Nuclear Weapons Doomsday

a reply to: Nochzwei


OK so basically a person who is using an alias to post at a forum thinks I need to, "go back to school"?

I actually consider that what you have offered is pretty much an rather large amount of....

The next point would be, more specific.


Music break...

The NUCLEAR WINTER is a fantasy. and we have WORSE that nukes
www.oism.org...

a reply to: Kashai

wow a japanese singer. but he looks more black than yellow. I;ll wager 100 dollars that it is you in the video.
but do consider going back to school, you'll learn some physics
Nun weg von meiner ansicht

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
The NUCLEAR WINTER is a fantasy. and we have WORSE that nukes
www.oism.org...

Yes I think it's as physicist Freeman Dyson said, the science of nuclear winter predictions is atrocious, but who wants to correct it and be accused of being in favor of nuclear war? Another fantasy is the claim that the US can destroy the world with its nukes four times over:

originally posted by: Kashai
As we discussed earlier a full scale nuclear war would target the entire surface of the planet. And in response you mentioned that you did not think that would happen.

It can't happen. There aren't enough nukes.

As far as I know of the subject what I have offered is exactly the intent of such a large nuclear arsenal. As expressed in the documentation I have offered, the US can destroy the world four times over with there nuclear arsenal.

Another complete fantasy. The US can't even destroy itself once with its own nuclear arsenal, depending on how you define destroy. The average yield of a nuke in the US nuclear arsenal is somewhere in the ballpark of 500KT, each one of which can destroy 171 square miles. To destroy the entire land area of Earth with 500KT nukes you'd need 336,061 of them.

How Many Nukes Would It Take to Blow Up the Entire Planet?

To destroy the Earth land area four times you'd need 336,061x4 = 1,344,244 500KT nukes. On a global basis the average yield of a nuke is 274 KT so you'd need 2.5 million nukes to destroy the Earth's land mass four times on that basis.

How many nukes did you say the US had? What is the average yield of each? It might be even less than 500KT on average, 477KT each if this is correct:

United States Has Enough Operational Nuclear Weapons to Destroy Itself Four Times

The United States' 2,150 deployed (operational) nuclear weapons have a total yield of around 1027 megatons, enough to completely level an area with a circumference of 6575km.

That article uses a different definition of "destroy" than the preceding graphic. they are including damage so far from the blast the building isn't destroyed but just maybe gets some windows knocked out. The 171 square miles destruction per 500KT bomb is more like how I'd define destroy, the buildings would be leveled or severely damaged.

But as that article with the misleading title states there are several ways to define destruction and so how you define this will affect the answer greatly:

Further, the destruction capacity of the bombs depends on a range of factors: the kinds of bombs (detailed below), how high and where they are set off, as well as the type of destruction being talked about (instant damage, or the long term consequences of radiation, cloud cooling, and so on).

a reply to: Arbitrageur



Yes but your link also mentioned this...

Globally however, according to the 2010 Blackaby Papers, there are at least 23,000 nuclear weapons in existence, sufficient to wipe out the entire human population of the planet many times over.

The exact destruction ability of the United State´s nuclear stocks is difficult to calculate. teleSUR´s figures do not include the additional 2,500 bombs in reserve storage, or the 3,000 or so that are awaiting dismantlement. The exact figure is secret, but a report published by Hans Kristensen and Roberto Norris last year, titled U.S. Nuclear Forces, 2013, and used for this article, is likely the most accurate available.

In 1986 it was about 40,000 and more in the 70's.

NOT saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed... JUST saying it wouldn't be the end,a GIGANTIC Hic-up in civilization maybe ,but not the end.

a reply to: cavtrooper7


About 15 years ago I had a conversation with someone over something that was then called a "Nuclear Shield". Essentially the missies designed to take out satellites could be armed with a tactical nuke, as in the ones made to be fired from tankswhich is not included in treaties currently related to the use of Nuclear weapons. The missiles would target any in bound and detonate.

It is possible that in relation to such treaties the contents of the dismantled nukes have been converted to battle felid Nuclear Technology.

In what in all probability many cases missiles with a 2 kiloton yield that can be programed to hit any target.

So while there missiles can be used to defend a country. It could also in combination with stealth and drone technologyrain undetected upon a territory until they actually hit.

a reply to: Kashai

I would think EVERYTHING is DEWs based now.
Just secret.

a reply to: Nochzwei

Nun weg von meiner ansicht

"Now away from my view."

I do not speak German I just used a translation program.

I see no data as requested to support your position but see plenty of data to refute it.

How are you compensating for such a disparity in respect to actually getting anyone to really take you seriously?

Oh and the singer was Bono he is the lead singer of a band called U2 they are from Dublin which is actually in Ireland.

a reply to: cavtrooper7


Actually if you look at what is related to as to the diminishing of nuclear weapons and understand that tactical nukes are off the table? In consideration therefore the idea of converting nuclear material from non-tactical to tactical is currently technologically feasible.

