How to Win A Nuclear War Without Killing Anybody...

page: 1

log in


posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 12:21 AM
(Despite conflicting thoughts) I have released this idea for debate, due to Argentina’s increasing hostility towards the vast majority people living on the Falkland Islands, and all those who defend them (i.e. the United Kingdom). News…
Supply Route Threatened:
Missile Targets Burn Jack:
Similar Events:

Points 1 to 5 explain the politics required; skip to point 6-15 for purely: “How to win a nuclear war without killing anybody”.

Political Scenario…
1. Argentina attacks the Falklands and establishes a permanent presence.
2. President Obama (having recently won his second term against Mitt Romney) continues his anti-European, anti-Western, and generally ant-white ideology, by making it clear that Britain’s repayment for losing 179 troops in America’s Iraq war, and 397 in Afghanistan, see pictures of the fallen…
Is zero repayment!

I.e. America will remain neutral in the conflict, whilst being politically hostile by actively advocating the Falklands sovereignty be determined by the UN, rather than the actual Falklands residents. He does this knowing that Britain is a permanent UN member, and that the British electorate would never forgive their electorate for not vetoing anything short of full victory.

3. Britain attempts a counter attack, but bad military decisions, together with the loss of military equipment caused by David Cameron’s continued defence government cuts, causes the loss of another ship, extending a death toll that can only further enrage the British public-electorate.

4. Realising that Britain does not have the (conventional) military ability to reclaim the Falklands, David Cameron attempts a UN compromise, but the compromise fails when: A jubilant Argentinean government feels unable to give the British victory-concessions needed, and opinion polls indicate the British public (and particularly those within our army) grow increasingly restless at our illusion of “democracy”.
Meanwhile the new Labour Party leader (it won’t be Edd Milliband, he’s due to be overthrown before 2015) decides to appeal to the floating Conservative electorate, by declaring “that under me, the fight to preserve the Falklander’s sovereignty, and to self determination will never be surrounded” “–that the war must continue indefinitely, until one year, whenever that may be, Britain is victorious” i.e. politically similar to Britain’s 35 war against the IRA, nearly 6 year war against Hitler, or indeed 15 year war against Napoleonic France.

5. So: A 3rd offensive is made. By then Britain’s military has already been substantially weekend (and even more demoralised) by Argentina’s earlier victories.
(Top) secretly the British government is fully aware that this attempt will fail (in military terms) and that it can only embolden the British public’s anger. This however, is precisely its purpose.

[size=125]Going Nuclear….

6. The new government announces to the world (& particularly Argentina!) that its presently debating an act through parliament, legally authorising the following: “Britain to withdraw from the nuclear test ban treaty, together with (certain aspects) of the Non Proliferation Treaty.”
7. That (unless Argentina fully withdraws within 28 days) Britain will be forced to detonate a nuclear device above the Argentinian capital (Buenos Aires) but that it will be detonated so far above the city, that it’s blast will not kill anyone. Instead merely the electromagnetic pulse will destroy almost every electronic device in the capital –even including car batteries.
To see Exactly how this is possibly you need to watch this You Tube video of a UK, atmospheric nuclear test, conducted in 1952. It’s only 1.8 megatons, but is fairly adequate the two min mark is the detonation, but I feel all before then is worth watching. I understand most radiation from these nukes is blasted into space (at 30,000 feet atmospheric pressure is less; along with air friction), or it’s distributed so finely it becomes insignificant.

8. Argentinians are invited to evacuate their city, by that specific date. It is also explained to them that should they overthrow their government, or withdraw from the Falklands then the detonation will be cancelled.
9. It is also explained that the proposed “test” is 1 of 3 called operation:
“Bright Fright” “Fair Warming” and “Operation Vaporization” that these will be conducted 2 weeks apart over the Argentinian capital, until there is nothing left.
10. By which time: The “testing ground” for British nuclear weapons will become Argentina’s second biggest city Córdoba, followed by Rosario and Mendoza ect. That the destruction of Buenos Aires will coincide with the wider use of “nuclear warnings” but that the destruction Cordoba will be complete within 3 weeks, and that it will be 2 weeks for Rosario.
11. At every stage: it will be emphasized to the world that Argentina’s will be given time to evacuate, not least as (far from being an asset to their countries war effort) the prospect of millions of them homeless, will become it’s single greatest liability.

Think: What government –people on Earth could survive the (almost) completely harmless detonation of nukes above its population centres? Barring in mind that: Every computer hardrive has been erased, and that it’s a precursor to permanent, mass, homelessness?

12. Speech to the World Community regarding Sanctions: The British PM will also make clear that whilst it is every countries right to level sanctions, any losses suffered by British companies from foreign sanctions (levelled by any country, against Britain as a whole, for its war) will be compensated 150 percent by the British Treasury (150 percent as that figures takes into account bureaucratic, application processing, delays) and that Britain will seek to repay its compensation payments, through War Reparations against Argentina.
13. That once nuclear weapons have been used against Argentina the objective is no longer to simply regain the Falkland Islands, but rather to cause “regime change” in Argentina, together with war reparations, together with the complete and permanent disbarment of all it’s military, for its present day military to be redirected to the UK military, as it is this that will now defend their sovereignty from invaders in future (as a British asset).
Note: The reason why “regime change” is included in this statement is so that later on, Britain can show flexibility in negations by settling merely for the demilitarization of Argentina, together with permanent war reparations.
14. That for everyone of the 2967 Falklander killed: They will be replaced until 10 Britain’s have voluntarily decided to take up long term residence on the Island, guaranteed by British “cash incentives”.
15. That whilst the ratio between Argentinian’s and Falklanders is 13620 makes direct revenge “too barbaric for Britain to compliment” we are less likely to look upon their own civilians deaths as significant, the more of our civilians they kill.

[size=125]In my View…
Nuclear weapons have saved literally tens of millions, of people’s lives…

1. During WW2 between 60 and 70 million are thought to have died. The only thing that had made the conventional technology of the cold war different, is it had become more lethal, cheaper to mass produce (at least for the Soviet Union), and both sides had all the time they needed to prepare.
During “the Cold War the Left Wing of politics” predicted nuclear weapons would make the Cold War even more bloody than WW2. Some delirious idiots even predicted it would destroy the world (because it could). Rather than advocating something sensible (like missile defence) to stop those missiles ever landing, and some dangerous actually fought making the West perfect for communist invasion by getting rid of nukes would make war somehow less likely-horrid.

(Like much of left wing ideology) it later got completely ridiculed by reality…

Instead: (At most) about 3 million died during the Cold War (that’s if you include the 1.1 million Vietnamese killed during Vietnam, together with other wars both sides waged by proxy).

2.Then: We have the Iraq War: During the first one we left Saddam in power precisely because he had WMD’s, and because we realised that if he was overthrown there would be a period of anarchy in which his WMD’s could be claimed by terrorists –rogue political forces. With Israel well within Iraqi range, we could not afford to jeopardise the entire population of this 6 million holy sands land. Not with e.g. anthrax –other biological weapons.

We told Saddam: “He would have nothing but peace and prosperity” if only he disarmed Iraq of WMD’s. He duly did (by 1995) and in 2003 faced nothing but war, poverty, and of course his own televised hanging, instead.

3. Then: We had Libya in which Gaddafi had a WMD programme. The stupid animal (and he really is spoilt stupid, for making this mistake) saw what had just happened to Saddam, and actually believed us, he “would have nothing but peace and prosperity” if only he got rid of his WMD’s!

A few years later (after it became clear Iran wasn’t making the same mistake)
Nato & the West, duly paid, organised, and armed, “rebels” (i.e. mercenary like terrorists) to cease power in Libya; whilst NATO bombed anyone brave enough to help Gaddafi resist the invasion of their country (a country that had grown too rich-tempting under Gaddafi).

4. Meanwhile: Israel-Isteal does have a right to exist, and that right is a real as blue is blue. The rights called: “nuclear weapons” and it’s one I find 100% adequate (I mean how does anyone sanely-practically get rid of Israel, if this involves numerous mushroom clouds?).
So if I (ever) went into politics, I’m never wasting my time dogging bullets from Mossad (or going out of pocket!) just to uphold the rights of 4.2 million Palestinians –“rag heads?” whilst opposing 7.6 million, completely Westernised & quite friendly (to us) Jews.
If Israel didn’t have nuclear weapons I could consider opposing them –i.e. their governments collapse wouldn’t make much world difference. But as long as we’re dealing with real reality, I will always support them. Frankly deforestation, & plastic pollution bother me literally ten times more (these issues effect so many more than 4.2-7.6 million people).

