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 Nuclear War Really Unthinkable??

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by FNF
Russia is in a terrible state as it is. They should sort out their own country before thinking of starting a nuclear war.
The birth rate in Russia is something like 50% of what is needed to sustain the population, and according to one Russian general only 11% of his 'recruits' were 'fit'.
Generally Russia is very weak at the moment, and even plans to make the country more 'Nationalistic' arn't very successfull as the country seems to be splitting up more and more (nationality wise).
The only country that I believe may start a nuclear war is America (due to Bush's belief that he is guided by 'God', and the militarys trigger happy attitude)... But even then the other countries may not respond, as two wrongs don't make a right.


what if this is all disinformation fed to the west... to give the impression of weakness...I know it sounds far fetched but if true. we stand in a very compromised state........




posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by FNF
Russia is in a terrible state as it is. They should sort out their own country before thinking of starting a nuclear war.
The birth rate in Russia is something like 50% of what is needed to sustain the population, and according to one Russian general only 11% of his 'recruits' were 'fit'.
Generally Russia is very weak at the moment, and even plans to make the country more 'Nationalistic' arn't very successfull as the country seems to be splitting up more and more (nationality wise).
The only country that I believe may start a nuclear war is America (due to Bush's belief that he is guided by 'God', and the militarys trigger happy attitude)... But even then the other countries may not respond, as two wrongs don't make a right.



Russia and weak?You dont know nothing!!!They are stronger than ever!!It is only ilussion that there everything is so bad!!I live next Russia and they are ready to go to war at any time!!On second try to nuke Russia would be very dificult,yes you can nuke moskov,st.peterburg and other major citys!!In russia only 20% population live in big cities!!!maybe Russia would not start the war but they will be happy to join it!!!!



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 09:48 AM
link   
A nuclear blast doesn't leave a region radioactive contaminated for a hundred years...

Radioactive half life works like this in simple terms, the stronger the radiation the faster it dissolves, and weaker it is the longer it sustains.

If you haven't realized Hiroshima is inhabited today, people do live in there even after a nuclear blast.



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by swesais

Originally posted by FNF
Russia is in a terrible state as it is. They should sort out their own country before thinking of starting a nuclear war.
The birth rate in Russia is something like 50% of what is needed to sustain the population, and according to one Russian general only 11% of his 'recruits' were 'fit'.
Generally Russia is very weak at the moment, and even plans to make the country more 'Nationalistic' arn't very successfull as the country seems to be splitting up more and more (nationality wise).
The only country that I believe may start a nuclear war is America (due to Bush's belief that he is guided by 'God', and the militarys trigger happy attitude)... But even then the other countries may not respond, as two wrongs don't make a right.



Russia and weak?You dont know nothing!!!They are stronger than ever!!It is only ilussion that there everything is so bad!!I live next Russia and they are ready to go to war at any time!!On second try to nuke Russia would be very dificult,yes you can nuke moskov,st.peterburg and other major citys!!In russia only 20% population live in big cities!!!maybe Russia would not start the war but they will be happy to join it!!!!


and there you have it folk's some one close to the situation saying what we've all been thinking..and on top of that we stick to the treaty's we've signed on arms control........
but do you think that they have???



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 10:04 AM
link   
There have been several books researching the outcome of a full-on nuclear exchange. Twenty years ago Ball and Richelson published Strategic Nuclear Targeting which gives an insight into policies in-place at that time that would guide the course of nuclear exchanges. What it essentially boils down to is, "if we can't win then no one wins".

For you MadMax devotees out there, it isn't going to play-out that way. Any large scale exchange would quickly escalate. Each nuclear party will want to assure that after it's over the other doesn't have an advantage. CBR suits, powdered milk and MRE's aren't going to save you. Millions upon millions of people --- the ones that aren't killed early-on --- will be severely injured and/or will become desperately ill. Many, many, many more will follow suit shortly thereafter. There will be virtually no drinkable water or safe food. The psychological health of the world's population will be decimated instantly. There will be no one --- military or otherwise --- capable of invading or establishing order. Whatever population is left will be simply incapable of pretty much anything.

Governments are aware of this reality. The power behind the governments are aware of this reality. Ultimately it isn't about wars or power. It's about money. It's about money in the USA. It's about money in Russia. It's about money in China. The arms business is the most profitable enterprise on the planet. Everyone wants to build-up their arms because the people involved make billions of dollars.

You simply can't keep stockpiling cruise missles, for example, indefinitely. You need to have a reason to burn through a bunch so you can place another order for more. The latest Iraq war used 800 or so in the first few days. Someone made $800M on that. Now add everything else.

Groups of people have made $B's on the 'nuclear deterrant'. But they have no interest in using them. They have alot more to lose than we do. That's not to say that there aren't insane people who might want to use them. But the people in control of the majority of the world's stockpiles have amassed obscene personal fortunes and are not likely to buy into any plan that will cause them to lose those fortunes.

No one will be able to hide from a large-scale nuclear exchange. Greed and avarice, therefore, will protect us. MHO.



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 10:37 AM
link   
www.johnstonsarchive.net...


and more detailed about what actually happeneds in the event of an attack and the time scale for detection and responce.

www.johnstonsarchive.net...



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 11:42 AM
link   
thanks for the link .........it's a very troubling description



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
yes i did read it - its also anti communist rubbish ; as i can counter point all of it if i had the time or inclination.


Well take a stab at it and lets see how you do.



wheres the `usa war preparation` in the same `OMG were gonna die` tone of the rest of that page? where is any clinical evidence?


Well there is no preparation in the US as the politicians simply do not admit a huge threat. They are talking about a strike on one or two cities by rogue states ( cause they need people scared) but they could enver admit to how weak the US strategic position really is. Politicians HATE admitting weakness and they will rather sell out their countries to keep what little power they can than admit the truth and face the public backlash.


im more worried about the worlds only bioweapon superpower hiting us than being nuked.


And so should we all....



oh yeah , thats right , where is the mention of ebola-pox in that article ; or weaponised anthrax.


These weapons are all extremely hard to disperse effectively and it's always been the problem with bio-weapons. I really do not believe any country that fights for economic benefit is ever going to use biological weapons on their enemies infrastructure.

Stellar



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 01:39 PM
link   
No.

But,

You will never see a nuclear war, or even an isolated nuclear incident, and that applies to everybody reading these words as of this time in which they are written.

In a fundamental way they are the ultimate myth; an enigma (of sorts) like the cane your schoolteachers once used to strike the backsides of the naughty, the cheeky, the evil.

They exist, of course. One day they will only be an illusion prepetrated for control, but for now, they lay on their backs, fat with their importance and fed eternally with the energy you call 'money'. They are terrifyingly redundant and will be evermore until a million voices ask "why".

Do not concern yourselves with them, for they as useless as the men who make them.



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by daedalas
Maybe Russia knows something we dont know. Maybe they have thought of a way to survive a nuclear winter, possibly some kind of environmental suit or something like that.


Environmental suits is not going to save the infrastructure even if it does save many of the people. You will still need a great amount of stored food&water in safe locations. Whatever preparations made nuclear winter is, and always was, a horrible theory with very little science behind it.


This would allow Russia to start a nuclear war with all the major superpowers in the world and they would all retaliate as many apocalyptic scenarios have played out.


You do not start a nuclear war just because you imagine you are well prepared to to 'win' it as nuclear wars are , whatever your preparations, going to involve alot of destruction. Even if Russia were as well prepared as you suggest it would logically use such superiority for strategic blackmail to disarm it's enemies as much as possible over time. War is for the desperate; not for the strong.


except Russia emerges during the nuclear winter with full strength somehow and occupies all of the now starving, defensless countries. The Soviet Union re emerges and the whole world is one big communist goverment. Just a thought


Well if nuclear winter was a scientific reality there would not be much worth occupying anyways. Fact is no government in it's right mind wants to occupy 'the world' as that sort of overt control can only last so long. It is far better to use your strenght to bend 'respected/accepted' power structures to your will. Control from behind the scene just last longer and gives you more options on almost any strategic matter.

Stellar



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seen the Future
No.
But,
You will never see a nuclear war, or even an isolated nuclear incident, and that applies to everybody reading these words as of this time in which they are written.


Well have already seen 'isolated nuclear incidents' so so much for that theory. It's all well and good that you have seen the future but i think it's probably easier ( and for that matter more worthwhile) to learn about the past first.


In a fundamental way they are the ultimate myth; an enigma (of sorts) like the cane your schoolteachers once used to strike the backsides of the naughty, the cheeky, the evil.


Yeah i can agree with all this talk about nuclear winter and the 'end of human civilization' being complete nonsense. Nuclear wars are not only survivable but even so with relatively little effort. For countries that are willing to invest the time and energy they will not only survive as states but prosper where others fail.


They exist, of course. One day they will only be an illusion prepetrated for control, but for now, they lay on their backs, fat with their importance and fed eternally with the energy you call 'money'. They are terrifyingly redundant and will be evermore until a million voices ask "why".


I imagine there will be far more horrible weapons in the future but what you say is true if one looks at where we come from.


Do not concern yourselves with them, for they as useless as the men who make them.


They are actually very useful for blackmail but you might be quite right in stating that their unlikely to be used en mass....

Stellar



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by jtma508
There have been several books researching the outcome of a full-on nuclear exchange. Twenty years ago Ball and Richelson published Strategic Nuclear Targeting which gives an insight into policies in-place at that time that would guide the course of nuclear exchanges. What it essentially boils down to is, "if we can't win then no one wins".


And most of those books are outdated and based on false premises which the authors were well aware of at the time. Any nation that has the means to fight and win a war ( as America clearly does) when attacked should prepare as best they can to do so. While America threw it's strategic advantage and human resources out the window the USSR built up to their now dominant position. That's what politicians will do just to hold on the power.


For you MadMax devotees out there, it isn't going to play-out that way.


I think Madmax was a absolute worse case scenario for small sections of worse hit areas.


Any large scale exchange would quickly escalate. Each nuclear party will want to assure that after it's over the other doesn't have an advantage.


And if you do not have the means to fight back effectively do you fight anyways or do your political system simply sell out and become a proxy government thus ensuring jobs and some power for themselves? Political animals rarely have much stomach when it comes to possibly losing power and selling out their nations is not a big deal if they can save face and still have some control. Everyone has a boss after all and they normally don't care who they have to work for to gain their stations.


CBR suits, powdered milk and MRE's aren't going to save you.


It will in fact save you unless your unlucky enough to be really close to the nuclear explosion in question. Even small family shelters can survive almost any ICBM carried warhead today given it does not land within 4-5 km depending if very high yield. If you do survive the initial blast and you have food supplies for a month or two you will likely be just fine.


Millions upon millions of people --- the ones that aren't killed early-on --- will be severely injured and/or will become desperately ill.


The Second world war cost how many dozens of millions of lives? How long did it take the world to recover from that? Human civilization ( such as it is ) can afford a few billion casualties and the rest of the people will just go on as before. Not a big deal as the dead can't complain about the injustice of it all.


Many, many, many more will follow suit shortly thereafter. There will be virtually no drinkable water or safe food.


The unprepared always suffer most and so it will be in a nuclear war. If you prepare yourself to the best of your abilities you can increase your chances of survival massively so and completely so if your not near any likely target areas. Food can be stored and so can water. Anything with a dust cover will also keep radioactive particle's out.


The psychological health of the world's population will be decimated instantly.


Nonsense. The brave do what they can while the weak suffers what they must. If your not up to the fight quit the struggle.


There will be no one --- military or otherwise --- capable of invading or establishing order.


Based on what evidence? The massive majority of the world's population will still be alive afterwards and they will stay that way if their governments cares to keep them alive.


Whatever population is left will be simply incapable of pretty much anything.


Where do you get this form anyways? Bring some sources and i will show you your just buying into defeatist lies.


Governments are aware of this reality. The power behind the governments are aware of this reality.


They are all aware of the reality but it's a very different reality than the one your laying out. The world will go on as before with power shifting from one powerful group to another if at all. The people who hold the power are obviously well prepared to survive it so when the dust settles they will be back at the reigns of whatever is left. Odds are they will have gained power.


Ultimately it isn't about wars or power. It's about money. It's about money in the USA. It's about money in Russia. It's about money in China.


Money is meaningless to the truly powerful and it's only around to manipulate the world with. Since people have no idea what money is really about the imagine the truly powerful in the world cares much about it but that is in fact nowhere near true. Money may be a measure of 'power' but since the whole monetary system is just a massive scam anyways those powerful elite of the world uses the money to manipulate the physical world as there is no value in hoarding it. Money has no value and if you can not affect power or influence with it your missing the point.


The arms business is the most profitable enterprise on the planet. Everyone wants to build-up their arms because the people involved make billions of dollars.


Well it's not profitable as much as it helps to suck the cash ( power and influence in circulation) from the average guy into the hands of those who want more of all those things. Money is created ( from thin air) and it buys blood/tears/sweat and life-energy that is the REAL resource and aim of currency manipulation.They will create paper promises and use it to pay for physical goods you spent actual energy creating. Whatever this tax money is spent on does not really matter much as long as it's in their hands.


You simply can't keep stockpiling cruise missles, for example, indefinitely. You need to have a reason to burn through a bunch so you can place another order for more. The latest Iraq war used 800 or so in the first few days. Someone made $800M on that. Now add everything else.


You can keep stockpiling missiles as having more is going to help you win that war if your true aim is self defense and strategic power. Burning trough limited stocks of ammunition is in fact a way to disarm/rob a country as the money is still out of circulation and now safely in the pockets of some powerful men.


Groups of people have made $B's on the 'nuclear deterrant'. But they have no interest in using them.


The USSR/Russia have been preparing to fight and win a nuclear war for 50 years. Nuclear weapons will be used if the party wielding them stands to gain by the action. There is nothing inherent in nuclear weapons that makes them un-usable weapons.


They have alot more to lose than we do. That's not to say that there aren't insane people who might want to use them.


Who are 'they'? Why do you think only insane people will use nuclear weapons? What on earth is the logic behind that? Calling people who do things that you did not imagine possible or beneficial insane is not logical as much as it is trying to excuse your own ignorance. You must think the last two world wars ( and the dozens in between ) were all accidents that happened due to insane actions taken by a few? Well i can tell you there were not much insanity involved in any of those events.


But the people in control of the majority of the world's stockpiles have amassed obscene personal fortunes and are not likely to buy into any plan that will cause them to lose those fortunes.


Fortunes of what? The only way to make a fortune is to exchange your power/control/influence for a sum of money which you then use to gain more control/power/influence over events& people which in turn would probably enable you to repeat the process depending on just how much you managed of each. Money is not the aim of making money as anyone who knows the system knows. There will always be people who stand to gain by destruction as nothing is more profitable than chaos to the smart investor/power broker who is likely involved in setting up the game to benefit his own interest from the start. It's the reason we have perpetual war and destruction.


No one will be able to hide from a large-scale nuclear exchange. Greed and avarice, therefore, will protect us. MHO.


Those who want to survive a nuclear war will survive it as they will take the actions that would make survival almost assured. It's not that hard really.

Any questions you have on the technical aspects of survival will likely be covered in either or both of the following.

www.abovetopsecret.com... can start from page 7 if you like to get some idea of Russian preparation.

www.abovetopsecret.com... Details on blast effects and how to survive them.

If you have specific questions do make them clear while doing your best to work from the assumption that i have half a dozen links, to credible sources, to back my each and every claim.

Stellar



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 03:59 PM
link   


A nuclear blast doesn't leave a region radioactive contaminated for a hundred years...


Possibly not, but lots of nuclear bursts would contaminate an affected population with a fatal dose of radiation within a matter of hours. Especially if they were sea bursts.

During the early 1980s, the UK Government commissioned an evaluation of expected UK radiation levels that would be produced by global nuclear war.

The results were vital for the massive Home Defence rebuilding programme that was taking place in the UK. The Home Office report estimated that the average expected initial radiation levels for the UK were 20,000 rads/hour.

This would mean that even if the population had acted on Government advice (Protect and Survive), a fatal dose would have been received within a matter of hours not days.




zero lift



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 05:00 PM
link   
Stellar...

Have you read the Ball and Richelson book? I find it doubtful in the extreme. How can you remotely assume you know what is contained in it and discard it so off-handedly?

My father was in Hiroshima with the US Army shortly after the bomb. I have photographs. More importantly I have his stories of the effect on the population. Sorry if that's not good enough for you.

You seem to be certain that any large-scale nuclear attack will be limited to large cities (which would preclude a firestorm because of the lack of a sufficent density of flammable materials). Unfortunately, that will not be the case. Many targets of strategic importance are situated well outside 'large modern cities' and surrounded by tree'd areas and mostly woodframe residential structures.

The contamination and fallout predictions are available all over the web from the OTA, NIH and others. Most are based on a single 1MT or 100KT detonation. The models come apart when they attempt to consider the possibility of hundreds or thousands of closely spaced detonations.

I appreciate your positive attitude but from what I've read longterm survival in a full-on nuclear exchange is a rather dodgy prospect.



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 05:30 PM
link   
Oh, there could be a nuclear war. The trick would be for the people starting it to make sure they survive the aftermath.

Nuclear weapons create a lot of ionizing radiation when they go off, but the residual radioactivity fades away pretty quick. If you go to Hiroshima or Nagasaki, or even out in the Nevada desert, the ground isn't glowing with radiation or anything. And there will be some general increase in global radiation, and a bit of radioactive fallout, but the Earth is really pretty good about cleaning itself up.

