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.

 

Could the U.S.A. survive a nuclear attack?

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 06:04 PM
link   
Well it depends on what you consider the USA. Everyone in the nation as a whole? Then no, because most people would be killed from a nuclear attack and the rest broken and wished they had died before the radioactivity. If you mean the land and all of the states that make up the United States, then no, because most likely everyone and everything would be destroyed from that big a blast. Maybe a few cities, and even some states remained, but definitely not unscathed considering the gas and fumes crippling the ground underneath your feet. I'm pretty sure that Martial Law would form before a nuclear response so the USA wouldn't even be the USA anymore.

Overall I like the thread
Sorry for this complicated and odd answer to a simple question.




posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Becker44
 


Not so fast indeed!

what i read makes a fine argument to my statment, but that info that i read is with in the same time period of another article i read yesterday that said two of the missles designed to shoot down an ICBM failed to launch altogether.

i guess thats where i figure it lacking in strength.
The paint a picture of a 100% full proof missle defense shiled desinged to intercept the missles but then when a failure happens one can see it is anything but full proof.
Now i know i say 100% thats my personal over exageration, but even if it stopped 25% of all incoming missles i think that would be astounding.

However even with that number somone is going to get a bloody nose.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by snowen20
 


There will always be someone somewhere that survives. There
is greater chance of Destruction due to Natural Forces like
Tsunamis, Super-Sized Hurricanes, Earthquakes or Super
Volcanoes than a Nukyellar War. Even the Cow-Plop between
Israel and Iran still won't involve Nukes. Then there's Terrorists
and Nukes, only in Hollywood or the White House fiction writers
will that happen.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by LEAP STICK
reply to post by snowen20
 


"There will always be someone somewhere that survives. There
is greater chance of Destruction due to Natural Forces like
Tsunamis, Super-Sized Hurricanes, Earthquakes or Super
Volcanoes than a Nukyellar War. Even the Cow-Plop between
Israel and Iran still won't involve Nukes. Then there's Terrorists
and Nukes, only in Hollywood or the White House fiction writers
will that happen."


Well I agree to some extent that the probability is slim to none when it comes to all out Total War with nukes as an option. But I feel it is relatively naive to presume a weapon that was made by man to kill other people would never be used. Even if it were on a minor scale especially if someone wanted to get their hands on one.
I mean im not a disaster fanatic looking for every opportunity to see the world destoyed so I can stand on some kind of pedestal shouting out "I TOLD YOU SO!" to every one I see. Im just saying that as long as the possibility exists to effect an outcome the chances are thier no matter how slim.
People are more prone to aggression than anything else and Im not saying it would ever happen in our life times but as long as the threat exists so does the possibility.





posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by snowen20
 


There are some people who swear that the missile defense shield works.I myself see it as a failure and waste of money.But hey its just one person opinion.To answer your other questions i didn't get to,yes they still do air raid and emergency broadcast test once a month at least here where i live.

[edit on 28-6-2008 by alienstar]



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 08:20 PM
link   
Well they do sirens here too, as well as television tests, I just wonder what people would do if they heard it and it were a sudden reality.

You dont really plan for somthing like that and Im not sure people would be able to comprehend the gravity of the situation.
But like I said I agree with the last poster who said the likelihood of getting hit by an astroid or somthing outweighs nuclear war.
Then again there have been some close calls that turned out to be sheer accidents. So maybe human error would be the ultimate reason for a nuclear holocaust not actual war



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 08:29 PM
link   
By the way do we even know what a real nuclear holocaust would be like?
as far as i know it is only theory and one where the worst case scenerio is projected.

Barren wastelands, poisonous rivers, nuclear winter., now that is somthing that sounds far fetched to me.
I mean sure it would be bad but I dont know if it would last to long.
and I dont know if it would cause a nuclear winter for that matter.
that is somthing that I heard was a complete hypothesis where the worst possible outcome was projected, discovery channel 1995, thats where i heard somthing to that effect.

But is it possible that while missles were launching that the leaders could call a truce before all missles were launched and minimize the damage?



