World War Three Watch

[renton]

11 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

Genuine question here.

Do the US have nuclear weapons that could be used without ending life on the planet?

Am I not right in thinking that one nuclear bomb fired in anger would f**k us all over? (The dust cloud wiping out huge swathes of farming for years and all the displaced people etc.)

None of the US weapons would, in isolation, end all life on the planet. Or ours, or Russia or anyones.

The problem is that there is a very small likelihood of a nuclear exchange remaining singular or isolated and a conflagration of two major nuclear poweres would produce a nuclear winter that would certainly decimate all life on earth.

Back in the cold war there was sufficient nuclear tonnage to destroy everything down to at least bacteria level 3 times over.

Edited January 10, 2020 by renton

[welshbairn]

44 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

Genuine question here.

Do the US have nuclear weapons that could be used without ending life on the planet?

Am I not right in thinking that one nuclear bomb fired in anger would f**k us all over? (The dust cloud wiping out huge swathes of farming for years and all the displaced people etc.)

Chernobyl released 400 times the radioactivity than Hiroshima but the global effects were fairly minor. Welsh hill farmers had to stop selling sheep for human consumption for a while because of high levels of radioactive caesium and iodine in rainfall at altitude which was still checked for 25 years until the levels weren't worth worrying about. Our life expectancy is already probably a bit lower than it could have been without it and all the atmospheric testing, but probably no more so than living in Aberdeen with all that radioactive granite. The danger is that nuclear weapons become an acceptable means of solving international disputes, like America has recently adopted assassination. Then we're all fucked, either in the short term blast, medium term starvation or long term cancer.

[Benjamin_Nevis]

Google -  Missile Defense Advocacy
Enough proof for you?.
The United States:  The United States has invested in research and development of a hypersonic missile called the Advanced Hypersonic Weapon (AHW), which uses boost glide technology to propel warheads with conventional—rather than nuclear—payloads.  During a test in 2011, AHW was launched from the Pacific Missile Range Facility in Kauai, Hawaii, to the Reagan Test Site on the Marshall Islands. The glide vehicle successfully struck a target that was located 3,700 km away, demonstrating the long-range and high precision of the AHW.[x]
And I don't appreciate the 'Thank for your service' sarcasm', you obviously need to do some fuckin growing up, but maybe the way the worlds turning and when you're a big boy you might be called up in defense of the country and you'll be facing some incoming where I've no doubt you'll be greeting fer yer mammy.

Calm it Rambo [emoji23]

[pandarilla]

None of the US weapons would, in isolation, end all life on the planet. Or ours, or Russia or anyones.
The problem is that there is a very small likelihood of a nuclear exchange remaining singular or isolated and a conflagration of two major nuclear poweres would produce a nuclear winter that would certainly decimate all life on earth.
Back in the cold war there was sufficient nuclear tonnage to destroy everything down to at least bacteria level 3 times over.

So if two sides fired one each e.g North Korea at South Korea and then the US in response / or Pakistan and India - we'd still survive quite comfortably?

How many individual weapons would be needed to create a nuclear winter?

[renton]

15 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

So if two sides fired one each e.g North Korea at South Korea and then the US in response / or Pakistan and India - we'd still survive quite comfortably?

How many individual weapons would be needed to create a nuclear winter?
 

Comfort is relative.

[welshbairn]

My theory about Trump's mindset.

These motherfuckers just trashed the lobby in our beautiful Baghdad Embassy, who's the boss? OK, we whack him. Of course they'll have to hit us back, but nobody wants a fucking war, it's bad for business. Tell that guy we got to say, ok, just give a bit of warning and don't do too much damage, it'll be cool. Kapeesh?

[RandomGuy.]

1 hour ago, welshbairn said:

Chernobyl released 400 times the radioactivity than Hiroshima but the global effects were fairly minor. Welsh hill farmers had to stop selling sheep for human consumption for a while because of high levels of radioactive caesium and iodine in rainfall at altitude which was still checked for 25 years until the levels weren't worth worrying about. Our life expectancy is already probably a bit lower than it could have been without it and all the atmospheric testing, but probably no more so than living in Aberdeen with all that radioactive granite. The danger is that nuclear weapons become an acceptable means of solving international disputes, like America has recently adopted assassination. Then we're all fucked, either in the short term blast, medium term starvation or long term cancer.

When Russia detonated a mild version of Tsar Bomba, the shockwaves travelled around the world three times, brick houses 100 miles away were knocked down. Over 1000 miles away on the most Northern edge of Finland and Norway, windows were smashed, it was over 3000 times more powerful than the bomb that obliterated Hiroshima. They claimed they could design it to be even more powerful, but wanted to test the mechanics of it instead.

Thats the power of weapon humanity could build in the fifties, imagine what they could, if they done it without care or restriction, build now?

Folk always talk about nukes and "nuclear winter", when the reality it seems if someone intends on using them to end the planet, they're more likely to simply fucking obliterate anything in their path by building 50+ mega bombs and firing them into strategic areas. For instance, a Tsar Bomba at max designed yield landing on Glasgow would have people in Perth and Edinburgh suffering third degree burns.

