U.S. Rethinks Strategy for the Unthinkable

reply to post by Topsy_Cret


Wow, I just nuked Sydney and realise that I'm living a long way out from the purple circles.
I guess that means I'm safe?
Don't know how correct that site is, but it's nifty just the same!

reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Well hopefully you don't get hungry if you manage to survive the intense thermal explosion (that will melt you) and the even larger pressure wave (which will probably take the oxygen, and your lungs, right out of your body), unless you want to eat heavily radiated food.

Thermal isn't much of an issue. While people outside within a mile or two of ground-zero may receive flash-burns - the duration of the blast is relatively short and not long enough to cause a whole lot of hollyweird destruction.

That whole inverse square law works in your favor.

The pressure wave won't do anything to the oxygen. In fact, since the reaction is non-combustible, it does not consume oxygen. Now, you will have to worry about the pressure wave doing damage to your lungs and ear-drums - but the damage from a nuclear pressure wave is not the intensity of the wave, but the sheer volume of air being displaced. Your body can survive far more intense overpressure (about 60 psi is necessary to be potentially lethal). "Ground Zero" is hit with upwards of 15 psi - and you're practically within the 'fireball' from there. Most damage will fall within the 5 - 0.25 psi range. It would be like getting hit with air about the consistency of water - about the best way to describe what that kind of blast would feel like - sort of like getting hit with a big bucket of water.

A 50-kiloton device is going to have minimal fallout about five miles out or so - depending upon winds (you should be able to figure out which way the wind is blowing, or know how the wind usually blows in your area - don't go down-wind). Food contamination will be minimal and constrained mostly to crops grown in the future (far longer than you are worried about at the moment).

There's only one thing you can do in a nuke scenario: GTFOASAP.

As discussed above, this is about the worst possible idea. If you're in fallout range, the EMP has likely blown your car - so you're looking at traveling on foot in the midst of radioactive fallout that has a half-life of a few days (some very intense stuff).

Speaking of cars - staying inside your car (or getting inside one if you are lacking a basement) is a relatively good idea. The key is to keep the fallout off of you, your clothing, and out of your lungs. Let it sit on top of the car. Think of it this way - turning on a 100-watt bulb and placing it millimeter or two above your skin is a good way to burn yourself. Move it just a few inches away - and you don't have to worry much about being burned. Same principle with fallout. Every dust particle is a little gamma-ray light-bulb of doom. It's just as effective to keep it away from you as it is to wrap yourself in lead.

So, really - no - "GTFOASAP" will, in all likelihood, get you killed. Even waiting 24hrs or so before attempting to move around allows a lot of the fallout to settle from the air and make moving, if you have to, a far less dangerous prospect.

Of course - your greatest threat comes from the droves of people who have, effectively, had their world come to an end and are in complete panic-mode and willing to follow any fool with a tool. They like to do stupid stuff like break windows, tear open doors, and do other things that completely invalidate the reason for being inside.

In emergencies, of such scale, be careful who you trust, and try not to make your hiding spot overly obvious to others - who may just give in to group-think and tear open your car (despite the fact all 50 of them aren't going to fit in there, and they just destroyed the shelter they sought).

Originally posted by Aim64C
It would be like getting hit with air about the consistency of water - about the best way to describe what that kind of blast would feel like - sort of like getting hit with a big bucket of water.

Water has the same effect as getting hit by cement if you hit it with enough force (or if it hits you).

There's only one thing you can do in a nuke scenario: GTFOASAP.

As discussed above, this is about the worst possible idea. If you're in fallout range, the EMP has likely blown your car - so you're looking at traveling on foot in the midst of radioactive fallout that has a half-life of a few days (some very intense stuff).

In emergencies, of such scale, be careful who you trust, and try not to make your hiding spot overly obvious to others - who may just give in to group-think and tear open your car (despite the fact all 50 of them aren't going to fit in there, and they just destroyed the shelter they sought).

I'm not stupid, I know what a nuke is. When I hear about a probable nuclear attack coming my way, I will immediately run for the hills. Seriously. Mountains are natural barriers and I would rather book it to the other side of one than hide in a basement (or any underground area). While I would be subject to higher exposure, I would at least be in an open environment and not stuck or crushed under debris.

And I don't use vehicles, and I would definitely not use on in this situation unless I was in a highly rural-type area where I know the back roads extensively, especially the ones that will bring me to the top or over a mountain (I really only live in populated valleys anyways, where there is no such thing as environmental disasters, aside from extreme forest fires).

