No one dare use nukes.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: anonentity

Think meltdown , hundreds of Fukishimas, and that wasn't even a nuke.

Think hundreds of thermonuclear weapons.
How dead is dead?

Yes hundreds of Nuclear weapons , hundreds of Fukishima's, hundreds of Chernobyl's , Hundreds of three mile islands , And thousands of Russian billionaires , with the realisation it was all for nothing. I cant see it happening.

a reply to: ketsuko

We'd have to drop a whole lot in order to do all the same longterm damage a bunch of nuclear power plant meltdowns would do.

What's the point of long term damage? Tactically, I mean.
Once you wipe out the cities, it doesn't really matter if it takes 10 years or 100 years. Does it?

a reply to: Phage

i tend to agree..thats why i think EMP's would be the worst.
shut down everything

a reply to: Phage

If you look at it from the perspective of trying to survive as a species after the bomb falls ... yeah, long-term damage matters.

Life may be over for you after civilization gets nuked all to heck. But it will go on. It's just a matter of how much and to what degree and whether or not mankind could survive it.

a reply to: ketsuko

If you look at it from the perspective of trying to survive as a species after the bomb falls ... yeah, long-term damage matters

That's sort of the whole point of MAD. I don't know how old you are but I remember the concept very well. And nuclear power plants were completely irrelevant to the discussion because the weapons would be quite sufficient on their own.

a reply to: Phage

I am old enough to remember MAD. And you are also dealing with some actors on the stage who don't care if everything gets destroyed.

You're supposing that everyone fires everything.

These days, it's about trying to find that advantage. If, for example, someone finds a way to drop our defenses long enough to prevent our launch or vice versa, we may not get a complete MAD scenario. Then you have a situation where the infrastructure is damaged to the point where multiple power plants go critical which in the long run winds up being worse.

Life limps on but at what cost?

a reply to: ketsuko
So, you agree with the OP that we should build more nuclear power plants in order to prevent a nuclear attack?
Ok.

a reply to: Phage

ha ha...a fools venture.
it was a fools venture to create the first one!

Well, I suppose that if you used an air burst of around 1,000 feet from a target, you'd get a nice destruction pattern of objects and people without a lot of residual radioactive contamination at the site. Air burst above a certain height tend to blast the target with neutron and gamma radiation, but the residual radiation is carried up into the stratosphere. It adds to the general radioactivity of the atmosphere of the Earth (and then later be washed out in rain/fallout), but it wouldn't make the target toxic forever.

So it would kind of all depend on your goals, and whether or not you thought your attack would trigger an all-out response either from the country itself or an ally. If you just got sick of a particular country sending waves of terrorists into your country, it might be worth your while to drop a tactical nuke on where most of them lived, killing them and the command and control structure of the country supporting them. If they were a smaller country with nukes of their own, without a survivable command structure they wouldn't have anybody left to give an order to retaliate. So after the fires are out, you send in forces, mop up, and set up a new government.

The hope would be that they wouldn't be strongly allied with Russia or another country with nukes, who might not like that you put the hammer down so hard on their pals. They might reasonably think that they're next. The trick would be to convince everybody that the tactical strike was in everybody's best interest, and was a reasonable alternative to years or decades of commerce crippling terror attacks by people who couldn't be reasoned with. It wouldn't be easy, and some people wouldn't like it on principle. So while you might stop an immediate threat, it could breed a lot of resentment and a much stronger response down the line.

You have to weigh the hypotheticals. The nukes themselves are just another weapon, albeit with a special set of positives and negatives. Using them is always going to be a matter of deciding whether it's worth the risk the massive social and political fallout.

a reply to: anonentity

Good thread, and bumped.
Actually we don't have to detonate any nukes to achieve the
personnel trimming-- because the time-weighted decay of only
half used isotopes is a lot worse for the environment than just
bombs. With the global infrastructure falling apart we don't
need any.

It was moreover [ESTIMATED] the background radiation from
the DU munitions (used in just the last two Gulf Wars) was the
same equivalent poison to organic life on the whole planet as
about 440,000 Hiroshima bursts and fallout.
That's a whole lot o' Oppenheimer.

Add to that the MOX reactor failure[s] past and present, and
the fact one microgram of U238 in your nose is a cancer ticket:

Less drama, urban construction reasonably intact, no humans:
it's just slow and subtle, like a few extra hairs coming out in the
brush every morning. Just a ray of invisible sunshine, I know.

We're vastly screweder not even pulling the trigger, and instead
snorting the airborne undead dust... pass the GM corn.

It does depend upon motivation for use.

The radical Islamic crowd WANT to bring about the end of the world.

That is one of their openly stated goals.

They are tacitly supported by radicalized members of governments in the ME, if not openly, then with financial support and with religious Imam support.

I certainly think that the Islamic State of Daesh would absolutely and positively use nukes on any infidel and on any muslim who disagreed with them, in order to force the end of the world.