If the Russians really wanted to start and win a nuclear war, what they need to do is get a plan together to secretly move its Command and Control far away from any potential targets, then let the missiles fly. They have a huge country and can easily absorb quite a few nuclear strikes without significant overall damage.

It sure would mix things up a bit, eh? Ka-boom!




posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by jtma508
I appreciate your positive attitude but from what I've read longterm survival in a full-on nuclear exchange is a rather dodgy prospect.

When it comes to looking at the odds of surviving a total nuclear war, I like to think I'm a "glass half-full" kinda guy.



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 05:38 PM
link   
As am I Enkidu...

I'm equipped. I'm provisioned. There's not much more I can do. And I'll do everything I can to survive and help those around me survive. And God willing have some hand in bringing the people behind it to accountability.



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 06:28 PM
link   


: oh yeah , thats right , where is the mention of ebola-pox in that article ; or weaponised anthrax.


These weapons are all extremely hard to disperse effectively and it's always been the problem with bio-weapons. I really do not believe any country that fights for economic benefit is ever going to use biological weapons on their enemies infrastructure.


As far as weaponised anthrax is concerned, it is extremely easy to disperse effectively. This was proved time and time again during the US/UK/CAN Large Area Coverage experiments of the 1950s and 1960s.


By 1960, Porton Down had proved that a single sortie by a single aircraft/ship could effectively contaminate up to 28 million people in the UK with an infective dose.

The difficult part is selecting and producing the right strain in the right size, and in large enough quantities to conduct an attack.



zero lift



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 06:39 PM
link   
The risk of war between the U.S. and Russia has grown expotentially because of the tensions between Israel and Iran. I mean, I know it's indirect, but the fact that the United States has come out and said that they will support Israel if they go to war with Iran. Russia has come out and said that they will support Iran if they go to war with Israel. So yes, in the sense of Russia waging and attack against the U.S. it is very unlikely to happen. But, if the U.S. supports Israel and say they launch a preemptive attack against Irani nuclear facilities, it isn't unprobable that Russia would retalitate against Israel, and thus leading the U.S. to attack russia and vice versa. Ultimately, it's not an unprobable scenario for Russia and the United States to fight a war, potentially with nuclear weapons.



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by jtma508
Have you read the Ball and Richelson book? I find it doubtful in the extreme. How can you remotely assume you know what is contained in it and discard it so off-handedly?


If the book led you to believe what you currently do there would be no point for me to read it as the nuclear winter theory has never been credible.


My father was in Hiroshima with the US Army shortly after the bomb. I have photographs. More importantly I have his stories of the effect on the population. Sorry if that's not good enough for you.


Personal accounts are great but you should believe nothing of what you hear and only half of what you read.
Cities could not be built much worse ( to survive bombing) than Japanese cities and the fact that they had to raise 10% of Tokio just to create some proper access routes and fire-breaks should give you some idea.


You seem to be certain that any large-scale nuclear attack will be limited to large cities (which would preclude a firestorm because of the lack of a sufficent density of flammable materials).


Well i think i indicated it would be limited to targets worthy of being hit. The Russians have always said it would be counter-productive to hit purely civilian targets and their force structure reflects that.


Unfortunately, that will not be the case. Many targets of strategic importance are situated well outside 'large modern cities' and surrounded by tree'd areas and mostly woodframe residential structures.


But in such scarcely populated areas population densities are far less and likely deaths due to nuclear effects would thus still be low if people took proper precautions.


The contamination and fallout predictions are available all over the web from the OTA, NIH and others. Most are based on a single 1MT or 100KT detonation. The models come apart when they attempt to consider the possibility of hundreds or thousands of closely spaced detonations.


Why would there be hundreds or thousands of closely spaced detonations? Going by what nuclear powers admit there are not all that many thousands of nuclear weapons to start with.


I appreciate your positive attitude but from what I've read longterm survival in a full-on nuclear exchange is a rather dodgy prospect.


Well no one wants to test his luck but with what i have read you can survive a nuclear war with relative ease if your willing to sacrifice. Avoid living close to logical targets and densely populated areas in general, hoard food, prepare a proper small/ large scale structure ( if your far from civilization you can actually prepare your house so you can keep living in just as before) and hoard all the medicine and drugs that you imagine you could need in the space of a few months.

Then make sure you have enough firepower to keep the less prepared parts of society away.

I obviously left out many things but it's not like there isn't books on the topic!

Stellar



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join