How dare you speak negatively of Ronald Reagen.
Hey, I voted for the man... after four years of Jimmy and the energy crisis and the "Misery Index", Reagan was awesome... but nobody hits a home run every time they swing.
My personal preference would be swords and bows, but no one has ever had any luck putting a Genie of Technology back into its bottle.
"Those who beat their swords into plowshares, soon end up plowing for those who did not."
Despite sensationalized films like Catch22, there is no reason to believe this would be the case, even if every nuke in the world were set off at once.
It is very safe to assume that if every nuke was set off at once the world would become inhabitable.
I have to agree with Ronald Reagen on this one:
“We seek the total elimination one day of nuclear weapons from the face of the Earth.”
Ronald Reagan, Inaugural Address, 1985
Nonetheless, at our current position, I'm not looking for any major reduction.
Another point: Libs always seem to be the ones who want to cut the military, but think about this. You think American Conservatives are bad, just remember the only thing between you and a burka is the strong arm of our military.
You think the Muslim Brotherhood give a damn about your right to an abortion? You think Islamic Fundamentalists are sensitive to LGBT issues? You think the Chinese give a **** about civil rights? Freedom of speech? Academic freedom?
All of those freedoms you guys love so much were born here in America, and don't you take them for granted. If we are weak, the other powers waiting in the wings are not going to be sensitive to any of those issues you guys hold dear.
Actually it isn't.
I've studied this subject in depth. Nuclear weapons are powerful, but not nearly so powerful as many people who have not studied their effects assume.
Also, most nuclear weapons would be used to create "air bursts" to maximize the area of effect... and air bursts do not create fallout.
Radiation from a standard nuke doesn't last forever. It typically falls off by the formula 7/90%... in 7 hours it falls off 90%, in 7x7=49 hours it falls off another 90% (99% total from original value), in a couple weeks it is down to 1/1000th of its original value.
Also, the whole "nuclear winter" thing has never been more than a hypothesis that has remained controversial; many scientists and engineers consider it highly improbable. Even if "nuclear winter" occurred, it would not last forever and would not be the end of humanity, let alone life on earth.
We do not have the power to destroy the earth with nuclear weapons, nor render it uninhabitable. We MIGHT have sufficient nukes to effectively end OUR current cycle of civilization and cause a "reset" with a much-reduced population... even that is questionable however.
The idea that a nuclear war would exterminate humanity is much over hyped and almost certainly untrue.
This goes against everything that science has been saying for the last 60 years. The half life of the materials used in nuclear weapons is not 7 hours, it more like 20 years if that short a period of time. It is the effect of radioactive materials in the fallout and not the fallout itself which is the issue. Once this material comes in contact with living material in the doses it would in a full scale nuclear war everything dies. EVERYTHING. This is not theory this is fact. Our early tests on nuclear explosions proved this. the only animal that is relatively resistant to "fallout" is the cochroach but even when subjected to ultra high levels of radiation it died. the other factor to consider is Strontium 90 which is lethal to all life forms. This would cover the ground and be carried in the wind currents and if memoryh serves is the main component of concern in Nuclear Winter.
Nuclear winter is based on models that show the effect of radiation in massive quantities in the atmosphere for extended periods of time.
Your assertion that there are not enough nukes to blow up the world is niave. The issue is not BLOWING up the earth which is what conventional weapons do. The issue is creating a nuclear disaster that becomes and ELE. We are talking about one "bomb' which carries multiple nuclear warheads of 20mg ton or larger. If I remember correctly the Hiroshima Bomb was 2mgton.
All militaries capable of ICBM delivery systems or stategic targeting are not going to hit just any old place they going to put it in the pickle barrel. Strategically placed weapons (I hate the word bomb when talking nukes) would render over 90 per cent of the world unfit for live let alone human habitation. And if you think your home made bomb shelter is going to save you. Go luck with that.
From what I understand, 1 20mgton weapon will incinerate everything within a 10-20 sq mile radius and affect everything within at least a 100 mile radius BEFORE the radiation effectively (in bulk) enters the atmosphere. Once this happens the effects become exponential. Multiply this effect by 1000 and then measure in wind patterns and drift and you start to see the picture.
Even the survivalist maps of the 60-80's showed that over 85% of the US would be unfit for human life and primarily any life. This was based on a limited exchange
People argue that we would never use them for the wrong reasons, who determines whether something is used for the right or wrong reason? Why the double standard? Why are we allowed to have them but some other countries are not? Who is to judge who uses these weapons for good not evil, because that comes down to personal opinion, and that is ALWAYS biased.
That is exactly the problem.An excellent question. The answer is: We will, because we are powerful enough (in this period of time) to impose our will on other nations if we wish.
That is the way of the world. You don't have to like it, but it is so.
That is exactly the problem.
How many nuclear warheads should the U.S. be allowed to have?
How many nuclear warheads should the U.S. be allowed to have?
That is exactly the problem.
Would you repeat that to the President and about 98% of the Left?As many as we want.
Who can tell us otherwise? No one. That's the perk of being top of the world.
Airbust do cause fallout, however it is reduced compared to a surface or underground blast. It is also carried up into the atmosphere and is carried away by the global winds. So there is no local falllout from airburst.From the other page....
Airbust do cause fallout, however it is reduced compared to a surface or underground blast. It is also carried up into the atmosphere and is carried away by the global winds. So there is no local falllout from airburst.
We should have enough to completely evaporate all nations that may oppose us. Nuclear weapons in my opinion are a powerful deterrent.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?