Russia stepping up patrol levels

Originally posted by thebozeian

As for the bomber patrols, I think kilcoo is right. This is nothing more than sabre rattling with a purpose.

LEE.

Or as I said these patrols have never really stopped or started in the first place. They have been on going and we have been continusly intersepting them time and time again.

[edit on 22/08/06 by Canada_EH]

Originally posted by xmotex
Take em?

Russia can nuke our cities to ash, we can nuke theirs to ash, and neither side would have a realistic chance of stopping the other.

Russia operates a National missile defense system that employs hundreds of launchers and thousands of missiles so unless the US has a very secretive missile defense shield it is US cities that will be laid waste while Russia shrugs of the blows with relatively impunity; millions will die on either side but Russia would have the capacity to fight on.

If Russia and the US got into an all out war, it would take 50 years for the survivors to figure out who "won"

Not at all true but it is this type of propaganda that results in people who do not prepare for the eventually of a nuclear war that could in fact be won. The Russians have never stopped preparing for it and at this stage I have not found evidence that gives the US a credible chance of surviving such a war as a integrated nation.

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX

Russia operates a National missile defense system that employs hundreds of launchers and thousands of missiles so unless the US has a very secretive missile defense shield it is US cities that will be laid waste while Russia shrugs of the blows with relatively impunity; millions will die on either side but Russia would have the capacity to fight on.

Is there actually any credible proof of the existence of such a massive, costly defence system, which would be the ultimate holy grail that even the US hasn't considered doing because it would be near impossible to accomplish even with an unlimited budget.

Not at all true but it is this type of propaganda that results in people who do not prepare for the eventually of a nuclear war that could in fact be won. The Russians have never stopped preparing for it and at this stage I have not found evidence that gives the US a credible chance of surviving such a war as a integrated nation.

Stellar

Nuclear war would be devastating world wide, even if it was only a 'limited' engagement between two or three countries.

This is hardly propaganda - nuclear war is unsustainable and has no good endgame.

We've had this discussion before, let's just say I don't share your faith that Russia can just "shrug off" a few thousand megatons of nuclear weapons detonating above their cities

Originally posted by Xfile
Needless to say that besides being no winners in a nuclear exchange

There has always been winners in wars and in times of hold entire nations had their cities burnt and large sections of their populations killed only to eventually return to power. I have always found it interesting that so few know how the US government destroyed it's own ABM defenses that would have ensured that the US could 'win' the exact war their officials later claimed no one could.

and the US,Russian territories being uninhabital wastelands for thousands of years the nuclear fallout cloud would cross the world many times over.

Well this is yet more baseless propaganda that have never been validated by any experimentation or factual evaluation. Nuclear winter is shear unadulterated nonsense intended to scare populations into giving up hope and thus simply yielding to the claims that they must send their sons to Vietnam or Korea to 'defend' the 'national interest'. With a nuclear shield in place and thousands of ICBM"s at the ready the US could have dictated worlds affairs under threat of simply nuking those who resisted into submission.

Thus polluting crops.rivers,oceans,livestock etc.Indeed many would perish outside of the warring nations.

Figure 1.2 also illustrates the fact that at a typical location where a given amount of fallout from an explosion is deposited later than 1 hour after the explosion, the highest dose rate and the total dose received at that location are less than at a location where the same amount of fallout is deposited 1 hour after the explosion. The longer fallout particles have been airborne before reaching the ground, the less dangerous is their radiation.

Within two weeks after an attack the occupants of most shelters could safely stop using them, or could work outside the shelters for an increasing number of hours each day. Exceptions would be in areas of extremely heavy fallout such as might occur downwind from important targets attacked with many weapons, especially missile sites and very large cities. To know when to come out safely, occupants either would need a reliable fallout meter to measure the changing radiation dangers, or must receive information based on measurements made nearby with a reliable instrument.

www.oism.org...

The biological rationale for the LNT Hypothesis is that a single ionizing particle can cause DNA damage leading to cancer. However, the human body experiences about 15,000 such impacts per second, or more than a billion per day, due to natural causes. Moreover, a million DNA nucleotides in each cell are damaged daily by normal metabolism and body heat.

www.oism.org...

In effect it becomes a question of preparation and whichever nation can provide shelter space and food for a few months is quite likely to 'win'.

Honestly,i would rather die in the blasts themselves rather than die the slow,torturous death from radiation poisoning.

So your going to sit outside and wait to get irradiated?

