the Brahmaputra river?
posted by GuyZero at 4:51 PM on July 7, 2009 [1 favorite]


Not tasting like cardboard is fine.
posted by Artw at 4:52 PM on July 7, 2009


The site isn't working for me, either.
posted by 6:1 at 4:54 PM on July 7, 2009


thousands? What? What the hell is the point? Even insanely militant people should be able to recognize the illogical nature of such warfare, right? I really don't get it.

Mutually Assured Destruction. None of those pesky survivors to speak of.
posted by IvoShandor at 4:56 PM on July 7, 2009


Mutually Assured Destruction --> Retard Used Sly Mutual Suction --> USSR USA Turtle Action Mule Dyad
posted by Sys Rq at 5:10 PM on July 7, 2009 [1 favorite]


TEA FIGHT TEA FIGHT TEA FIGHT tea...fight Tea fight, anyone?
posted by everichon at 5:14 PM on July 7, 2009 [2 favorites]


Unfortunately, no Red Rose.

Red Rose? Red Rose? Please consider my application for the henchperson position withdrawn. I would never hench for someone who likes that stuff.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 5:20 PM on July 7, 2009


Mutually Assured Darjeeling
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 5:21 PM on July 7, 2009 [3 favorites]


Let me say that no one in their right mind need suffer PG Tips. We got a perfectly good box of Tetley Masala tea at the local Indian grocery a while back. And it's not very hard to find Twinnings which is reliable if nothing else. Unfortunately, no Red Rose.

I like the Bigelow Green Tea myself. Hands down the best green tea I have ever tasted and if anyone has a problem with that, well....just speak up and we'll meet at dawn and duel it out like wily hairy men of action and intrigue did back in the old days. Yessir that's right.

*Spits on hands. Lights pipe.*
posted by Skygazer at 5:24 PM on July 7, 2009


Hmmm - not working on FF3, Chrome or IE8
posted by Nauip at 5:25 PM on July 7, 2009


Yeah, the site's not working for me, either. ...nuked??
posted by zardoz at 5:28 PM on July 7, 2009 [1 favorite]


I would never hench for someone who likes that stuff.

Pity...
posted by GuyZero at 5:33 PM on July 7, 2009


Mutually Assured Darjeeling --> Same Guy Dual Lens Turd Jailer --> Usual Deer Studying Real Jam

"USSR US Turtle Action Mule Dyad," dammit.
posted by Sys Rq at 5:38 PM on July 7, 2009 [1 favorite]


>But you should see how these barbarians heat water. They put it in the fucking microwave. Electric kettles can be found but you have to hunt around for them.

neither a tea-phile or a tea-ist, but what would be so barbaric about using the microwave to heat water? It seems to me this is a rare case where the microwave is a pretty direct but more convenient (ie, faster) replacement for a conventional technology as the goal is simply to impart more kinetic energy to the water molecules. You may have to play with the timing to get the same temperature as you are used to from your kettle, but shouldn't the tea ultimately taste the same regardless of how the water was heated?

bonus: helpful eHow on how to boil water in the microwave
posted by sloe at 5:50 PM on July 7, 2009


No worky.
posted by trip and a half at 5:55 PM on July 7, 2009


I actually know people who swear up and down that tea made with microwaved water tastes different. Anyway, who makes less than a pot of tea? You're going to want to bust out the kettle anyway.

plus some of us don't own a microwave :(
posted by GuyZero at 5:56 PM on July 7, 2009


I just point my Taepodongs at the Lipton factory and push the prettiest button.
posted by Sys Rq at 5:59 PM on July 7, 2009 [1 favorite]


nuclear war + MAD + wendell = eponysterical?
posted by cloax at 6:03 PM on July 7, 2009 [1 favorite]


nuclear war + MAD + wendell + sitenoworky + teafight = the ultimate MetaWeapon?
posted by wendell at 6:53 PM on July 7, 2009


I actually know people who swear up and down that tea made with microwaved water tastes different.

I'd lay pretty good money that they'd fail to distinguish the microwaved-water tea from the conventionally-boiled-water tea in a blind taste test.