Firing ICBM's these days as the North Korean "fearless leader", touts as viable, due to technological development since the 50's could very well be today obsolete. Literally the whole thing could very well be one gigantic (and expensive), propaganda statement.

If anything converting the entire Nuclear Arsenal into Battle felid weapons today is possible.

a reply to: Kashai

I know, I was in a Bradley in Desert Storm when I heard of the new purple tipped ammo that could punch a hole in a T72 turret from a 25mm cannon.
DU rounds are currently the bane of Iraq.
The rate of deformities amongst their population's births, would indicate that isn't the way to go.

a reply to: cavtrooper7


There was a problem with an island just of the coast of Puerto Rico where US was using depleted uranium rounds.

War games.

I have known about that factor since the 80's and in the 70's I head about radioactive cobalt.

Which I know today is considered Fringe.

a reply to: Kashai

WHAT and have KEY figures go to jail for what THEY KNEW was lethally toxic?
NEVER, too much money and they want to get rid of it.

a reply to: cavtrooper7


Its a systemic change in nuclear tactics that has opened the door to use of nuclear material in present day combat.

When one discusses rounds fired by attack helicopters and jet fighters it is today the standard.

It makes for a more specific nuclear deterrent in the sense of micro-management.

Clearly the Treaties do not cover tactical use of nuclear material.

I remember back in 80's asking my professor if in fact the term "depleted" Uranium was no different that Lead.

He explained to the class why that was not the case.

Treaty control[edit]

Ten NATO member countries have advanced a confidence-building plan for NATO and Russia that could lead to treaties to reduce the tactical nuclear weapons in Europe.

However in the meantime, NATO is moving forwards with a plan to upgrade its tactical nuclear weapons with precision guidance that would make them equivalent to strategic weapons in effects and to carry them on stealth aircraft that are much more survivable against modern air defenses.

Source

In other words no treaty exist between NATO and Russia or any other nuclear power in relation to addressing this issue.

Depleted uranium (DU; also referred to in the past as Q-metal, depletalloy or D-38) is uranium with a lower content of the fissile isotope U-235 than natural uranium.[2] (Natural uranium contains about 0.72% of its fissile isotope U-235, while the DU used by the U.S. Department of Defense contain 0.3% U-235 or less). Uses of DU take advantage of its very high density of 19.1 g/cm3 (68.4% denser than lead). Civilian uses include counterweights in aircraft, radiation shielding in medical radiation therapy and industrial radiography equipment, and containers for transporting radioactive materials. Military uses include armor plating and armor-piercing projectiles.


Most depleted uranium arises as a by-product of the production of enriched uranium for use as fuel in nuclear reactors and in the manufacture of nuclear weapons. Enrichment processes generate uranium with a higher-than-natural concentration of lower-mass-number uranium isotopes (in particular U-235, which is the uranium isotope supporting the fission chain reaction) with the bulk of the feed ending up as depleted uranium, in some cases with mass fractions of U-235 and U-234 less than a third of those in natural uranium. Since U-238 has a much longer half-life than the lighter isotopes, DU emits less alpha radiation than natural uranium. DU from nuclear reprocessing has different isotopic ratios from enrichment–by-product DU, from which it can be distinguished by the presence of U-236.[3]

DU used in US munitions has 60% of the radioactivity of natural uranium.[4] Trace transuranics (another indicator of the use of reprocessed material) have been reported to be present in some US tank armor.[4]

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: Nochzwei


You know you presently owe me 100 dollars.

Feel free to contact me by PM so as to complete your wager and I would like it all in $20's American.

wow a japanese singer. but he looks more black than yellow. I;ll wager 100 dollars that it is you in the video.

Are you the kind of person that reneges upon a wager.

I am pretty sure you are.

Do you live in place where gambling is legal?

In which case you will have to play the legal fees

This conversation is incredibly hilarious.

a reply to: Kashai

its hilarious your name sounds african alright, but then aagain i consider all japanese as africans.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: cavtrooper7


About 15 years ago I had a conversation with someone over something that was then called a "Nuclear Shield". Essentially the missies designed to take out satellites could be armed with a tactical nuke,

That wasn't a fantasy, it was reality. en.wikipedia.org...

The longer-distance missile, the Safeguard (for interception in space), had a 5 MEGAton warhead, with extra layers of gold to create more X-rays to cripple incoming warheads.

The in-atmosphere Sprint missile (an amazing achievement---time to intercept was 2-3 seconds---as incoming warheads are stupendously fast) had 1 kiloton nuclear warhead.

Even still, you still have to have extreme precision, getting within range, even with a nuke and the time is very difficult.

I wouldn't be surprised if the current non-nuclear anti-missile interceptor has a secret low-yield nuclear option for the Real War scenario (Nork launch).

a reply to: mbkennel




In relation to a "Nork Launch"?

It would be incredibly stupid upon there part.

My last response that included only links makes that clear.

Think about it for a moment in relation to the issue of making the technology smaller (miniaturization).

By today we could have something the size of a sofa, set up with stealth and as well a drone, that carries nuclear weapons.

In context even in the sense of a craft capable of carrying multiple independent re-entry vehicles.