But if I was caught in a nuke, then the only thing I could do is prepare for the best as quickly as possible. I remember a short story from school many years ago, about a family living in the cold war and their city gets nuked. The father only has minutes to respond to the sirens so he fills a bucket with water in the sink, and hurries his family into the basement where they place a heavy mattress over their heads to cover from debris. While it was only a story, it highlights the fact that chances are if you're getting nuked, you won't have time to mobilize to a bunker, so you need to be prepared at home; and if you're trying survive a nuke in your home, then you really only have luck going for your survival.

reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Water has the same effect as getting hit by cement if you hit it with enough force (or if it hits you).

*sigh*

Can't be assed to do a little research, as normal.

www.aussurvivalist.com...

For the most part, blast kills people by an indirect means rather than by direct pressure. While a human body can withstand up to 30 psi of simple overpressure, the winds associated with as little as 2 to 3 psi could be expected to blow people out of typical modern office buildings. Most blast deaths result from the collapse of occupied buildings, from people being blown into objects, or from buildings or smaller objects being blown onto or into people. Clearly, then, it is impossible to calculate with any precision how many people would be killed by a given blast—the effects would vary from building to building.

I'm not stupid, I know what a nuke is. When I hear about a probable nuclear attack coming my way, I will immediately run for the hills. Seriously. Mountains are natural barriers and I would rather book it to the other side of one than hide in a basement (or any underground area). While I would be subject to higher exposure, I would at least be in an open environment and not stuck or crushed under debris.

The cool thing about terrorism, though, is that it generally happens with no warning. The tractor-trailer just suddenly disappears into a searing ball of light and fire.

And I don't use vehicles, and I would definitely not use on in this situation unless I was in a highly rural-type area where I know the back roads extensively, especially the ones that will bring me to the top or over a mountain (I really only live in populated valleys anyways, where there is no such thing as environmental disasters, aside from extreme forest fires).

While I will quote individuals on a forum, it is very rare that I type as though I am speaking only to that person. I also tend to be very broad in scope when discussing survival and strategy. I'm a contingency thinker - I don't plan for zombies, I plan for each type of zombie and combinations thereof.

But if I was caught in a nuke, then the only thing I could do is prepare for the best as quickly as possible. I remember a short story from school many years ago, about a family living in the cold war and their city gets nuked. The father only has minutes to respond to the sirens so he fills a bucket with water in the sink, and hurries his family into the basement where they place a heavy mattress over their heads to cover from debris. While it was only a story, it highlights the fact that chances are if you're getting nuked, you won't have time to mobilize to a bunker, so you need to be prepared at home; and if you're trying survive a nuke in your home, then you really only have luck going for your survival.

This is true, to a degree. In a terrorist attack, you are going to be dealing with the aftermath. There won't be any warning, just your whole world changing in an instant and a few minutes before your chances of surviving hit zero (as the fallout comes down). If you're still alive - and there's plenty of chance you will be - you don't have a whole lot of time to remain that way unless you take action, fast. It can happen at work, on your commute - you never know what time(s) a terrorist would choose. The point is - you have no warning.

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

 

Water has the same effect as getting hit by cement if you hit it with enough force (or if it hits you).

*sigh*

Can't be assed to do a little research, as normal.

What, I need to read a thousand statistics to figure out common sense? I've watched videos of nuclear tests; that pressure wave isn't "like getting a bucket of water to the face", it's more like a friggin' tsunami of dust, debris and air slamming you like a freight train.

The cool thing about terrorism, though, is that it generally happens with no warning. The tractor-trailer just suddenly disappears into a searing ball of light and fire.

Right. There has never been a nuclear attack carried out by terrorists. There is no confirmation of terrorists having a nuclear weapon. This is just fearmongering.

And tell you what, if a terrorist set off a nuke in my shading little city, I'll probably be dead. The terrorist will do his job.

While I will quote individuals on a forum, it is very rare that I type as though I am speaking only to that person. I also tend to be very broad in scope when discussing survival and strategy. I'm a contingency thinker - I don't plan for zombies, I plan for each type of zombie and combinations thereof.

I don't expect you to type specifically for me, but I am typing my example because it makes more sense to me to use a mountain for cover than an underground bunker.

This is true, to a degree. In a terrorist attack, you are going to be dealing with the aftermath. There won't be any warning, just your whole world changing in an instant and a few minutes before your chances of surviving hit zero (as the fallout comes down). If you're still alive - and there's plenty of chance you will be - you don't have a whole lot of time to remain that way unless you take action, fast. It can happen at work, on your commute - you never know what time(s) a terrorist would choose. The point is - you have no warning.

I am much more concerned about ending up on a CIA hitlist and being specifically targeted for assassination, because they would make damn sure I had no warning of it coming. There is a trillion percent higher chance of that happening to me than a terrorist blowing me up with a nuke.

Not "if" but when!

If you are willing to ignore the facts, and assume that there are not enemies of the west preparing to attack major US and European targets like this in the future then may you enjoy the calm before the storm.

Al Qaeda is nothing more than a clever proxy of the true allied enemies of the west. When they do really attack where does the west retaliate?

Of course, all evidence, and blame will be on this fabricated terrorist organization, along with a claim of responsibility and with videos posted on the internet.

reply to post by Flighty


I thought that too.. then realised that the bomb was set to the smallest one.

Try the 100kt or higher and realise Sydney is screwed...

reply to post by DimensionalDetective



Reminds me of a joke from the fifties.

Two golfers are on the green. They look up as a atom bomb goes off a few miles away. One says to the other, "Go ahead and putt. The shock wave won't be here for 22 seconds."

reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

What, I need to read a thousand statistics to figure out common sense? I've watched videos of nuclear tests; that pressure wave isn't "like getting a bucket of water to the face", it's more like a friggin' tsunami of dust, debris and air slamming you like a freight train.

It really isn't. You're looking at about 5 psi - which is not all that different than having a bucket of water thrown on you. It doesn't matter how fast the air is going - what matters is the pressure. Unless you were turned into vapor within the first second, you are going to survive the shockwave.

Now, whether or not the building you are in could take a wall of 'water' being thrown into it, or not, is another issue, entirely. Many buildings can't. Since you are in one of those buildings, survival depends more greatly upon the integrity of the structure than your own physical integrity - which can survive overpressures three times greater than the building you are in, at least.

Right. There has never been a nuclear attack carried out by terrorists. There is no confirmation of terrorists having a nuclear weapon. This is just fearmongering.

It's called being aware. Fissile materials go missing from Russia and the former Soviet states every year - more than enough to make a 20 kiloton yield. There are a few bombs that both the U.S. and Russia have lost in various locations - many of these were back when the hydrogen bomb was a newfangled thing, so we're dealing with megaton yields.

To believe that nuclear weapons are not available to various parties who seek them is simply naive.

Again - I go to the copy machine example: I'm a fearmonger for telling you how best to react to the copy machine running out of toner.

It's called being prepared. If you can't handle information about how to survive a disaster - then you don't deserve to survive.

And tell you what, if a terrorist set off a nuke in my shading little city, I'll probably be dead. The terrorist will do his job.

Same, here.

The thing is, however, that you and I are not the only ones in existence. I frequently visit the city for a number of reasons - and those areas are far more likely to be targeted by terrorists than the town I live in. The majority of the population lives within the metropolitan areas of major cities (at least, here in the U.S.). Even in the case of an optimal air-burst megaton yield nuclear weapon - there are millions in the surrounding areas that would be affected directly and indirectly by the event. If you haven't informed them before-hand, it's going to be pretty difficult to telepath survival advice into their head.

I don't expect you to type specifically for me, but I am typing my example because it makes more sense to me to use a mountain for cover than an underground bunker.

About the most intense pressures experienced in areas not subject to vaporization are 15 psi. Hardened structures can withstand this easily, and guard against fallout.

A mountain will have some effect - but the larger the yield, the higher up into the air they go, and the less consideration has to be taken for terrain.

I am much more concerned about ending up on a CIA hitlist and being specifically targeted for assassination, because they would make damn sure I had no warning of it coming. There is a trillion percent higher chance of that happening to me than a terrorist blowing me up with a nuke.

Right. You can wear the tinfoil hat. It looks good on you.

This from Bruce Cathie's Harmonic Conquest of Space.

"One of the most startling facts that I discovered by application of grid mathematics was that an atomic bomb is a device based on the geometrics of space and time. To be successfully detonated, the bomb MUST be geometrically constructed, placed on, under, or over a geometric position in relation to the Earth’s surface, and activated at a SPECIFIC TIME in relation to the geometrics of the solar system. I found that it was possible to precalculate the time of various bomb tests, and the locations where it was possible to explode a bomb.

According to the mathematical complexities of unlocking the geometric structure of the unstable material constituting a bomb in order to create a sudden release of energy, I realised that an all-out atomic war was an impossibility. Both sides could precalculate well in advance the time and positions of atomic attack. Plus the fact that only certain geometric locations could be devastated anyhow. A logical war cannot be considered under these circumstances. This could be the explanation for the proliferation of conventional weapons in modern warfare."
www.whale.to...

Emphasis mine ... take note of this.

If you are into mathmatics you will want to read the whole article.

I believe there was a thread here a short time ago discussing the alleged A-bomb, saying that it is really just an enhanced TNT bomb. Even that would be horrific. Look what they did to Dresden with ordinary fire bombs.

reply to post by imperium1984


The outer circle of this one almost touches my area...
That's assuming that it's detonated in the harbour of Sydney and not further in.

Mk 28 (USA, 1958) 1.4 Mt
A cowboy was seen riding this bomb at the end of the Dr. Strangelove movie by Stanley Kubrick

Either way, I guess that's food for thought with extra bug out planning.

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

 

What, I need to read a thousand statistics to figure out common sense? I've watched videos of nuclear tests; that pressure wave isn't "like getting a bucket of water to the face", it's more like a friggin' tsunami of dust, debris and air slamming you like a freight train.

It really isn't. You're looking at about 5 psi - which is not all that different than having a bucket of water thrown on you. It doesn't matter how fast the air is going - what matters is the pressure. Unless you were turned into vapor within the first second, you are going to survive the shockwave

Utter nonsense.

Look at the video of the Atomic Annie nuke artillery test research footage.

This is an American nuclear test with a nuclear artillery shell, which is clearly a small tactical nuke compared to what bombers or ICBMs can unload. Do you not see the shockwave sending cars flying? Ripping buildings apart?

This has nothing to do with what water can do; this has to do with what a nuke can do, which is destroy everything in its blast radius.

It's called being aware. Fissile materials go missing from Russia and the former Soviet states every year

You're talking about Russia?

I don't see Russia flying around with nuclear-armed B-52s. The Americans were caught doing this and claimed it was an "accident" that their B-52s were somehow armed with nuclear primed missiles due to "incompetence" of the crew. Right. They are much more of a threat than imaginary terrorists, IMO.

It's called being prepared. If you can't handle information about how to survive a disaster - then you don't deserve to survive.

The greatest threat to Canada has been the Americans. Has always been this way. I study American tactics and strategy, and I have a better-than-average understanding of what American nuclear strikes will do to my people. I don't fear "nuclear armed terrorists" who apparently bought nukes ex-Soviets because I don't take Tom Clancy's stories as reality.

If you haven't informed them before-hand, it's going to be pretty difficult to telepath survival advice into their head.

Survival knowledge helps, but like I said, luck is the best factor in surviving a nuclear bomb. You could be drunk and passed out in a ditch, only to wake up to the aftermath of a nuclear detonation which has wiped out nearby parliament or military garrisons.

reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Utter nonsense.

Look at the video of the Atomic Annie nuke artillery test research footage.

I've seen plenty of nuclear test footage, and am substantially more versed in engineering, from the looks of it.

This is an American nuclear test with a nuclear artillery shell, which is clearly a small tactical nuke compared to what bombers or ICBMs can unload. Do you not see the shockwave sending cars flying? Ripping buildings apart?

First - you're talking about an altitude-detonated nuke - which is a completely different can of worms from a ground-level detonation. In either case - the shock wave is not all that threatening to human beings. The overpressure is, roughly, between 3 and 10 psi. Humans don't start running into casualties until about 30 psi. Hurricane-force winds are about 0.5 psi, if I remember correctly - if not, it is something like 0.25 or 0.35.

This has nothing to do with what water can do; this has to do with what a nuke can do, which is destroy everything in its blast radius.

And this is simply not what engineering and tests show us. When air hits you at those pressures, it would be like getting hit with a wave of water. The point of my analogy was to prepare a person for what the sensation of being hit with a nuclear shock-wave would be like. In a sense - it would be like getting hit with a bucket of water traveling a little faster than most people could pitch it. It would be uniform, and last less than a second.

When dealing with structures - you have to scale this effect up. Rather than a bucket - you're looking at a literal wall of water. The damage done from a nuclear blast and from a tsunami are not all that different. The overall behavior of the 'waves' is different, due to substantially different causes - but the forces and damage they subject a structure to are remarkably similar.

The human body can easily withstand the shock wave - and you would have very little trouble at all if you were wearing hearing and eye protection. You might be -moved- a few feet, but you are a remarkably tough animal.

The only places where the overpressure, itself, is potentially lethal are areas that anyone likely to be directly exposed to the overpressure will already be vaporized.

Your largest concern with overpressure stems from the concern over debris and the fact that the structure you are in is very likely to be torn asunder from the shock wave. Secondary concerns are the negative pressure wave that can pull you out of high-rise buildings and such.

Best advice if you see a bright flash and have time to react - get intimate with the deck-plate (floor), hold to something bolted to the floor, and cover your ears (the overpressure is enough that it could cause your ear drums to rupture if you don't protect them).

You're talking about Russia?

I don't see Russia flying around with nuclear-armed B-52s. The Americans were caught doing this and claimed it was an "accident" that their B-52s were somehow armed with nuclear primed missiles due to "incompetence" of the crew. Right. They are much more of a threat than imaginary terrorists, IMO.

It is impossible for a U.S. nuclear weapon to be triggered without authorization codes. You could crash the plane full of nukes into a mountain or beat on them with hammers all day. Unless you dismantle the weapon and rebuild it, it has zero chance of detonating without the authorization codes. This is done, specifically, to avoid accidents.

As for the incident in question - it's, again, pretty much impossible for the unauthorized and unintentional loading of a nuclear weapon. Exactly what was supposed to happen, versus what actually did happen, is something we may never really know. However, at no time was the weapon or the fissile materials within it in jeopardy of passing into unauthorized hands.

Anyway, relevant reading for you: docs.nrdc.org...

www.globalsecuritynewswire.org...

Expert Maria Rost Rublee said three Egyptian insiders informed her that "nonstate actors" from an ex-Soviet state had attempted to deal nuclear-weapon material and equipment to Cairo.

"Mubarak refused. He was very cautious, even over nuclear energy, and canceled plans for a program after Chernobyl," she said.

Said former International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards chief Olli Heinonen: "At the time of the Soviet collapse, there were lots of people with financial difficulties."

www.globalsecuritynewswire.org...

A car containing traces of radioactive cesium 137 was halted at the Georgian-Armenian border during its return trip to Armenia, according to a communication from the U.S. Embassy in Tbilisi, Georgia. A cloth in the vehicle emitted the highest radiation level, suggesting a shipment of radioactive material had been carried out successfully. Although the vehicle was stopped in August 2009 after setting off a radiation detector while entering Georgia, it was allowed through after its driver said he had been treated with radioactive isotopes for medical reasons.

Two Armenian men later transported a cache of highly enriched uranium from Armenia to Georgia inside a cigarette carton coated with lead; the container concealed the nuclear material from radiation scanners at Georgian entry points (see GSN, Nov. 8).

www.bellona.org...

Vishenvsky supplied no details on when the thefts occurred and offered no theories on how the material could have been stolen. He also listed no other thefts besides those from the Moscow Region and Novosibirsk Elektrostal facilities, which stopped rather short of the dozens of incidents of nuclear theft in Russia logged by nuclear smuggling databases at Stanford University and the Monterey Institute for International Studies, both of which are regarded as the most comprehensive databases of their type in the world.

According to researchers at the Stanford database, law enforcement officials worldwide have seized 40 kilograms of Russian-origin uranium and plutonium since 1991. Stanford researchers have also estimated that only30 to 40 percent of the nuclear material stolen from facilities in Russia and other territories in the former Soviet Union are ever recovered by authorities.

But there have been other, better-documented thefts that have occurred in the past ten-year timeframe Vishnevsky spoke of. There was, for instance, a 1992 theft of 15 kilograms of highly enriched uranium in the far north Murmansk region when a thief cut through a padlock to an unguarded container holding nuclear submarine fuel.

Considering a lot of this stuff has simply gone up and missing... the threat of terrorism is certainly there. As the first document mentions - the real threat comes from the thefts linked to organized interests - those who have the experts and resources to actually manufacture a bomb. The others are mostly a testament to the lax security in Russia.

Your sense of national pride is certainly noteworthy - but makes you naive in many respects.

The greatest threat to Canada has been the Americans. Has always been this way. I study American tactics and strategy, and I have a better-than-average understanding of what American nuclear strikes will do to my people. I don't fear "nuclear armed terrorists" who apparently bought nukes ex-Soviets because I don't take Tom Clancy's stories as reality.

Right. We're coming to take the majority of your population through bovine abduction.

