It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is Russia preparing for nuclear war?

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 01:32 PM
link   
If given the choice between living in a bunker for the remainder of my worldly existence, or just being incinerated in this nightmare, I choose the latter.

I pity anyone who feels different.




posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaFunk13
If given the choice between living in a bunker for the remainder of my worldly existence, or just being incinerated in this nightmare, I choose the latter.

I pity anyone who feels different.


Try only a few months, the idea that Nuclear war destroys the world for thousands of years is garbage. You can still live in Crater Flats, NV even though they detonated thousands of Nuclear bombs there (I think actually about 1,000 but still).

Are you telling me that one nuclear bomb will render somewhere unlivable for a mellenium?



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 01:44 PM
link   
Kinda sounds like the nostradamus predictions from "the code", not to mention the Enoch predictions....



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 01:50 PM
link   
How is Chernobyl looking nowadays? They build Slavic-Disney there yet?

I never said it was utter, irrepairable destruction. It will not be ok in a few weeks either though.



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaFunk13
How is Chernobyl looking nowadays? They build Slavic-Disney there yet?

I never said it was utter, irrepairable destruction. It will not be ok in a few weeks either though.


Chernobyl still has RADIOACTIVE material lying around...that's a lot different situation than with a Nuclear Bomb.

You must think you're real clever.



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 02:09 PM
link   
My intention wasn't to be cleaver, but yea...I'm pretty damned cleaver.

So lemme get this straight here...A nuke just makes a big bang and then after a couple weeks we can come out of our holes and evryting irie?

Show me a credible link that says when the nuclear effects dissapate.



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Then what exactly is going on? Are you suggesting the USSR started work on Yamantau with weapons in mind that wouldnt exist for another 2 decades mainly nuclear bunker busters.


Nuclear 'bunkers busters' have been around for a very long time and you should check out the history of the bomb you suggested before saying anything more. Lets just say your knowledge will have to run like hell to catch up to your bias.


BTW classic how you attack my link and then link to "www.viewzone.com" for your information on the next post


I included 5 or 6 links so that people may compare the information and arrive at a conclusion. You posted one if i remember correctly? Do you really believe this comment of yours was in any way fair?


The US didnt make nuclear bunker busters for no reason at the same time all this working was going on at Yamantau during the 90s


The US made them for a reason a long time ago and have been upgrading them with time. Nothing special and still no way for those weapons to get to that mountain past Russian air defense and S2A missiles.


The message to launch might not reach some boats


Well known situation if you care to do some research. In case of a first strike all American missile boats in the area could coordinate but i wonder if they have more than 2 on patrol to launch against China at any given time.


As for the start treaty is still dont see any limit on the missile just the warheads.


You were wrong and now your changing the subject without admitting your mistake. If this is the way you want to do it i am going to be less kind in the future. START II was never ratified and went belly up in 2002 as i said before.


seems even with the change they are still regulating each ICBM to a few and single warhead payloads

So your whole single warhead is not very efficient arguement because of the treaty is still lame

Yes they are but those are not deep penetrating warheads and they are not very large at that. I never made that argument but well done with destroying that particular strawman.


In the event of a nuclear war both Norad and Yamatau are likely going to be knocked out.


The Russians have had their officials tour that particular facility( NORAD and for that matter many others) and well know how to take it out. American officials have no idea what is really going on at Yamantau or how deep the brain ( if any) of the center goes. What we are doing is speculating while the Russians do not have to speculate about NORAD.


Targets like this are of the highest priority for both sides. They would find ways to take them out and they wouldnt advertise them to the public.


While what you say is generally true your arguments to date does not suggest that your basing this claim on anything of substance. You are in fact just appealing to me to believe what you do which i have no reason to do considering the absence of facts for your particular theory.


If the soviets thought their bunkers were invincible they would never have created the DEADHAND system codenamed 'Perimeter' that allows them to retaliate with a nuclear strike even if a nuclear first strike destroyed or incapacitated the Soviet leadership nuclear decapitation.


This is a illogical argument of the worse kinda. Because Apple's are not Oranges we should never eat Lemons? We are not even sure Yamantua is a control center for ( or has anything to do) with nuclear weapons. I believe it does but considering the Russian love of redundancy there will be many such complexes.