A propos: it happens that PG Tips is quite famous in advertising psychology circles because it is (or was, anyway, for many decades) by far the leading brand in Britain. Large numbers of people would express a strong and decided preference for PG Tips and assert that this preference was based on its unique and decidedly superior flavor (over Lipton's et al.). The interesting thing was that blind tests established that people had no clear preference for any of the leading brands of commercial tea. The idea of the inherent superiority of PG Tips was simply persuading people to "taste" a marked difference that clearly did not exist in reality.
posted by yoink at 6:59 PM on July 7, 2009


Mutually Assured Darjeeling

* BLUSH *

Mr. Pileon!
posted by everichon at 7:24 PM on July 7, 2009


...but... thousands? What? What the hell is the point?

When a huge part of the economy is based on war, you're going to manufacture warheads.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:49 PM on July 7, 2009


This post started as a Nuclear Bomb post so why not "nuke" the water for tea?

I can get Red Rose tea at Wal-Mart in central Washington. Unfortunately only in the paper bags. I haven't seen any gauze tea bags for sale ever in the states.
posted by Jumpin Jack Flash at 7:50 PM on July 7, 2009


Winnipeg has a lot of nukes pointed at it, but to be fair, Winnipeg probably should be nuked. [shrug]

The same goes for most any city north of Kamloops, BC, too. Prince George is the asshole of the earth, and Quesnel is the taint.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:53 PM on July 7, 2009


You've got 37 twin-barreled shotguns aimed at your head, but I've only got 12 aimed at mine.

I feel so much safer than you.
posted by jeremy b at 8:02 PM on July 7, 2009


They put it in the fucking microwave.

"Put it in the fucking microwave"? In this thread? Dude.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 8:25 PM on July 7, 2009


Bah, jumpin jack flash beat me to it.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 8:26 PM on July 7, 2009


Please, please, please do not make any important decisions based on this information.

I'd like to have the opportunity to try.
posted by ob at 8:36 PM on July 7, 2009


I actually know people who swear up and down that tea made with microwaved water tastes different.
Somebody I know insists that once the jug has boiled subsequent reboiling of the same water will drive all the oxygen out and make the tea taste different, hence the jug must be emptied and refilled between cups (or pots) of tea. But what would I know? I drink Earl Grey.
posted by Miss Otis' Egrets at 8:58 PM on July 7, 2009


I have heard the same thing, that it should always be fresh water boiled for tea.

But yes, you know nothing, as you drink Early Grey - a good cup of tea, ruined.

I mean bergamont, really? It's a fruit so vile that it's inedible. What a perfect thing to use for tea flavouring! Of course! Why not Earl of Wessex, flavoured with the oil of your cat's ass? Mmm. That would be at least as good as Earl Grey.
posted by GuyZero at 11:02 PM on July 7, 2009 [2 favorites]



"nuclear warheads are within range"


I am painting myself white right now.

I totally agree with GuyZero above regarding Earl Grey.
Of course, my favourite tea is Orange Perestroikoe
posted by Catch at 12:42 AM on July 8, 2009


GuyZero? I think you mean the Earl of Derbyshire. He was the cat's Assam tea afficionado.
posted by Miss Otis' Egrets at 1:29 AM on July 8, 2009


Unfortunately, no Red Rose.

FTFY, heathen.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 2:21 AM on July 8, 2009


Why not Earl of Wessex, flavoured with the oil of your cat's ass?

I believe that one's flavoured with Rogaine.

GuyZero? I think you mean the Earl of Derbyshire. He was the cat's Assam tea afficionado.

You are going to fit in here just fine. Also your username? Fantastic.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 2:24 AM on July 8, 2009


Look if we all have learned anything from star craft it is that you will have 10 seconds to find the ghost once you see a tiny red dot and hear nuclear launch detected. Kill him and the whole thing can be easily avoided.
posted by Mastercheddaar at 5:59 AM on July 8, 2009




I mean bergamont, really? It's a fruit so vile that it's inedible. What a perfect thing to use for tea flavouring! Of course! Why not Earl of Wessex, flavoured with the oil of your cat's ass? Mmm. That would be at least as good as Earl Grey.

"Hot." </picard>
posted by Sys Rq at 8:51 AM on July 8, 2009


Boy, if only I had a dollar for every nuclear warhead I was in range of!
posted by turgid dahlia at 9:46 PM on July 8, 2009


Here in Montana - and North Dakota & Wyoming, to a slightly lesser extent - we're used to having nuclear warheads in our general vicinity. No big deal.

But re: the actual link -- um...yeah, so?
posted by davidmsc at 11:47 PM on July 8, 2009




« Older Reissue, repackage, repackage. Satiate the need!   |   ScriptShadow Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments