Originally posted by redneck13
reply to post by nenothtu
I think it's ok for Iran to have as many conventional weapons as they choose. If those nut jobs have their finger on the button, they will use it
eventually. They need to bring on the anti-Christ through world Chaos or sum such non-sense. It’s not as those atomic particles stay put. Its
spreads all over the planet and it has the gift that just keeps giving. It affects the entire planet it’s in all our interests. Russia and the US
had two narrow escapes due to faulty equipment; it’s just a bad idea. China, Pakistan, India, this just makes the end game too easy for planet
I used to be scared of nuclear weapons, too, back when i was taking other people's word for all the evil they would unleash. I got so scared of them,
in fact, that I dug deeply into their effects, and did an intensive, extensive, study of what the can and can't do in comparison to what was
they would do. I highly recommend you do the same, and set your mind at ease in the matter.
Just as an example of what you'll discover is the notion that they are "the gift that keeps on giving". Radioactive material has what is called a
"half life" - it's radiation drops off exponentially over time. it's not a gradual tapering off - it's dramatic. 1/2 to 1/4 to 1/8 to 1/16 to
1/32, etc. In layman's terms, it rapidly loses it's "oomph". That works together with a lot of other variables - the most dangerous stuff is the
heaviest stuff, and it falls out close to ground zero. the longer the air borne stuff stays air borne, the longer it has to loose it's oomph before
it gets close enough to do any damage. The more powerful stuff is the fastest decaying - it only has a finite amount of radiation to give off, and if
it gives it off in quantity, it "runs out of gas" faster - that sort of thing.
Nukes have an "optimal burst height" - the height optimal for maximum damage from the explosion is too high to produce any fallout at all - no
fallout ever results from those. The ground bursts, which produce fallout, have minimum damage radii.
It's really a pretty interesting field to dig into, and the more you learn, the madder you get that people have lied to you all these years about the
degree of danger.
Check out "The Effects of Nuclear Weapons" US GPO, 1979, and "Life After Doomsday" by Dr. Bruce Clayton. Those are good points to start out with
and use as a springboard in a discovery that you won't soon forget - or forgive.
I presume the "faulty equipment" escapes you are referring to are nuclear power plants, like Chernobyl. Nuclear power plant relate to nuclear
weapons in precisely the same way a light switch in your house relates to a stick of dynamite - both are initiated by heat - burning coal generating
electricity in one and a piece of resistance wire heating up and initiating the explosion in the other, but the end results are NOT comparable.
Yes, both involve "radiation" just as both of my examples involve heat - and the similarities end there. Using a nuclear power accident to try to
illustrate what a nuclear weapon exchange would do is a lot like using what a key does to a car ignition to illustrate what a key does to your house.
In one case, it sets off a series of combustions, and in the other it opens a door so you can carry your groceries in. they simply aren't comparable
in spite of the similarities (i.e. both use a key) that people will try to convince you matter.
So I don't much care if Iran puts a nuke in every basement and gives the family baby the keys - first launch will be their last act, and it's not
likely to ever get close enough to the ground before it's destruction to do anything at all. As I sit here, the news is carrying on about the ICBM
launch vehicle that North Korea is carrying out this morning. Meh. Let 'em waste their money. It ain't my problem, and never will be.