5. Now: We tell Iran to get rid of it’s WMD’s, and say it’s because they led by a suicidal cult that therefore cannot be trusted with WMD’s. We also say they are led by completely amoral politicians-men who would go to hell even by the standards of Islam, if only God knew what they had done (which if there is one, he does). I.e. we effectively say an “Ayatollah Nuclear” of Iran will fear the heat of a nuclear blast, as much (if not slightly more) than the average atheist.
Fact is: As long as Iran has biological weapons, they are probably safe, nuclear weapons just guarantees it.

Falkland Island Defence: A Summary…
Now: We have Argentina thinking they can steel territory from Britain, “steel” because it has never been any of their lifetimes, but it has always been British land in all of our lifetimes.
Steel because they have a crazy politics, that encourages them to behave much like the ant who attacks the British Lion.
A lion –almost supernatural country when it comes to war, that’s never been conquered once in almost 1000 years –a period of time so great that almost anyone involved in past conquest, and got left behind, is now today the ancestors of people who are all firmly British.

The Falkland Islands is like a gravestone to the British Empire, and it is imperative for the principle of law, majority rule, and self-determination, that this Empires gravestone not have its spirit disturbed. E.g. by an Argentinian army spray painting their flag onto its tombstone.
Or else: It will rise up (like as a vengeful political ghost) that can never ever rest, but which is equipped with modern weapons.
And it will rise up in people like me –millions of them (literally). But in my view anyone who doesn’t agree with me we could-should use nuclear weapons as the ultimate deterrent against Falklands attack is well entitled to disagree.
But anyone who doesn’t believe we should defend the Falkland’s isn’t in my view British, isn’t in my view even fit to be used as target practice. I have no respect for such people, and long for the day anybody may burn their passports. I would want to defend the Falklands if they were uninhabited, the fact they are so (and have oil) merely confirms that if Argentina stoops to using the barbarity of war –brought force, to uphold its primitive will; then so should we, too.
edit on 090705 by Liberal1984 because: Format

posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 12:32 AM
Where are the natives that used to live on the Falklands?

Gandhi exemplified how to go to/declare war without violence.

posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 12:33 AM
reply to post by Liberal1984

Okay, the points I can not see happening are

- the US pushing for the Falklands sovereignty to be determined by the UN...

- and the British armed forces NOT having the conventional military ability to reclaim the Falklands.
edit on 7-2-2012 by ColCurious because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 12:43 AM
ignantThe world isn’t ruled by dead people. Only the living…
You don’t own things before you were alive, and therefore no rights remain once you exceed more than one human lifetime. Those people (like yourself?) who believe otherwise (i.e. that people can own things before they were conceived) have probably caused more bloodshed than even all human religion put together. After all, what else did our primitive, tribal, ancestors fight about?

But what natives (exactly) used to live on the islands?

Links please!!!
If you think there were any then you strike me, as really anti Western, presumptuous, and ignorant (the last two, no doubt explaining the first one)!

Gandhi exemplified how to go to/declare war without violence.
That's called peaceful protest for a totally different situation called real occupation (i.e. where the majority of normal people you live amoungst, don't want you there e.g. like in Iraq -Afghanistan). But if your thinking of something specific (which I must doubt) then I am all ears for whichever policies of Gandhi's, you think makes sense for either Argentinia or UK to follow. Quote me them (if you can). Otherwise... I'll continue to believe as I do now, which that...

He didn't show the world how to live in peace. There's only ever been one answer and it's basically called "you keep your armies wherever they are welcome, and we'll do just the same with ours".
The only other alternative (that exists) wasn't philosophised but was invented in a lab, and is called Mutually Assured Destruction. And Ghandi got that totally wrong, saying "an eye for an eye will make the world go blind" . It didn't. Instead: The thought of going blind has made even the most evil of world leaders, look around, think twice, and take either preventive, or entirely peaceful action, instead. That's the truth of 67 years strong.
edit on 090705 by Liberal1984 because: Update

posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 12:52 AM
first nation to blow up mar's moons wins

posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 12:53 AM

Okay, the points I can not see happening are the US pushing for the Falklands sovereignty to be determined by the UN

External Source

In a break with America’s conventional policy on the matter, the Obama administration announced earlier this week that it would once again be siding with Argentina, this time in the dispute between the UK and Argentina over the Falkland Islands. By default, Obama has sided against Britain in the ongoing conflict over the island chain at the center of a 1982 war.
In a move one British conservative analyst called "hugely insulting to Britain," the Organization of American States earlier this week adopted a declaration calling for negotiations between the United Kingdom and Argentina over the "sovereignty" of the Falkland Islands. While the U.S. delegation did not speak in support of the measure, it ultimately joined a consensus adopting it.

