It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
posted by Echtelion
This propaganda is aimed at desentizing people on the danger of nuclear weapons. There are more than 10,000 nuclear warheads over 10 megatons and most are possessed by the US and Russia. There are nations like China, UK, France, Israel and perhaps North Korea and Iran who have a dangerous nuclear capability. The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs, even with the massacre they have caused, were grenades compared to the nukes the most powerful countries have today . . It would only take a dirty bomb to explode somewhere, a nuclear holocaust would begin and it'd be a matter of days or weeks before you're running for the hills out. [Edited by Don W]
Originally posted by Echtelion
THis is propaganda, aimed at desentizing people on the danger of nuclear weapons.
Originally posted by LL1
They stated their next attack will be an "unexpected, unlikely, something not watched, not a landmark and more devastating than the WTC" type of an attack.
I have questioned what can be "unexpected", well that's easy, anything we are
not told or know about.
"Unlikely", what could be "unlikely"? Expecting "nuke", maybe that's not even it.
"Something not watched", well I think/believe they have everything covered and are protecting and watching everything. But what is "not being watched"?
"Not a landmark", well this would leave out major bridges, buildings, and tunnels etc. right? What's "not a landmark, that's not being watched"?
What could be "more devastating than the WTC"? That's more than 3,000 people.
Originally posted by Echtelion
This propaganda is aimed at desentizing people on the danger of nuclear weapons. There are more than 10,000 nuclear warheads over 10 megatons and most are possessed by the US and Russia.
Originally posted by donwhite
Look here, Ech, at the nuclear plant explosion in the Ukraine. The city of Chernobyl was abandoned in 1986 due to the disaster at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant, which is located 14.5 kilometers (9 miles) north by northwest. The power plant has been named after the city, and was located in Chernobyl district, but the city and the plant were not directly connected.
posted by Mirthful Me
The Chernobyl "explosion" wasn't a "nuclear" explosion but actually chemical explosion that was thermally driven by nuclear fission. Most of the explosive force was generated by steam (due to uncontrolled reactions when the emergency shutdown failed). Since no fissionable material was "consumed" in the "explosion" the lingering "dirty bomb" effects are much greater than an actual nuclear weapon detonation. Case in point, you can go to Trinity (first test site in New Mexico), Hiroshima, or Nagasaki and stand at ground zero a scant 50 years post detonation (and be safe)... I would bet a ground zero visit to Chernobyl would be fatal for hundreds if not thousands of years.
The Nuclear Winter by Carl Sagan.
Except for fools and madmen, everyone knows that nuclear war would he an unprecedented human catastrophe. A more or less typical strategic warhead has a yield of 2 megatons, the explosive equivalent of 2 million tons of TNT. But 2 million tons of TNT is about the same as all the bombs exploded in World War II -- a single bomb with the explosive power of the entire Second World War but compressed into a few seconds of time and an area 30 or 40 miles across …
...In the Bravo test of March 1, 1954, a 15-megaton thermonuclear bomb was exploded on Bikini Atoll. It had about double the yield expected, and there was an unanticipated last-minute shift in the wind direction. As a result, deadly radioactive fallout came down on Rongelap in the Marshall Islands, more than 200 kilometers away. Most all the children on Rongelap subsequently developed thyroid nodules and lesions, and other long-term medical problems, due to the radioactive fallout.
...we then began to turn our attention to the climatic effects of nuclear war. The scientific paper, "Global Atmospheric Consequences of Nuclear War," was written by R. P. Turco, 0. B. Toon, T. P. Ackerman, J. B. Pollack and Carl Sagan. From the last names of the authors, this work is generally referred to as "TTAPS."
We knew that nuclear explosions, particularly groundbursts, would lift an enormous quantity of fine soil particles into the atmosphere (more than 100,000 tons of fine dust for every megaton exploded in a surface burst). Our work was further spurred by Paul Crutzen of the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry in Mainz, West Germany, and by John Birks of the University of Colorado, who pointed out that huge quantities of smoke would be generated in the burning of cities and forests following a nuclear war.
In addition, the amount of radioactive fallout is much more than expected. Many previous calculations simply ignored the intermediate time-scale fallout. That is, calculations were made for the prompt fallout -- the plumes of radioactive debris blown downwind from each target-and for the long-term fallout, the fine radioactive particles lofted into the stratosphere that would descend about a year later, after most of the radioactivity had decayed. However, the radioactivity carried into the upper atmosphere (but not as high as the stratosphere) seems to have been largely forgotten. We found for the baseline case that roughly 30 percent of the land at northern midlatitudes could receive a radioactive dose greater than 250 rads, and that about 50 percent of northern midlatitudes could receive a dose greater than 100 rads. A 100-rad dose is the equivalent of about 1000 medical X-rays. A 400-rad dose will, more likely than not, kill you.
But what if nuclear wars can be contained, (....) ...a war in which a mere 100 megatons were exploded, less than one percent of the world arsenals, and only in low-yield airbursts over cities. This scenario, we found, would ignite thousands of fires, and the smoke from these fires alone would be enough to generate an epoch of cold and dark almost as severe as in the 5000 megaton case. The threshold for what Richard Turco has called The Nuclear Winter is very low.
posted by Behindthescenes
You WILL survive a nuke attack! We're no longer dealing with a MAD situation where millions will perish across the globe in a matter of minutes. Instead, we're dealing with terrorists who will use low kiloton detonations. Statistically, you will survive. But how to survive in the long haul i.e., avoiding radiation fallout, future cancer, etc will depend on how you prepare. [Edited by Don W]
posted by LL1
“ . . during OBL's request for permission from the Saudi cleric Al Fahd to attack, all articles have indicated "7" states. There are 6-7 that fit within the 10 million. (1)
“ . . in October the US population increases to 300 million . . There is just something about this . . why 10 million, and not 4, 3, or any other number? You have to really think out the box type of thought, as who would have ever thought planes into buildings! (2)
Their messages of verbal threats of attack are all connect the dots messages. They warn us, as it is in their religious belief, "warn your enemy prior to attack". (3) [Edited by Don W]
Originally posted by 2stepsfromtop
Here's what it would be like in L.A.
Originally posted by jtma508
As I pointed out in the other current ATS thread , most people are under the misconception that any nuclear attack would mean the end. Far from it. During the coldwar we routinely had air raid drills (yes, I'm that old) because the fear was a mutual exchange of hundreds of multi-megaton warheads.
These days we are far more likely to see a small number of isolated, kiloton range devices. The majority of people will survive this. But only if they know what to do (and not to do) and have the basic necessities to survive. It will only be necessary to shelter in-place for several days before radiation levels decay to a point where going outside is possible. But if you ARE going to survive you need to have some preparations in-place ahead of time.
Keep in mind, bugging-out (evacuation) for the vast majority of people in the affected areas is NOT going to be possible. Remember Katrina. It will be far worse. As stupid (and suicidal) as trying to relocate under the radioactive fallout would be, there would undoubtedly be martial law and serious travel restrictions. The government will be unable to help you or provide virtually any services. You will be on your own.
Here is one of many sites that can help guide you through the preparation process. There are many others on the web but start somewhere:
Whenever this issue comes up it's always 'guns and ammo... guns and ammo'. Forget your Mad Maxx fantasies. The roving, looting hordes won't fair quite as well as their Katrina ilk after a nuclear incident. Stored water --- a LOT of stored water --- should be #1 on everyone's survival list. Not just for drinking but for personal hygiene. Your Glock won't be worth a damn if you are debilitated by infection from your own feces. Don't think that will happen? Then you better start reading because you have a LOT to learn. And if you want to come for MY water... there won't just be water waiting for you.