Only a very small fraction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki citizens who survived radiation doses some of which were nearly fatal have suffered serious delayed effects. The reader should realize that to do essential work after a massive nuclear attack, many survivors must be willing to receive much larger radiation doses than are normally permissible. Otherwise, too many workers would stay inside shelter too much of the time, and work that would be vital to national recovery could not be done. For example, if the great majority of truckers were so fearful of receiving even non-incapacitating radiation doses that they would refuse to transport food, additional millions would die from starvation alone.

The authoritative study by the National Academy of Sciences, A Thirty Year Study of the Survivors qf Hiroshima and Nagasaki, was published in 1977. It concludes that the incidence of abnormalities is no higher among children later conceived by parents who were exposed to radiation during the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki than is the incidence of abnormalities among Japanese children born to un-exposed parents.


he Truth About Chernobyl Is Told

“Populations still living unofficially in the abandoned lands around Chernobyl may actually have a lower health risk from radiation than they would have if they were exposed to the air pollution health risk in a large city such as nearby Kiev,” Smith wrote in the journal BioMedCentral Public Health.

His study focused on long-term health risks to survivors who received high but non-lethal doses of radiation.

It excluded the cases of 134 firemen and helicopter pilots who suffered acute radiation sickness, leading to death in around 40 cases.

www.mosnews.com...

Air Bursts. An air burst is an explosion in which a weapon is detonated in air at an altitude below 30 km but at sufficient height that the fireball does not contact the surface of the earth. After such a burst, blast may cause considerable damage and injury. The altitude of an air burst can be varied to obtain maximum blast effects, maximum thermal effects, desired radiation effects, or a balanced combination of these effects. Burns to exposed skin may be produced over many square kilometers and eye injuries over a still larger area. Initial nuclear radiation will be a significant hazard with smaller weapons, but the fallout hazard can be ignored as there is essentially no local fallout from an air burst. The fission products are generally dispersed over a large area of the globe unless there is local rainfall resulting in localized fallout. In the vicinity of ground zero, there may be a small area of neutron-induced activity which could be hazardous to troops required to pass through the area. Tactically, air bursts are the most likely to be used against ground forces.

www.fas.org...

HOW HOT ARE DR. HAUGHTON'S RUNNING SHOES?

The running shoes of Dr. Dennis Haughton of Phoenix, pictured on page 1 of The Medical Tribune, July 23, 1986, were said to radiate at a rate "over 100 times background" afterbeing in Kiev at the time of the Chernobyl accident.This report is typical of media accounts, which give the radiation rate in units of "times normal."How hot is that? It is impossible to say.The background in Colorado is "2.5 times normal" if Texas is defined as normal (250 vs 100 mrem/yr).An area near the Library of Congress receives"700 times normal" if normal is defined as what Congress allows at the boundary line of a nuclear power plant.A whole year's exposure of "50 times normal" is within NRC standards for occupational exposure.These figures refer to total body irradiation. The volume of tissue irradiated is crucially important.The safest available treatment for hyperthyroidism -- radioactive iodine -- delivers up to 10,000 rads (10 million millirads) to the thyroid, and about 14 rads to the body. Also, the duration of exposure is important. A dose of "100 times background" for a week might subject a person to the dose he would have received from living in Colorado for a year (where the cancer rate is lower than elsewhere.) A meaningful report of radiation exposure would give the dose (rems, rads, etc). But journalists seem to be more interested in alarming the public than in enlightening them.

www.oism.org...

The Chernobyl Accident

According to the Committee's scientific assessments, there have been about 1,800 cases of thyroid cancer in children who were exposed at the time of the accident, and if the current trend continues, there may be more cases during the next decades. Apart from this increase, there is no evidence of a major public health impact attributable to radiation exposure fourteen years after the accident. There is no scientific evidence of increases in overall cancer incidence or mortality or in non-malignant disorders that could be related to radiation exposure. The risk of leukaemia, one of the main concerns owing to its short latency time, does not appear to be elevated, not even among the recovery operation workers. Although those most highly exposed individuals are at an increased risk of radiation-associated effects, the great majority of the population are not likely to experience serious health consequences from radiation from the Chernobyl accident. However, the accident had a large negative psychological impact on thousands of people.

www.arps.org.au...

Don't be afraid of surviving; it wont be hard if you know how to dig a hole and hoard tinned food.

M.A.D.and the cold war are back with new players china and iran.

Russia never left the scene and China and Iran are still as insignificant as ever.

Stellar