Using modern nuclear weapons, you'd apparently need to fire off over 100 simultaneously to cause widespread global destruction through climate change.

[Fullerene]

When Mount St Helens exploded in 1980 it was the equivalent of one Hiroshima bomb every second.

So planet Earth is capable of some pretty massive explosions without our help and still life goes on.

[Dan Steele]

Wait a minute, if we're on a football forum rationalising the merits or otherwise of nuclear weapons and how 'uncomfortable' life might be, imagine how those in positions of power view using the nuclear option. Scary or what?

[welshbairn]

10 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

Thats the power of weapon humanity could build in the fifties, imagine what they could, if they done it without care or restriction, build now?

Not all technology advances as fast as the microchip, getting back to the Moon seems to be almost as difficult and expensive as in the 1960's. Missile technology has advanced in terms of accuracy, but the explosives are basically the same as WW2, and the smart bombs are only used when the cameras are on as they're a million dollars a pop, old fashioned gravity bombs were the main military tool for defeating Saddam's army. 50 Tsar Bombas would only work if nobody knew you had them and didn't attack you first. And even then you'd probably still get obliterated. Mutually Assured Destruction is the reason why huge bombs haven't been developed, the risk is small manageable ones, much cheaper than conventional weapons for the impact, being thought of as an imaginable and acceptable tool to use.

[RandomGuy.]

5 minutes ago, Fullerene said:

When Mount St Helens exploded in 1980 it was the equivalent of one Hiroshima bomb every second.

So planet Earth is capable of some pretty massive explosions without our help and still life goes on.

Not even the largest volcanic explosion, the largest, in Indonesia, only caused the following Summer to be a bit colder than usual, before it returned to normal.

3 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Not all technology advances as fast as the microchip, getting back to the Moon seems to be almost as difficult and expensive as in the 1960's. Missile technology has advanced in terms of accuracy, but the explosives are basically the same as WW2, and the smart bombs are only used when the cameras are on as they're a million dollars a pop, old fashioned gravity bombs were the main military tool for defeating Saddam's army. 50 Tsar Bombas would only work if nobody knew you had them and didn't attack you first. And even then you'd probably still get obliterated. Mutually Assured Destruction is the reason why huge bombs haven't been developed, the risk is small manageable ones, much cheaper than conventional weapons for the impact, being thought of as an imaginable and acceptable tool to use.

No doubt, Tsar Bomba was just a one off by all accounts, a show of cock measuring by Russia like that giant gun that can fire bullets the size of tanks, but can't actually move.

Just my opinion that we're more likely to see obliteration by destruction than by a nuclear winter.

[BawWatchin]

Sticking a flag in the desert of Area 51 is just as difficult now as it was in the 60s.

[welshbairn]

29 minutes ago, The Skelpit Lug said:

Wait a minute, if we're on a football forum rationalising the merits or otherwise of nuclear weapons and how 'uncomfortable' life might be, imagine how those in positions of power view using the nuclear option. Scary or what?

@pandarilla 's just started as Trump's new National Security Advisor, let him get up to speed ffs!

[Fullerene]

27 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

Not even the largest volcanic explosion, the largest, in Indonesia, only caused the following Summer to be a bit colder than usual, before it returned to normal.

You are referring to the explosion of Tambora which led to the following year being the one without a summer (living in Scotland I know all about that).

Anyway it also led to some spectacular sunsets as illustrated in the paintings of J.M.W. Turner.  So there is always an upside to any disaster.

[welshbairn]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/on-the-day-us-forces-killed-soleimani-they-launched-another-secret-operation-targeting-a-senior-iranian-official-in-yemen/2020/01/10/60f86dbc-3245-11ea-898f-eb846b7e9feb_story.html

[pandarilla]

[mention=43879]pandarilla[/mention] 's just started as Trump's new National Security Advisor, let him get up to speed ffs!

I like asking good questions, and have no fear of people thinking I'm stupid.

[welshbairn]

28 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

I like asking good questions, and have no fear of people thinking I'm stupid.
 

I suspect you usually know the answers.

[pandarilla]

I suspect you usually know the answers.

You give me more credit than I'm due.

[coprolite]

Random factor thrown into the mix now. Power vacuum in Oman. 

We've got military bases there. I think the US do. The detached bit at the north could give strategic control of Gulf shipping. Still at loggerheads with Yemen and with a rapidly grown young and disaffected demographic. 

Transition could go smoothly if no outside parties try to influence it. And monkeys might fly out of my butt. 

[HoBNob]

11 minutes ago, coprolite said:

Random factor thrown into the mix now. Power vacuum in Oman. 

We've got military bases there. I think the US do. The detached bit at the north could give strategic control of Gulf shipping. Still at loggerheads with Yemen and with a rapidly grown young and disaffected demographic. 

Transition could go smoothly if no outside parties try to influence it. And monkeys might fly out of my butt. 

Aye we're quite pally with Oman, train their Army, have a large excercise every now and then in Oman.