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.
Originally posted by Genfinity
Are you suggesting if Americans are shot at, they will give up Gulf War I style? Of course your not.
As for the well armed Swiss, who cares? The list of nations who don't consider the Swiss a military threat of any kind what so ever would go on and on and on.
If someone is shooting at you and you have a gun and you don't shoot back, your an idiot. And a dead one at that.
One thing is for sure, if I am ever shot at, I sure hope I have some Swiss in the fox hole with me so we can blast our way out.
This might come as a shock to you but there are afew, maybe 6 or 7, Americans that know how to take a gun apart and put it back together.
But the Swiss probably do it faster so point for you.
So we should fear armed Iraqis more then armed Americans? Or I can spin it the other way; if the private citizen is such a non-threat, how do you explain Afghanistan defending itself (out lasting) two super powers in a row?
Maybe they were trained by the Swiss?? Maybe so. Point for you.
Who said anything about waiting to be blown to bits in their house? Where did you see that written on this thread? Weird.
A full scale nuclear attack won't kill but a small percentage of people. And your really being serious about that, aren't you? Wow. Props to you for being an off the chart optimist. Waaaaay off the chart. But then you seem to suggest that after the teeny weeny nuclear war that only kills afew people or so, HERE COMES RUSSIA! Who does that make sense to?
According to Soviet civil defense SOVIET FATALITIES (SAY SOVIETS): "BETWEEN THREE
AND-FOUR PERCENT" manuals, this plan for the evacuation and dispersal of people is designed
to limit casualties in the event of a nuclear exchange to between three and four percent of the
population. Modest, feasible measures to protect machinery from nuclear effects greatly increase
both the probability of industrial survival and U .S. retaliatory force requirements . . .
[FEMA and the CIA] estimate that the Soviet Union, given time to implement
fully these civil defense measures, could limit casualties to around fifty million, about half of
which would be fatalities. This compares to the approximately 20 million Soviet fatalities suffered in
World War II . There is no significant U .S. civil defense effort, and the Soviets
recognize this. The potential impact of Soviet civil defense on our deterrent
could be devastating.
The Soviets spend the equivalent of more than $1 billion annually (the CIA in Soviet Civil Defense estimates approximately $2 billion) on their CD program and have conducted some tests of their city evacuation plans. Although the extent of these tests is not fully known, they concentrate efforts on protecting political and military leaders, industrial managers, and skilled workers. Professor Richard Pipes of Harvard sees the CD organization under Altunin as "...a kind of shadow government charged with responsibility for administering the country under the extreme stresses of nuclear war and its immediate aftermath."24
The potential lifesaving effectiveness of the Soviet CD program is not a matter of unanimous agreement. However, several studies estimate casualty rates as low as two to three percent of the Soviet population in the event of nuclear war.25
Some critics of Pentagon policies argue that the U.S. is no longer capable of fulfilling these three imposing tasks, especially that of deterring a Soviet nuclear attack. Major General George Keegan Jr., recently retired as the Air Force's chief of intelligence, has charged that "the Soviets are capable of initiating, waging, surviving and emerging with a unique advantage from a global [nuclear] war." As evidence, he points to the Russians' allegedly extensive civil defense program
Now wait a minute. I thought nukes only killed afew people. You said it; I quoted it. Your all over the place.
If a nuke blows up a city, it will impact the entire world. But your randomness makes it impossible to determine if you understand that. Are you interested in right or wrong or do you just want to type random responses?
There you go again. Where on this thread did ANYONE suggest how long an Apache would be in the air? PS-We do have another weapons! lol They are not going to use Apaches just because I said so on ATS. And nobody said how long they would be in the air except you. But you seem to elude they are worthless after, what, 30 minutes? 40 minutes? Did you think I was suggesting only one or two Apaches and one or two Blackhawks on the entire Texas border? Has anyone on ATS ever seen a line by line punking more bizarre? And still, there's more....
Chernobyl, this is Houston. The twilight zone has landed. Can someone in Japan remind me what the death toll was after the two atomic attacks? Couldn't have been that many, right?