If the US thought NORAD was invincible they wouldn't put a secondary command in the air 24/7


Well they KNOW NORAD is nowhere near invincible so i can well understand why they do what they do.


From the back up systems each put in place its clear they knew their bunkers were and are not invincible


Once again your making assumptions. America knows it's bunkers can not stand up to the weapons employed by Russia so they air going airborne but that does not mean Russian bunkers are nearly as vulnerable or at all.


They only invincible bunkers are the ones if any either side does not know the other has and NORAD and Yamatau arent those.


While this may be true we do not know what these complexes could in fact take. All we know is that Americans have backup complexes and so does the Russians.

Stellar



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
The US made them for a reason a long time ago and have been upgrading them with time. Nothing special and still no way for those weapons to get to that mountain past Russian air defense and S2A missiles.


Well the US doesn't need to deliver gravity bombs, they can deliver much higher yield penetrating warheads using the Minuteman III and Trident D-5 missiles. A Trident W-88 warheads has also been tested in 2005 using a 3-axis flap guidance system, which turns the RV into a Maneuverable RV. Just as the Russians claim to have an ABM defeating warhead on their SS-27, the US can deploy the same type of warheads on their missiles, negating any so called Russian ABM missiles.



Well known situation if you care to do some research. In case of a first strike all American missile boats in the area could coordinate but i wonder if they have more than 2 on patrol to launch against China at any given time.


The US has 9 Ohio SSBN's in the Pacific ocean. Standard operating procedure for teh USN is to keep 2/3 of boats at sea. That would make the total boats on patrol in the Pacific, 6 - 3 times more than you assume.



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
Nuclear 'bunkers busters' have been around for a very long time and you should check out the history of the bomb you suggested before saying anything more. Lets just say your knowledge will have to run like hell to catch up to your bias.



LOL you know I was talking about the nuclear (earth penetrating weapons) and I know my history on them thats what nuclear bunker busters are, a project which began 1989

link

So check your bais
I would love to see info on these nuclear (earth penetrating warheads) around for a very long time




I included 5 or 6 links so that people may compare the information and arrive at a conclusion. You posted one if i remember correctly? Do you really believe this comment of yours was in any way fair?


My link was merely to allow people to arrive at a conclusion aswell.


Dont attack links and then in the very next post link to just as if not more questionable sources.

Or are we only to believe what is found on your linked sites?




The US made them for a reason a long time ago and have been upgrading them with time


see top of post ^^^




Well known situation if you care to do some research. In case of a first strike all American missile boats in the area could coordinate but i wonder if they have more than 2 on patrol to launch against China at any given time.


This shows such a poor understanding of how US nuclear missile subs operate its not even worth my time.

"Well known situation" little known fantasy more like it




The Russians have had their officials tour that particular facility( NORAD and for that matter many others) and well know how to take it out.



A Russian general gets the nickel tour of NORAD and now Russia knows all its secrets. If you believe that its sad really sad.

These people saw barely more then the History channel crews that did shows on NORAD got to see. These events are publicity stunts .

www.skycontrol.net... d/

If you think Top secret information vital to base security was revealed on these tours
I bet you think the USSR knew everything that was going on at the Pentagon when Khruschev visited the Pentagon too




This is a illogical argument of the worse kinda. Because Apple's are not Oranges we should never eat Lemons? We are not even sure Yamantua is a control center for ( or has anything to do) with nuclear weapons.


Yes it does matter.

And lets remember your the only one that suggested what Yamantua is for

heres a little reminder of what you said


i am speculating that it has at least some part of it allocated to help fight and win a nuclear war


My arguement has nothing to do with whats going on in Yamantau I said if the Soviets thought their bunkers where invincible they wouldn't create fail safes that could launch nukes even if all command was taken out.

Did I even mention Yamantua in there anywhere? I dont see it in that statement.

You can yap on about " Russian love of redundancy " but if their command centers were really invincible even the USSR wouldnt waste the money on such a radical and perhaps dangerous systems there would be no need because their bunkers are "invincible" its contray to the very word invincible .




Once again your making assumptions


thats all your post are on Yamantua, US nuclear subs and NORAD.





[edit on 8-3-2006 by ShadowXIX]

[edit on 8-3-2006 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaFunk13
My intention wasn't to be cleaver, but yea...I'm pretty damned cleaver.