Likewise sources…

Just Google: “Obama Falkland”


and the British armed forces NOT having the conventional military ability to reclaim the Falklands.

External Source...

Military cuts mean Britain would be hard put to defend the Falkland Islands from another Argentine attack, the commander of the naval task force that recaptured them exactly 29 years ago said today.

Britain's military is heavily unbalanced. With nukes but no air craft carriers, new equipment, but more cancelled half completed projects. We only spend 2.7% of our medium sized GDP on defense, compared with 4.7% of the United States enormous one: See Defense GDP Spend by country here:
edit on 090705 by Liberal1984 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 01:40 AM
I see one problem with your scenario.

A EMP attack will kill between 1/3 to 1/2 half of the popolation of the county targeted.

Read the book One Second After by William R. Forstchen.

Likely being a country without as much electronics as the US, Argentina would only lose about 1/3
maybe 1/4 if they got a lot of outside aid.

posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 01:57 AM

Fuegians, who were killed off (Genocide)

posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 02:57 AM
I'm not familiar with British politics but it seems that critical aspects of the proposed scenario are being omitted in the interest of making certain political points.

In particular I notice that the reactions of nuclear powers not directly involved in the conflict are not considered.

For example, it's easy to imagine that China could see this as a moral and physical challenge that might define history for the next 50-100 years, and decide to intervene. To stop a Western rival from crossing the nuclear line would create a whole new level of softpower- it would change people's whole world view- even in America.
So why wouldn't they launch a conventional preemptive strike against the British Navy, provide air defenses, and thereby limit Britain's options to ballistic missiles, which they may be able to stop in small numbers, thereby forcing Britain to up the nuclear ante, in the face of Chinese promises to retaliate in kind. The Brits would either have to launch a major nuclear strike and hope the Chinese are willing to live with the consequences of having their bluff called (as opposed to opting for a more limited nuclear strike against military targets and again daring Britain to retaliate against China proper and go all the way to MAD) or, much more likely, Britain would have to blink first- having the initiative isn't good when you're playing chicken.

I also notice that you laugh off the concern of nuclear holocaust as if it were a thing of the past. You admit that we can't put them down safely, you make yourself an example of how we can't keep these things on the shelf, but we grow tempted to use them and see how much we can get away with, but you don't seem to realize that this means there is a risk- there is some probability, however small, that we will go too far and kill ourselves, and that we are gonna keep rolling that dice FOREVER until we finally crap out, because we can't safely put these things down. Either the facts have to change- either it has to become safe to disarm, or we have to learn to ignore your ideas about winning nuclear wars and just leave them in the silos forever waiting for someone else to take the first shot, otherwise it is a mathematical certainty that we will destroy ourselves.

If you want to win a nuclear war without killing anybody all you have to do is move to a non-nuclear nation and don't procrastinate about learning their traffic laws. Anyway I DVR'd Wargames the other night and I suddenly feel like I should watch it, so until next time...

posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 11:30 AM
Ignant I knew your video was pure deception-propaganda because there were trees-bushes in that jungle background. A bit of Googling soon delivered me (and I hope you) to the historical truth…

The Fuegians lived on the Tierra del Fuego islands in Argentina.
This is the nearest to the Falklands. Go to Google maps and you will see it’s over 400 wind swept, sea miles, away from the cold Falkland Islands!!!

They never lived in the Falklands!!! And so your challenge is still to find a good source backing your own otherwise presumptuousness arrogance, that there was some sort of British genocide on the Falklands.
In fact it was the Argentinians, Chileans, Croatians, and Spanish who made the Fuegian people go extinct. The Selknam Genocide did involve Europeans, but no one on the Falklands was ever killed:

My understanding of history was always that you needed basic 18th century technology to live there, and that life is still so harsh; that even today many of it’s islands are completely unhabituated.
This is why Argentina never populated them (because unless your responsible for as much inventiveness as we British-Europeans are) then these treeless islands, are almost completely uninhabitable.