4. What are the major health effects for exposed populations?
Thyroid scan on childrenThere have been at least 1800 documented cases of thyroid cancer children who were between 0 and 14 years of age when the accident occurred., which is far higher than normal. The thyroid gland of young children is particularly susceptible to the uptake of radioactive iodine, which can trigger cancers, treatable both by surgery and medication.Health studies of the registered cleanup workers called in (so-called “liquidators”) have failed to show any direct correlation between their radiation exposure and an increase in other forms of cancer or disease. The psychological affects of Chernobyl were and remain widespread and profound, and have resulted for instance in suicides, drinking problems and apathy.
“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.
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.
Both issues are "hot." Comparison of doses may influence the future foundations of radiation protection principles and regulations. The report's appendix on Chernobyl (115 pages and 558 references) is obviously politically incorrect: it denies the claims of a mass health disaster caused by radiation in the highly contaminated regions of the former Soviet Union.
At the global scale, as the report shows, the average natural radiation dose is 2.4 mSv per year, with a "typical range" reaching up to 10 mSv. However, in the Annex on natural radiation, UNSCEAR presents data indicating that this dose range in some geographical regions is many tens and hundreds times higher than the average natural global dose, or than the currently accepted annual dose limits for general population (1 mSv) and occupationally exposed people (20 mSv).
No adverse health effects related to radiation were ever observed among people exposed to such high natural doses. This strongly suggests that the current radiation standards are excessively, and unnecessarily, restrictive.
In his presentation at the DDP meeting in Las Vegas, Myron Pollycove, M.D., of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission highlighted the following:
* Aging and cancer result from DNA alterations caused by reactive oxygen species (ROS). Normal oxidative metabolism causes at least a million such changes per cell every day. Normal background radiation causes about two.
* Low-dose ionizing radiation stimulates the body's enzymatic repair mechanisms. DNA repair is tripled by exposure to 25 cGy (25 rads). A tenfold increases in background radiation from 1 mGy/yr to 10 mGy/yr stimulates overall DNA damage control by 20%.
* Total body irradiation or TBI (e.g. 150 r in fractionated doses in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma) has improved survival compared with chemotherapy alone.
* TBI in mice, especially when combined with chronic caloric restriction, prevents or causes regression of spontaneous mammary tumors.
* Dr. Pollycove summarized a number of epidemiologic studies that support hormesis, involving populations in areas with high background radiation; survivors of the atomic bombs or radiation accidents; nuclear workers; and patients exposed to multiple fluoroscopies. He also presented experimental evidence of life extension effects, immune stimulation, suppression of malignant transformation of cells, slowing of tumor growth, and reduction in number of metastases.
``All statistically significant adequately controlled epidemiologic studies,'' he writes, ``confirm low doses of radiation are associated with reduced mortality from all causes, decreased cancer mortality, and may be protective against accidental high- dose radiation.'' In US nuclear shipyard workers, for example, those with a cumulative exposure between 0.5 and 40 cSV or rem had a standardized mortality ratio 16 standard deviations below that of matched nonexposed workers for all causes, and 4 SDs less than nonexposed workers for all malignancies.
Let me get this straight, the US will not fire it's irrelevant nukes at Russia if Russia invades Alaska. Why wouldn't we. After all, the global impact is minimal, right?
Wait a minute, wait a minute; who said the US planned on attacking "the world"? You keep suggesting things that NOBODY ever said. What are you doing???
Just about every nation on this planet will at least attempt to defend itself if attacked. If a super power is invaded by a nation, you bet they would fire nukes!
Why you think that nukes and the resulting radiation are a minuscule threat is beyond normal comprehension.
Are you an America hater?
Are you annoyed that the US would even dare to defend itself? Who knows?
You opinion about nukes and radiation are the most bizarre opinions I have ever, ever seen on ATS.
If I dare to read between the lines, it seems like you don't like the idea of America defending itself from Mexican crossovers or any threat from Russia.