So lemme get this straight here...A nuke just makes a big bang and then after a couple weeks we can come out of our holes and evryting irie?

Show me a credible link that says when the nuclear effects dissapate.


There was a website in another thread concerning mechanics of nuclear explosions.

Your concern merely is to study "yield efficiency" as that is what makes the difference. There is very little radioactive material in a Nuclear Bomb compared to a Nuclear Reactor anyway; yield effeciency determines how much of that limited material will be completely obliterated and "non-harmful".

The higher the efficiency the better the explosion but the less actual radioactive material that's left (thus the only radiation comes from the explosion itself and any irradiation of materials in line-of-sight).

Irradiation is much more temporary and much more cleanable.

Also; Chernobyl could be cleaned but the Ukraine can't afford it; nor could the USSR...so they just shut the area down.



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
Well the US doesn't need to deliver gravity bombs, they can deliver much higher yield penetrating warheads using the Minuteman III and Trident D-5 missiles. A Trident W-88 warheads has also been tested in 2005 using a 3-axis flap guidance system, which turns the RV into a Maneuverable RV.


It will not matter much against high yield nuclear blasts in the path of the RV.


Just as the Russians claim to have an ABM defeating warhead on their SS-27, the US can deploy the same type of warheads on their missiles, negating any so called Russian ABM missiles.


But they have not deployed them have they? They also have no declared land based mobile missiles do they? You can cherry pick the things you can actually disagree with but i disagree with EVERYTHING you say as it's almost always incorrect in some obvious way. You don't even bother to check your facts before posting!


The US has 9 Ohio SSBN's in the Pacific ocean. Standard operating procedure for teh USN is to keep 2/3 of boats at sea.
That would make the total boats on patrol in the Pacific, 6 - 3 times more than you assume.


Well they have 14 overall with 1 or 2 in long term refit and ideally two thirds of the rest at sea at any given time. Of these not all will be in firing range on any given time so while 5 or 6 might be possible it certainly is ideal.

Since i am quote used to seeing those readiness numbers fuged i am sure when i go look i will find that there are normally 2-3 on station in the pacific.

Stellar



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
LOL you know I was talking about the nuclear (earth penetrating weapons) and I know my history on them thats what nuclear bunker busters are, a project which began 1989


So you really believe that the difference is worth talking about when it comes to the type of hardened targets we are talking about here? It was a UPGRADE with FANCY SOUNDING NAME. Your assuming what you want because some dates happen to line up to some extent.


So check your bais
I would love to see info on these nuclear (earth penetrating warheads) around for a very long time


Not worth mentioning since their still DELIVERED BY AIRPLANES. I guess you like going into a frenzy when you see a cool new weapon never bothering to make sure wether the same that will have to carry it can get it to target. These things are great for blowing up Iraqi bunkers but that's about all their good for.


My link was merely to allow people to arrive at a conclusion aswell.


Well i just suggested you do not post THAT type of link when you read many as people might assume your getting your information from there alone.


Dont attack links and then in the very next post link to just as if not more questionable sources.


My source was included with 5 others so as to to provide context; yours were not and your proving you will believe what you like whatever the source.


Or are we only to believe what is found on your linked sites?


When i give so many you should form your own opinion and not read cherry picked one's that i liked.


This shows such a poor understanding of how US nuclear missile subs operate its not even worth my time.
"Well known situation" little known fantasy more like it


Well explain it to me with links and details as i allready did. My statements are accurate enough for the context i used them in and if you are unhappy show up my errors in all their glorious detail.


A Russian general gets the nickel tour of NORAD and now Russia knows all its secrets. If you believe that its sad really sad.
These people saw barely more then the History channel crews that did shows on NORAD got to see. These events are publicity stunts .


Well your once again assuming that is the sort of tour he got and just decide not to address the question of why Russian general are in fact getting tours of MANY American nuclear fighting facilities. If your going to waste my time at least do it staying on topic.


If you think Top secret information vital to base security was revealed on these tours
I bet you think the USSR knew everything that was going on at the Pentagon when Khruschev visited the Pentagon too


Well i don't but it still begs the question of why foreign officials get tours of such facilities when they are clearly hostile to your country. You have done nothing but make jokes about a very serious question.


