Editing Talk:2099: Missal of Silos
Please sign your posts with ~~~~ |
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
::I'm wondering, why would anyone want to target a site that is expressly built to withstand a nuklear strike? That's like fighting a barbarian princess and try to hit her on the bikini armor instead of the midriff [[User:Ruffy314|Ruffy314]] ([[User talk:Ruffy314|talk]]) 00:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC) | ::I'm wondering, why would anyone want to target a site that is expressly built to withstand a nuklear strike? That's like fighting a barbarian princess and try to hit her on the bikini armor instead of the midriff [[User:Ruffy314|Ruffy314]] ([[User talk:Ruffy314|talk]]) 00:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC) | ||
:::Enough nuclear weapons will eventually crack it, or at least that's the idea. Also, military command bases are far more important targets than cities: All nuking cities does is kill millions of people and disrupt your enemy's economy and morale, while destroying command bunkers actually reduces your enemy's ability to fight you. | :::Enough nuclear weapons will eventually crack it, or at least that's the idea. Also, military command bases are far more important targets than cities: All nuking cities does is kill millions of people and disrupt your enemy's economy and morale, while destroying command bunkers actually reduces your enemy's ability to fight you. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Nuking cities will also REALLY tick off the UN, which is a plus. | ||
::My understanding is that most military sites are only capable of withstanding near misses from nuclear weapons. This was adequate with early ICBMs because of accuracy problems, modern missiles however are supposed to be accurate enough to destroy hardened facilities. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.22|162.158.255.22]] 01:51, 18 January 2019 (UTC) | ::My understanding is that most military sites are only capable of withstanding near misses from nuclear weapons. This was adequate with early ICBMs because of accuracy problems, modern missiles however are supposed to be accurate enough to destroy hardened facilities. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.22|162.158.255.22]] 01:51, 18 January 2019 (UTC) | ||
− | + | :I did not laugh at the comic today. However, I startled people around me laughing at the placement of this [citation needed] in the description. Kudo's to whomever placed it. [[User:DanB|DanB]] ([[User talk:DanB|talk]]) 21:32, 16 January 2019 (UTC) | |
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | I did not laugh at the comic today. However, I startled people around me laughing at the placement of this [citation needed] in the description. Kudo's to whomever placed it. [[User:DanB|DanB]] ([[User talk:DanB|talk]]) 21:32, 16 January 2019 (UTC) | ||
Wouldn't it make more sense to create a seperate page to collect all the "xkcd-Wikipedia effect" cases? I'm kinda surprised there isn't one already. Model Rail isn't even the only time that happened. One other example being https://xkcd.com/1485/. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.58.177|162.158.58.177]] 11:23, 17 January 2019 (UTC) | Wouldn't it make more sense to create a seperate page to collect all the "xkcd-Wikipedia effect" cases? I'm kinda surprised there isn't one already. Model Rail isn't even the only time that happened. One other example being https://xkcd.com/1485/. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.58.177|162.158.58.177]] 11:23, 17 January 2019 (UTC) | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
;Similar comics | ;Similar comics | ||
Line 34: | Line 27: | ||
Why has it been cremated by a bob? | Why has it been cremated by a bob? | ||
− | |||
− |