When I mentioned 357s and AK47s, why did you assume I thought we would all be holed up in our houses waiting for the RPGs to blow us all up? I sure didn't say it but you sure eluded it in your line by line punking.
You made a number of assumptions in your continuous points and pretty much all of them are completely bizarre.
Who wants to school him about the Cuban Missile Crisis? Then again, he marginalizes nukes so how do you rationalize with someone so wrong?
It just keeps going. I am about to hit my character cap.
Unbelievable. He really believes himself. He really, truly does.
In his mind, his opinions really do make perfect sense.
Nukes and radiation.
No big deal.Everything else is just the sprinkles on top.
Try not to line item punk people in the future.
It's not your thing.
Originally posted by yellowcard
This is really old news, and it's not going to happen. I don't know why people around here who have no economic background are claiming the downfall of America.
In six years, the boomer vanguard
will start collecting Medicare. Our nation
has done nothing to prepare for this onslaught of
obligation. Instead, it has continued to focus on
a completely meaningless fiscal metric—“the”
federal deficit—censored and studiously ignored
long-term fiscal analyses that are scientifically
coherent, and dramatically expanded the benefit
levels being explicitly or implicitly promised to
the baby boomers.
Countries can and do go bankrupt. The United
States, with its $65.9 trillion fiscal gap, seems
clearly headed down that path. The country needs
to stop shooting itself in the foot. It needs to adopt
generational accounting as its standard method
of budgeting and fiscal analysis, and it needs to
adopt fundamental tax, Social Security, and
healthcare reforms that will redeem our children’s
This recovery has been fueled to a very large extent by a housing bubble, just as the second half of
the nineties cycle was fueled by a stock bubble. Since 1997, average house prices have risen by more
than 50 percent, after adjusting for inflation. Historically, house prices have moved at approximately
the same pace as the overall rate of inflation.1 This unprecedented run-up has not been associated
with extraordinary population or income growth, both of which have been below their average pace
for the post-war years since 2000. It is also not associated with any new restrictions on supply, as
housing construction was at near record levels over the period 2003-2005. The run-up in house sale
prices was also not associated with any extraordinary increase in rents, which rose only slightly more
rapidly than the overall rate of inflation over this period. In short, the run-up in house prices cannot
be explained except as a speculative bubble.
This bubble fueled the economy directly through its impact on the housing sector and indirectly
through the impact that housing wealth had on consumption. Housing construction and sales
account for more than six percent of GDP. The run-up in prices has led to a near doubling of sales
of new and existing homes since the mid-nineties. It has also led to record nationwide vacancy rates
for both rental and owner occupied housing. In past downturns housing investment has fallen by
30-40 percent. The sector has never seen as much overbuilding as it has experienced in the current
cycle. Also, with the huge baby boom cohort now entering its retirement years, demand for housing
should be shrinking relative to the size of the population in the years ahead. Based on past patterns,
it is reasonable to expect a drop in output in the housing sector from its 2005 peaks of at least 40
percent. It should reach this bottom by the end of 2007 or early 2008 at the latest.
The wealth effect created by the housing bubble fueled an extraordinary surge in consumption over
the last five years, as savings actually turned negative. (The country’s demographics, with most of the
baby boom cohort still in its prime saving years, is heavily tilted toward saving.)
The run-up in prices created $5 trillion in excess housing wealth. Conventional estimates of the size of the housing wealth
effect imply that this wealth would have generated an additional $200-$300 billion of consumption
(1.6-2.3 percent of GDP).
It is plausible that the impact of this bubble wealth was actually considerably larger than the
conventional estimates imply. Historically, the saving rate in the United States had averaged close to
eight percent of disposable income. The savings rate began to decline sharply in the nineties, at least
partially in response to the stock bubble, although other factors likely played a role. However, even
assuming a baseline savings rate of just four percent, the current rate of -1 percent implies an
amount of excess consumption of almost $480 billion annually, given current income levels. This
higher figure is consistent with data showing that households were borrowing more than $600
billion annually against their home equity in 2005.