And lets remember your the only one that suggested what Yamantua is for
heres a little reminder of what you said


I know what i said and i stand by it?


My arguement has nothing to do with whats going on in Yamantau I said if the Soviets thought their bunkers where invincible they wouldn't create fail safes that could launch nukes even if all command was taken out.


The issue is not connected since any person who knows anything about war knows that nothing is invulnerable and if the missiles dont get in rats might eat the cables. You do not BARGAIN on something being invulnerable even if all data suggest that it should and will be. Your ARE talking various kinds of fruits even if you do not realise it.


Did I even mention Yamantua in there anywhere? I dont see it in that statement.


No, your clearly talking about something unrelated like a cool nuclear EPW that has to be flown to the target past defenses of every and all sorts.


You can yap on about " Russian love of redundancy " but if their command centers were really invincible even the USSR wouldnt waste the money on such a radical and perhaps dangerous systems there would be no need because their bunkers are "invincible" its contray to the very word invincible .


As i indicated above redundancy has absolutely nothing to do with the efficiency of any given system and is just part and parcel of what you do if you want to win whatever the cost; something Americans could learn from.


thats all your post are on Yamantua, US nuclear subs and NORAD.


When i make assumptions i tend to say as much while your 'facts' are normally nothing more. You can keep up the smiling and see how well it serves you in the long run.

Stellar



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
Hands down Russia is far more prepared for Nuclear War.


Good choice of words.
I hope you don't mind if copy it....


The US no longer has MIRVs though they have the missile systems to load as such; they do not do so.


I got the impression they still deploy their current Minuteman III"s with 2-3 warheads each? It's what my sources suggest so if you can clarify i would appreciate that.


Russia has more deployed warheads at the present and has more hardened facilities that are further apart. All the US's facilities are now located in Whyoming and Montana region and are no where near the number of Russian hardened facilities (which are approximately 98).


My information suggest at least 1500 while some claims going towards 5000.


It takes 2 nuclear warheads with a successful direct hit to destroy each silo and there are hundreds of silos through-out Russia.

Russia can support 5 million people in their underground projects around Moscow.


Do you have a specific link for that 5 million just in Moscow area? As i understood that was the number of party and high ranking civilian officlals which could find shelter under cities in that 30 odd minute first strike/retaliation timeframe.

Glad to see you contributing here ( even if we disagree on that other thing).


Stellar



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX


Well they have 14 overall with 1 or 2 in long term refit and ideally two thirds of the rest at sea at any given time. Of these not all will be in firing range on any given time so while 5 or 6 might be possible it certainly is ideal.

Since i am quote used to seeing those readiness numbers fuged i am sure when i go look i will find that there are normally 2-3 on station in the pacific.

Stellar


Honestly are you just making this stuff up as you go? To make such claims you woud have to pretend you had a clue of stuff you clearly dont know like the routes of US nuclear subs



Of these not all will be in firing range on any given time


This things are out there for 6 month plus at a time. You dont think the ones out spend the majority of that time in striking range of their targets?




2-3 on station in the pacific.


What only subs in the Pacific can hit Russia now?

Your already backing away from your statement of


Well known situation if you care to do some research. In case of a first strike all American missile boats in the area could coordinate but i wonder if they have more than 2 on patrol to launch against China at any given time.



BTW by China did you mean Russia?

I would love to see more information of this "Well known situation " you talked about can you link too it.

14 Trident submarines and only 2 can hit Russia at any given time
Let me guess you believe the US dosent use any MIRVs either


classic stuff



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by rogue1
Well the US doesn't need to deliver gravity bombs, they can deliver much higher yield penetrating warheads using the Minuteman III and Trident D-5 missiles. A Trident W-88 warheads has also been tested in 2005 using a 3-axis flap guidance system, which turns the RV into a Maneuverable RV.


It will not matter much against high yield nuclear blasts in the path of the RV.


Oh yeah
and what high yield warheads are these - once again mor baseless assumptions.



Just as the Russians claim to have an ABM defeating warhead on their SS-27, the US can deploy the same type of warheads on their missiles, negating any so called Russian ABM missiles.


But they have not deployed them have they? They also have no declared land based mobile missiles do they? You can cherry pick the things you can actually disagree with but i disagree with EVERYTHING you say as it's almost always incorrect in some obvious way. You don't even bother to check your facts before posting!