The idea that these primitive savages (who were mostly killed by the Spanish –and other modern Argentinians ancestors) could have staked out a life, is (when you think about) is rather like thinking you would find someone breathing on the moon, without a space suit.

PS I believe your username is most fitting, but don’t you think “Presumptuous Arrogance” would be even more forthcoming?
edit on 090705 by Liberal1984 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 01:03 PM
ANNED I really like that book may well buy it. Because: If we had a solar storm (like the one in 1859, then wow) our civilisation could be set back to roughly that date. Just imagine every computer hardrive been wiped, even cars not working, and not because of someone we can rationalize with; but rather a natural event. This Wikipedia doesn’t say too much, but Google that storm and apparently it could really disrupt civilisation

Back to Subject…
I didn’t think as many as a third of the population would die though. And even if that number is true, it’s avoidable under my strategy which is essentially (one sided) nuclear war in very slow motion.
I.e. Our government controls the size of the nuke used, along with its altitude of detention, and subsequently it’s a government –set of military planners, who have complete control over the size of the EMP (devastation caused).

Frankly I am of the opinion that once you detonate one EMP nuke above their capital, and once the people living in that capital know they WILL be homeless in 3 weeks, and that during this the second city will also be targeted for EMP will be targeted; well…
It is (psychologically) near impossible to imagine how almost any political system could survive. It will either be destroyed by popular uprising, or the elite powers not much liking the thought of their own mansions & staff being permanently without electricity –and eventually roofs too, all for the sake of extending an (inevitably lost war) by a mere few weeks –the duration of which is completely at their enemies choosing.

The Vagabond

So why wouldn't they launch a conventional preemptive strike against the British Navy, provide air defenses, and thereby limit Britain's options to ballistic missiles, which they may be able to stop in small numbers, thereby forcing Britain to up the nuclear ante, in the face of Chinese promises to retaliate in kind.

There is no way any of the world’s existing nuclear powers are going to enter a nuclear war unless they have to (or were like planning of invading Australia anyway)…

1. The Chinese in particular (unlike us foolish Westerners) are very much into judging countries by their history, which is when you actually see Britain’s true power. Not only are we responsible (on the plus) for more inventions per head of population than any country in the world, but on the negative our nation has also killed more people than any other power in human history. Nazies? They don’t close. Stalin? Is cotton wool by comparison. There are single Victorian famines in India (man made) where over 20 million died. At the time UK population was just under 40 million.
Combine this with the fact we simply don’t get occupied anymore, plus our history gives us a culture that is almost perfect for war (right down to British humour, which is actually very good for war survival).

2. The Chinese do not know what kind of anti-missile defences we have. They can have all the spies they like, but unless (we are somehow fully infiltrated) they are unlikely to ever know all our defences. Even then, leadership is likely to have their doubts. Our defences could be as primitive as highly trained psychics, or they could be as advanced as a few hidden lasers that draw their electricity directly from the national grid to shoot incoming missiles.

3.The only (psychopathically) logical response to such Chinas Aggression is something like this: (“Psychopathic” as all materially great, human nations are led by such rational)…
Rather than have the Chinese military decimate the British military, we back down (slightly), and just bomb the Argentinians conventionally. This weakens Argentinian resolve as every week missiles randomly hit their weapons factories –political leaders. Meanwhile China thinks we are cowards, and its got what it wants. However within a year a few things happen…
A. Political turbulence in China has become increasingly well-armed with weapons financed by Britain –smuggled into the country. The chance of Chinese leadership assassination goes through the roof (could well include those who threatened us).
B. China experiences a host of problems as diplomatic warfare is increased. This may be as simple as assisting criminal gangs smuggle hard drugs into their country, forged currency, or as complex as supplying other nations with false intelligence.
C. (As an ultimate back up plan) a lethal virus is developed to kill people of only Chinese ethnic origin. Some bogus Chinese cult-terrorist organisation is most likely to “officially” release into the population (Britain would never do such a thing, unless it had been nuked). The virus may mutate, but will probably be contained within Asia’s borders as every nation shuts there’s down around China. Meanwhile hospital are put on alert for recent flight passenger symptoms. Even if it weren’t contained, there’s nothing to say Britain won’

new topics
top topics

log in