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by snowen20
 


Given the windows and depending how we are attacked.Sub launched around 10-12 mins and coming from long ranged ballistic missiles over the polars about 20-30 mins.I don't think they would even know we are under attacked from icbms.The time frame for norad to confirm it,tell the president,then alert emergency systems.We prolly would be dead by then.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 08:42 PM
link   
Lets say some one shells out a rediculous sum of money for a bomb shelter, they buy the very best on the market and go down in it and wait it out.
What do these people actually hope to accomplish?
I know the over all goal is survival but going topside may be more of a hassle then what its worth. besides i dont know what a shelter will do anyway, depending on how close to a blast you are and the yeild of the weapon used a shelter can be crushed at a distance of a hundred miles.
Over exageration again but shockwave travel underground far better than in the air and with much more force. I suppose 30 megaton would do it.
a rather obsolete weapon now that we have guided missles.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by snowen20
 



Who would want to survive that. The water, air, food supply would all be poisoned. If we were to have an all out nuclear war I would make sure I was right were bomb would fall.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by snowen20
 


I think the Russians had a 40 megaton warhead.That would prolly take out NYC and some of Long Island.I wouldnt want to live through it and hope for survival.At least you go in a nano second by a direct hit.Suffering radiation forget it.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 08:51 PM
link   
Now thats the right idea!
I just hope I get it right and wind up 3 miles from the blast

I live next to a NATO training base for the Air Force so I think I know where I should go.

This place was a hot spot on the old target maps and I suspect it still is somewhere. I know they used to have bomb shelters all over town from what I am told and When i was younger my parents pointed out to me where they were. But never the less I guess ill park myself outside the main gate to the airbase and play the snake game on my cell phone until SHOW TIME.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by snowen20
 


3 miles away i'm sure you wouldn't have to worry about much.LOL..Yeah you would be gone by the blast.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by alienstar
 


I heard about that, I know tyhey tested a 50 megaton called the Tsar which was the worlds largest ever detonated and had in the works plans for a 100 megaton that they supposedly decided to cancel. Can you blame them?
I saw the test footage of the Tsar and I am amazed at the size of that explosion, absolutely amazing.

But if memory serves me correctly they had in thier possesion several smaller Bombs of "only" 20 to 40 megaton range for like you said main American cities.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by alienstar
 


Oh ofcourse, Im sorry I didnt make my self clear. I dont want to die in the blast wave...no no,, Im looking for the vaporization option please. Insantanious death VS that pesky melting of your skin and eyes only to be blown away by a tremendous blast wave a few seconds later no thanks..no thanks. What i mean by 3 miles away is that i get the short end of an already short stick.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by snowen20
 


Well only 3 miles away...if in fact the burst don't do it,the gamma ray bursts will.Not to mention winds hundreds miles an hour.Will be like a f5 tornado throwing debris all over.Shrapnel type wounds...high levels of radiation.LOL.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 09:10 PM
link   
WOW!
Nothing says lovin like charred flesh and shrapnel wounds!
Maybe I should peel my skin off and role in rock salt while im at it..lol

No I think haveing the bomb detonate 2000 feet directly over my head would be the best way to be dispatched.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 09:20 PM
link   
Give human history,yeah we all go to war sometimes,and over the stupidest reasons.Hopefully people understand that using nuclear weapons will never leave this planet the same again.Btw back when the Us dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki 63 years ago still have people dieing from the radiation poisoning today.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 09:53 PM
link   
There won't be a nuclear war unless Taiwan does something stupid. That's how it is nowadays, no one dares to use nuclear warfare as a way to solve problems. Arn't we trying to globalize? Trying to SOLVE our differences? If this is true, then World War III is pretty much unlikely. Fighting is not in any nation's interest unless they are sure that they won't lose any men or they will gain something great in return such as oil.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by alienstar
reply to post by snowen20
 


Given the windows and depending how we are attacked.Sub launched around 10-12 mins and coming from long ranged ballistic missiles over the polars about 20-30 mins.I don't think they would even know we are under attacked from icbms.The time frame for norad to confirm it,tell the president,then alert emergency systems.We prolly would be dead by then.


A sub-launched attack on the US, from subs off both coasts, would take about three to four minutes to find targets. There will be no time for warnings. You will either be dead, dying or trying not to die by four minutes.

One question would be, would the US launch a counter-strike? Against whom? Rumored the Russians have cloaked subs off-shore and are the ones most likely to nuke us (see the related post here on ATS regarding the Steve Quayle/HAWK article on almost getting nuked on June 20th). Will the US respond, and if so, how would they know who to attack? Attack every one?

The funny part of the HAWK article (well, funny if you think our politicians are basically Corporate Representatives) was that, supposedly, the high ranking military leaders were headed for the bunkers around Washington DC but someone forgot to tell the Congress what was going on.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join