Erm, what facts haven't I checked ? I don't expect you to agree to anything I say, you live in fantasy land, I live reality.
In fact all you seem to do is insult people when they don't agree with you. You provide limityed sources for your assumptions, that's of course if you proved any sources at all. Moat of your claims are vague inuendo.

BTW. What does mobile land based missiles have to do with anything ? Why do you always cover your ineptituted with the smoke screen of changing subjects




The US has 9 Ohio SSBN's in the Pacific ocean. Standard operating procedure for teh USN is to keep 2/3 of boats at sea.
That would make the total boats on patrol in the Pacific, 6 - 3 times more than you assume.


Well they have 14 overall with 1 or 2 in long term refit and ideally two thirds of the rest at sea at any given time. Of these not all will be in firing range on any given time so while 5 or 6 might be possible it certainly is ideal.


Gee, another brilliant commment
The Trident could hit China from their ports on the Pacific coast - where would these out of range boats be in the Pacific - in Antartica
LMAO.


Since i am quote used to seeing those readiness numbers fuged i am sure when i go look i will find that there are normally 2-3 on station in the pacific.


Sure go and look, I doubt you'll post back saying I'm right. You hvae a nasty habit of disregarding information which doesn't suit your view. You try and negate fact with insult, that onloy workds for the stupid.



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 12:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
The US no longer has MIRVs though they have the missile systems to load as such; they do not do so.


I got the impression they still deploy their current Minuteman III"s with 2-3 warheads each? It's what my sources suggest so if you can clarify i would appreciate that.


Hmmm, The Minuteman force has 800 warheads deployed on 500 missiles. The Trident missile on submarines are allowed ot carry 8, but carry 6 atm. Of course that can be easily changed.


Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
Russia has more deployed warheads at the present and has more hardened facilities that are further apart.



As of January 2006, the U.S. stockpile contains almost 10,000 nuclear warheads. This includes 5,735 active or operational warheads: 5,235 strategic and 500 nonstrategic warheads.
www.thebulletin.org...



We estimate that as of early 2006, Russia has approximately 5,830 operational nuclear warheads in its active arsenal. This includes about 3,500 strategic warheads, a decrease of some 300 from last year's level due to the withdrawal of approximately 36 intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) from operational service. Our estimate of operational nonstrategic nuclear weapons is 2,330 warheads, more than a thousand warheads fewer than our previous estimate (see "Russian Nuclear Forces, 2005," March/April 2005 Bulletin) due to a recount of operational launch platforms and Russian statements about reductions.
www.thebulletin.org...


Hmmm, I suggest you check your facts before making obviously incorrect blanket statements.


Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
It takes 2 nuclear warheads with a successful direct hit to destroy each silo and there are hundreds of silos through-out Russia.


Your point being what ? There are hundred of silos in the US as well and as I've shown the US has far more straegic warheads deployed than Russia has


BTW. It doesn't take 2 warheads to destroy one silo. They use 2 warheads fron different missiles as a form of redudndancy to endure that at least one warhead will make it to its target. It isn't because they need 2 warheads to hit the silo.



Do you have a specific link for that 5 million just in Moscow area? As i understood that was the number of party and high ranking civilian officlals which could find shelter under cities in that 30 odd minute first strike/retaliation timeframe.


Complete load of BS, talk about living in a dream


[edit on 9-3-2006 by rogue1]



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 01:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by DaFunk13
My intention wasn't to be cleaver, but yea...I'm pretty damned cleaver.

So lemme get this straight here...A nuke just makes a big bang and then after a couple weeks we can come out of our holes and evryting irie?

Show me a credible link that says when the nuclear effects dissapate.


Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both completely rebuilt and thriving cities within a decade of being destroyed.



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
The US no longer has MIRVs though they have the missile systems to load as such; they do not do so.


I got the impression they still deploy their current Minuteman III"s with 2-3 warheads each? It's what my sources suggest so if you can clarify i would appreciate that.


Hmmm, The Minuteman force has 800 warheads deployed on 500 missiles. The Trident missile on submarines are allowed ot carry 8, but carry 6 atm. Of course that can be easily changed.


Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
Russia has more deployed warheads at the present and has more hardened facilities that are further apart.



