China/Taiwan

Well, my main problem is that I don't think anyone has any real idea what happens with that much fallout in the atmosphere, Winky. The CDC's theories are simply that, theories. I think those upper atmospherre bursts would actually attenuate the fallout but spread it over a much larger area. Hence cancer rather than radiation poisoning. The widespread problems of the magnetic pulse effect are another consideration. The simple fact is that no one wins a nuclear exchange. They kill millions, we kill tens of millions therefore we win? I don't think so.

I think the brain munching zombies are an interesting sidelight though. :nerd:
 
I will assume from your comments Ch,
that you are completely ignorant on the subjects of
High Altitude EMP and the fact that a lot of nukes were already detonated in the US!

Yeah using a series of High Altitude EMP bursts to plunge all of the US into darkness
and wreck a large percentage of all of our electronic equipment would be cool huh?

Back to our story:
It was seen later in history that the worst thing to come out of this 'nuclear exchange' is that using nuclear weapons in war was a viable means of winning a conflict. Everyone could easily see nukes were great things to use against an enemy so every third world crackpot wanted one.
 
Winky said:
Yeah using a series of High Altitude EMP bursts to plunge all of the US into darkness
and wreck a large percentage of all of our electronic equipment would be cool huh?
Click to expand...
That was certainly not what I said. :shrug:


What I said and what I maintain is that nobody, and I do mean nobody, can begin to understand all the variables and or scenarios exploding on the order of 100 or more nukes all over the world (because that's what would happen) would have on the world. Least of all me. I simply think that taking the government self-serving "best case scenario" opinions is unwise in the extreme. Radiation levels worldwide would be bound to increase, perhaps dramatically. IMO releasing all that radiation at one time would have to increase the incidence of certain forms of cancer. As for the EMP problem, some jackass in Ohio or Quebec (depending on who you believe) can throw a wrong switch and blackout the northeast. :shrug: Can you say "cascade effect?" I knew that you could.

BTW, 216 above ground tests from 1945 to 1962. Why do you suppose they stopped?
 
unclehobart said:
Probably turn into one of those iradiated brain-munching zombies we all hear so much about.
Click to expand...




BRRRRAIIIIINSSSSSSS. BRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIIIIIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNNNNNNSSSSSSSS.
 
Now Ch my bouncy lil fella
are you a nuclear physicist?
is your above ground number ANYWHERE near correct?

I'm tellin' ya it's all hype. Blastin' off a buncha nukes wouldn't hurt nuthin'
(except the poor bastards right under the things)

Besides other than a terrorist group blowin' one of these things off, the actuality that one will go off is zero.
(i.e. the US isn't gonna nuke anyone)

Now if you REALLY wanna get yer panties inna twist read this, hunger strikes at nuke plants
 
Gonz said:
Mosquitos.
Click to expand...

Ahh, thanks for clearing that up. :lol2:

Oh, and Winky:
attachment.php


Link

I'm certainly not a nuclear physicist, nor are you, I suspect. I do however have a basic understanding of the physics involved. These are simply my opinions based on my own personal knowledge and no small amount of reading on a subject (physics) that I've always been interested in. I understand that the chances are slim (certainly not zero), I thought we were just discussing our opinions of a hypothetical situation.
 
Um OK
Lessee
I read that as
521 above ground detonations
for a total explosive power of 479.103 Megatons.

And we are all still here.

I still hold that the years of anti-nuke environmentalist wackos
foretelling the end of the world and nuclear winter it total bunk.

Since you are SO well read on the subject, you is all up to speed
regarding the worldwide draw down
of all the worlds nations nuclear weapons stockpiles.

Unless you’re underneath the thing when it goes off
or sitting in the downwind fallout plume
(a situation that is easily dealt with)
then you’ve nary a thing to worry about
and that’s a fact Jack!

Now as for MY hypothetical nuclear devastation scenario
of Asia…





scottishfly4bw.jpg
 
So then you completely discount the evidence that increased background radiation levels increase the incidence of cancer (my original assertion)?

Also, I would suggest that 100 nuclear explosions (each of which would be significantly more powerful that virtually any of the tests) would not put more contaminants into the atmosphere at one time than 521 over 30 years.
I agree that any immediate danger from nukes is limited to being too close to one or in the immediate fallout pattern. I think you dismiss the fallout danger too readily given the infrastructure breakdowns that are bound to occur, but I'll concede the point for the sake of argument. The long term effects are what I was referring to. I don't know what they would be per se, but I know the gov't has paid a lot of claims to cancer victims in Nevada, Arizona and Utah over the years. Clearly there is at least some evidence that it wasn't quite as harmless as you contend. :shrug: I hardly think we're all going to die, but what if it were 5% more than would have. That'd be 14,000,000 people or so and I would define that as a catastrophe.

I agree with you about nuclear winter and the nuclear doomsayers BTW. People also tend to grossly overestimate recovery time. I just think that any large (say more than 25) nuclear exchange would have long term effects that can't be understood unless it actually happened. Perhaps not even then. Hope it doesn't.

Just because someone overstates the danger of something does not make that danger non-existent.
 
Nukes or Daisy Cutters. War is hell.

BEIJING (Reuters) - Relations between China and Taiwan are grim and the mainland will crush any major moves toward independence by the island no matter what the cost, the government said in a policy paper on national defense on Monday.

The comments came as China's parliament discussed a draft anti-secession law that analysts say may contain clauses that would legally bind Beijing to take military action if the island Beijing claims as a renegade province ever declared independence.

Taiwan split from the mainland at the end of the Chinese civil war in 1949, but Beijing still sees the self-governing island of 23 million as part of China and has pledged to bring it back to the fold, by force if necessary.
Click to expand...

ABC News
 
chcr said:
So then you completely discount the evidence that increased background radiation levels increase the incidence of cancer (my original assertion)?
Click to expand...

Yes.

Where do you come up with this 100 detonations
number?

Heck I dropped 592 on China alone lol
 
Winky said:
Yes.

Where do you come up with this 100 detonations
number?

Heck I dropped 592 on China alone lol
Click to expand...

Just picked it out of the air as a nice round number for a "limited" nuclear exchange between "superpowers."

unclehobart said:
How about we bomb them with disco and Culture Club albums instead? ...or would that violate the Geneva Accords?
Click to expand...

Surely it would. (okay, okay, I'll stop calling you "Shirley")
 
chcr said:
Just picked it out of the air as a nice round number for a "limited" nuclear exchange between "superpowers."
Click to expand...

No such thing as a 'limited exchange'. That is what MAD was all about.
 
Gato_Solo said:
No such thing as a 'limited exchange'. That is what MAD was all about.
Click to expand...

Thus the quotation marks. I think Winky believes there could be though. :shrug: He could just be putting it out there for the sake of argument, which is something I would never do, of course.
*cough, cough*
 
I'm not really sure how modern China is in its electronic, command and control, detection systems, range in missiles, quantity of missiles, quality of munitions, training, and veractiy of the day-to-day soldier.

I registered over at Jane's website ... but they wanted nigh over $2,000 for a full tell-all dossier.

fuckers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top