Canada doesn't have much to fear from middle-east or European-driven terrorism, this is true. This should beg the question as to why you are even commenting in this thread. Not that I am suggesting you, or anyone else, should be controlled or not be allowed to post... but the issue at hand is really not all that relevant to you. Most of the world forgets Canada exists (and would like to forget Russia exists, too). The U.S. is rethinking it strategy for dealing with a nuclear attack from terrorism. You are Russia-worshiping Ukrainian living in Canada and hating America. I'm not sure what has driven you to feel like commenting.

Survival knowledge helps, but like I said, luck is the best factor in surviving a nuclear bomb. You could be drunk and passed out in a ditch, only to wake up to the aftermath of a nuclear detonation which has wiped out nearby parliament or military garrisons.

While your scenario has potential truth - the premise does not. Luck is a factor in everything - but RNG does not hold your ultimate fate. For every one person instantly vaporized - there are a hundred others who will need to deal with the shock wave and the risks associated - and for everyone of them, a thousand have to worry about the fallout.

Statistically, you are far more likely to be digging yourself out of rubble or stumbling around in partially-collapsed buildings than you are to have your options restricted to vaporizing instantly. You are even more likely to have to deal with concerns of fallout.

In those instances, where you are not instantly dead - knowledge and training are far greater factors than luck.

Originally posted by Aim64C
I've seen plenty of nuclear test footage, and am substantially more versed in engineering, from the looks of it.

This is an American nuclear test with a nuclear artillery shell, which is clearly a small tactical nuke compared to what bombers or ICBMs can unload. Do you not see the shockwave sending cars flying? Ripping buildings apart?

First - you're talking about an altitude-detonated nuke - which is a completely different can of worms from a ground-level detonation. In either case - the shock wave is not all that threatening to human beings. The overpressure is, roughly, between 3 and 10 psi. Humans don't start running into casualties until about 30 psi. Hurricane-force winds are about 0.5 psi, if I remember correctly - if not, it is something like 0.25 or 0.35.

Atomic Annie test

This is most certainly not an altitude detonation, and it clearly shows houses, cars and trees being ripped apart with the pressure wave going in away from the blast, and then back into it as per vacuum effect. This is a 15kt artillery shell.

And this is simply not what engineering and tests show us.

Tests don't mean jack compared to real life scenarios, dude.

As for the incident in question - it's, again, pretty much impossible for the unauthorized and unintentional loading of a nuclear weapon. Exactly what was supposed to happen, versus what actually did happen, is something we may never really know. However, at no time was the weapon or the fissile materials within it in jeopardy of passing into unauthorized hands.

...It was clearly reported that the B-52 had like 12 nuclear-armed cruise missiles deployed on its pylons, all armed, and it was flying around as if it was the cold war. And apparently this was not the first instance of this. Do you not remember the "procedural overhaul" that the media claimed took place after the incident?

Considering a lot of this stuff has simply gone up and missing... the threat of terrorism is certainly there. As the first document mentions - the real threat comes from the thefts linked to organized interests - those who have the experts and resources to actually manufacture a bomb. The others are mostly a testament to the lax security in Russia.

The fact is that nuclear weapons are old technology. It's not exactly impossible for any developing nation to acquire the technology and scientists to build them, and if they did, they would most certainly keep the programs quiet.

Your sense of national pride is certainly noteworthy - but makes you naive in many respects.

You are Russia-worshiping Ukrainian living in Canada and hating America.

No, I'm a British Columbian living in Canada. I use a Russian alias on the internet to confuse anti-commies like you because it is rather humorous.

And why am I commenting in this thread? Because the US keeps trying to push us into is stupid nuclear umbrella, which makes us a target for nuclear weapons. Bush tried to put up his lame-ass ABM shield around Canada but our government at the time said no because ABM systems are a part of a first-strike strategy, and invite a nuclear response which we don't want.

Oh, and didn't I already mention that the US is Canada's largest threat anyways? Ever heard of Operation Crimson?

Statistically, you are far more likely to be digging yourself out of rubble or stumbling around in partially-collapsed buildings than you are to have your options restricted to vaporizing instantly. You are even more likely to have to deal with concerns of fallout.

I'm not interested in statistics or theories.

There's a story from the Hiroshima nuclear attack that I heard about in school. Some Japanese guy and his wife were working in the garden when it happened. The husband happened to be bending down behind a waist-high wall while the wife was looking at the blast. The exposed half of the wife was vaporized and the man survived without serious injury (though I'm sure radiation got to him).