this post was submitted on 11 Apr 2024
274 points (96.9% liked)

Funny

6907 readers
514 users here now

General rules:

Exceptions may be made at the discretion of the mods.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
all 36 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 94 points 7 months ago (2 children)

The Joint Evaluated Fission and Fusion (JEFF) Nuclear Data Library is a collaboration between NEA Data Bank participating countries. The JEFF library combines the efforts of its different Working Groups to produce sets of evaluated nuclear data, for fission and fusion applications.

https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_27365/the-jeff-nuclear-data-library

[–] [email protected] 46 points 7 months ago

Sounds like something Jeff would say

[–] [email protected] 9 points 7 months ago

Based acronym

[–] FrodoSpark 37 points 7 months ago (4 children)

I don't get what the deal is, I also have less than 10 nuclear warheads

[–] [email protected] 7 points 7 months ago

Fewer.

Grammar is still important even if you're in possession of WMD.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago

CIA joins the call

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago

Bush: "Iraq has less than 10 WMD's, we gotta invade!"

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

So, you're N. Korea?

[–] hperrin 29 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (3 children)

After seeing Russia’s non-nuclear weapons, I honestly don’t believe they have that many nuclear weapons.

I’m not saying they have none, but I don’t think they’ve kept up the maintenance required for 7,000.

[–] PM_Your_Nudes_Please 11 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I mean, the actual number they have is irrelevant because there’s no way of knowing which ones are duds until it’s too late. If they were to launch a nuclear attack, the countries they’re attacking wouldn’t wait to see if it was a dud before responding. Because even if there’s only a 10% chance it detonates, that’s still 700 nukes detonating.

[–] TheBat 1 points 7 months ago

Deadliest game of bluff

[–] olutukko 10 points 7 months ago

Mos likely a lot of them are really old and not ik workikg conditions but they like to keep up the illusion that they could just nuke the whole globe

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Same goes for the US. Most launch facilities are in subpar condition.

[–] Benaaasaaas 9 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I think that "subpar" are slightly different to US and Russia though.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago

Yup. It's actually fascinating to read up on how the US maintains and tests nuclear weapons.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 7 months ago (3 children)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 7 months ago (1 children)

And do you have less than 10 nuclear warheads?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago
[–] Funkytom467 6 points 7 months ago

Your username as two, wait three names in it, and none are jeff. I am confused, flabbergasted and quite possibly bamboozled.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago

Why do you need nuclear arsenals, Jeff??? Hmm???

[–] Anticorp 9 points 7 months ago (5 children)

Does anyone really need 7000 nuclear warheads?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 7 months ago

Well if you want to blow up all your enemies at once, yeah.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 months ago

Well, we needed more than the other guys and they felt the same way.

[–] AnUnusualRelic 2 points 7 months ago

The US had several tens of thousands in its heyday.

[–] TheBat 0 points 7 months ago

Exactly what I asked your mom.

She's got three as dildos and two of them are of same size. Fucking hoarders smh.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 7 months ago

Real advice: leave Jeff alone.

[–] venusaur 6 points 7 months ago
[–] [email protected] 6 points 7 months ago

Jeff!? As in Jeff!?!?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Wow ordered list in descending order. 100-120 is somehow higher in the list than 110-130

[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 months ago

I get the feeling this isn't real, some how