As of January 2006, the U.S. stockpile contains almost 10,000 nuclear warheads. This includes 5,735 active or operational warheads: 5,235 strategic and 500 nonstrategic warheads.
www.thebulletin.org...



We estimate that as of early 2006, Russia has approximately 5,830 operational nuclear warheads in its active arsenal. This includes about 3,500 strategic warheads, a decrease of some 300 from last year's level due to the withdrawal of approximately 36 intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) from operational service. Our estimate of operational nonstrategic nuclear weapons is 2,330 warheads, more than a thousand warheads fewer than our previous estimate (see "Russian Nuclear Forces, 2005," March/April 2005 Bulletin) due to a recount of operational launch platforms and Russian statements about reductions.
www.thebulletin.org...


Hmmm, I suggest you check your facts before making obviously incorrect blanket statements.


Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
It takes 2 nuclear warheads with a successful direct hit to destroy each silo and there are hundreds of silos through-out Russia.


Your point being what ? There are hundred of silos in the US as well and as I've shown the US has far more straegic warheads deployed than Russia has


BTW. It doesn't take 2 warheads to destroy one silo. They use 2 warheads fron different missiles as a form of redudndancy to endure that at least one warhead will make it to its target. It isn't because they need 2 warheads to hit the silo.



Do you have a specific link for that 5 million just in Moscow area? As i understood that was the number of party and high ranking civilian officlals which could find shelter under cities in that 30 odd minute first strike/retaliation timeframe.


Complete load of BS, talk about living in a dream


[edit on 9-3-2006 by rogue1]


You tell me to check my facts but you use "thebulletin.org" as a source.

Try using at least "FAS.org" as a source; or some strategic policy journal which is peer-reviewed...or any numerous strategic weapons publications which tell you you are wrong.

Now take your trash information elsewhere.



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 02:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
You tell me to check my facts but you use "thebulletin.org" as a source.

Try using at least "FAS.org" as a source; or some strategic policy journal which is peer-reviewed...or any numerous strategic weapons publications which tell you you are wrong.

Now take your trash information elsewhere.


Oh ye of limited mental capacity
The Bulletin is a well respected journal, in the industry. Many ' strategic weapons ' publications get their data from the Bulletin. Show me one of these publications of yours, seeing as you hvae just mouthed off and provided absolutely no fact.

BTW. The www.fas.org website lists the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists as one of it's major sources for information on nuclear weapons, DUH.


www.fas.org...


The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists was founded in 1945 by scientists who worked on the Manhattan Project at the University of Chicago and were deeply concerned about the potential future use of nuclear weapons and nuclear war.

The founding mission of the Bulletin remains relevant today. For more than half a century, the Bulletin has existed to maintain worldwide awareness of the dangers posed by nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction. In 1999 and 2000, 60 Minutes called it "the leading nuclear journal in the United States."

To convey the particular peril posed by nuclear weapons, the Bulletin devised the Doomsday Clock in 1947. The hands of the clock first moved in response to changing world events in 1949, following the first Soviet nuclear test. The clock is now recognized as a universal symbol of the nuclear age.

The founding mission of the Bulletin remains relevant today. For more than half a century, the Bulletin has existed to maintain worldwide awareness of the dangers posed by nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction. In 1999 and 2000, 60 Minutes called it "the leading nuclear journal in the United States."

To convey the particular peril posed by nuclear weapons, the Bulletin devised the Doomsday Clock in 1947. The hands of the clock first moved in response to changing world events in 1949, following the first Soviet nuclear test. The clock is now recognized as a universal symbol of the nuclear age.

www.thebulletin.org...


Do you enjoy making yourself look stupid ? You seem to be getting better and better at it
I suggest yuo think very carefully about your next post in this thread, nbefore you lose all credibility






[edit on 9-3-2006 by rogue1]



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by JamesinOz


Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both completely rebuilt and thriving cities within a decade of being destroyed.


That true but those were some small scale nukes 12-21KT most nukes your going to hit cities with today are in the hundereds of KT to the MT range today. It was also a rather limited nuclear war 2 compared to hundreds of japanese cities being nuked would make a huge difference.

If the US had hundreds of 100-300kt nukes to drop at that time and the US used that many there wouldnt have been anyone left in Japan to completely rebuild anything in decades.




top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join