For the Daesh crowd, mutually assured destruction would be quite desirable, the end of the world, desirable. There are plenty of nuts out there with access to nukes who with their twisted logic and minds would be happy to use them and create mutually assured destruction.
One must not rule out the motivation of finding the end of the world desirable to the insane.

a reply to: Blue Shift

With regards to decades of commerce crippling terror attacks. Historically it all been the same ole, their last base of operations was around Tunis. If you didn't convert to Islam, and loose your foreskin, you were history. Now we seem to be going through the same S#%^# again, the barber pirates were driven by the same, rationalising crap. China ended up with all the gold and silver and we haven't learnt a dam thing. Maybe your right, and it will mean a few hundred miles of glass where a desert once stood . But they haven't got Nuclear reactors, to back poison. That's why they don't want Iran to have one, the fission material is irrelevant, if a meltdown occurs. Its uncontained, and depends on where the wind blows. Happy motoring!

originally posted by: grandmakdw
It does depend upon motivation for use.

The radical Islamic crowd WANT to bring about the end of the world.

That is one of their openly stated goals.

They are tacitly supported by radicalized members of governments in the ME, if not openly, then with financial support and with religious Imam support.

I certainly think that the Islamic State of Daesh would absolutely and positively use nukes on any infidel and on any muslim who disagreed with them, in order to force the end of the world.

For the Daesh crowd, mutually assured destruction would be quite desirable, the end of the world, desirable. There are plenty of nuts out there with access to nukes who with their twisted logic and minds would be happy to use them and create mutually assured destruction.
One must not rule out the motivation of finding the end of the world desirable to the insane.

You have a point, but old enemies tend to unite in the face of nihilistic threats, and the old enemies have the resources . The rhetoric sounds great as they are doing Allah's work , but to many of them, get very pragmatic when money is involved. My enemies enemy is my friend etc.,

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien
a reply to: anonentity

Yes, conventionally Russia would lose it over time.

So Russia will take out the NATO bases (not cities) in Poland, Baltic States, Romania, etc. if NATO decides to build up huge amounts of forces and attacks Russia with them.

What would happen is that NATO will be forced to fly from Germany, France, The Netherlands, etc. and also a ground force would have to travel a long way to get to Russia, giving the time for Russia to nuke them also when on their way.

You can see how dangerous such a situation will be, but make no mistake, once Russia is backed in a corner it would choose that option.

NATO isn't designed to go and take over Russia, it is an alliance to counter the Russians from taking over Europe.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

why would russia even want it?
let nato try and control it, its just a mess!

Depending on many factors, including how many missiles and a person's location, though it was be very damaging and probably end our way of life, it's believed by many that it won't be the end to the human race. In 1987, a manual was created that offered many tips in actually surviving a nuclear war. It's a free book, here is the link:

Nuclear War Survival Skills

originally posted by: anonentity

originally posted by: grandmakdw
It does depend upon motivation for use.

The radical Islamic crowd WANT to bring about the end of the world.

That is one of their openly stated goals.

They are tacitly supported by radicalized members of governments in the ME, if not openly, then with financial support and with religious Imam support.

I certainly think that the Islamic State of Daesh would absolutely and positively use nukes on any infidel and on any muslim who disagreed with them, in order to force the end of the world.

For the Daesh crowd, mutually assured destruction would be quite desirable, the end of the world, desirable. There are plenty of nuts out there with access to nukes who with their twisted logic and minds would be happy to use them and create mutually assured destruction.
One must not rule out the motivation of finding the end of the world desirable to the insane.

You have a point, but old enemies tend to unite in the face of nihilistic threats, and the old enemies have the resources . The rhetoric sounds great as they are doing Allah's work , but to many of them, get very pragmatic when money is involved. My enemies enemy is my friend etc.,

When it comes to this crowd (Islamic Daesh), pragmatism goes out the window

There is no pragmatism in religious fanaticism, especially when part of the stated goal is to bring about the end of the world as we know it. Also, another part of their stated goal is to kill as many infidels as possible, nukes fit the bill quite well. Ignoring or poo pooing the idea they would use nukes is akin to burying ones head in the sand while a Muslim fanatic is holding a sword above one's neck.

I still believe that the Islamic State of Daesh, given nukes would use them and would attempt to start nuclear exchanges.

originally posted by: autopat51
a reply to: TinfoilTP

why would russia even want it?
let nato try and control it, its just a mess!

They don't have a problem wanting Ukraine. Ukraine is helpless without being part of NATO.

i will say this once more
EMP's exploded high in the atmosphere will knock out all power grids.
no transportation, no communication, no power.
that means no fresh water, no sewage, no food, no tv, no power to nuke plants....nothing.
that is my greatest fear.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

wouldnt it be nice to have nato bases in ukraine?
thats what makes me wonder about this whole thing.