CNN & US Mil Confirm Weapon Tested @ China Lake on July 4-5

a reply to: Observationalist

His request is just as valid as your own.

a reply to: Observationalist

And you should be able to prove seismic weapons exist. As many times as the claim of an earthquake being man made has been made there should be some evidence of them that proves they exist. Right now it's "there was an earthquake in a fault zone with lots of aftershocks. All the readings look exactly like a normal earthquake, it must be a super secret seismic weapon".

a reply to: letni

Just a heads-up. Military involvement in HAARP was closed down in 2014 and it is now a project of the University of Alaska, Fairbanks geophysical Institute. They even have annual open days when you can take a tour.

High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Observationalist

And you should be able to prove seismic weapons exist. As many times as the claim of an earthquake being man made has been made there should be some evidence of them that proves they exist. Right now it's "there was an earthquake in a fault zone with lots of aftershocks. All the readings look exactly like a normal earthquake, it must be a super secret seismic weapon".

Let see...No proof but I have an example of what might have happened, From South Korea Nuclear Testing.
The shape of the aftershock swarm is what make me think their is an underground base that collapsed. Yes officially it’s a natural earthquake.

Just days after North Korea announced it was suspending its testing programme, scientists revealed that the country’s underground nuclear test site had partially collapsed. This assessment was based on data gathered from smaller earthquakes that followed North Korea’s biggest nuclear test in 2017. A new study published in Science has now confirmed the collapse using satellite radar imaging.

The recent studies revealed the mechanism of a magnitude 4.5 aftershock that occurred eight minutes after the initial explosion. Analysis of the slow-travelling, rolling seismic waves from this event, together with a 50-centimetre drop of the summit of the mountain above recorded by satellite images, revealed large-scale collapse of the test site and adjacent tunnel system .

link

a reply to: Observationalist

Nuclear testing has a tendency to weaken the caverns that its preformed in. That's one reason we have so many test sites. North Korea is rather limited in options to move their tests around, so a collapse was inevitable.

So far this morning I have climbed Everest, swum the English Channel and run the London Marathon. There is absolutely no evidence that I have done this, but apparently that's all the proof I need. I may issue a strenuous denial later, just to make it even clearer that I've definitely done these things.

Weapons tests and earthquakes show completely different seismic signatures. If one caused another in this case there would be two things to look at on the seismographs. There are not two things.

So far we have "Earthquake happened in area prone to earthquakes" and a whole load of click bait ad revenue based on literally nothing.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
We didn't nuke anyone else because the situation was never serious enough to. Nuclear weapons are a weapon of last resort. The situation has never gotten to that point since the end of WWII.

My understanding is that there was absolutely no need/reason for either of the two bombs we used on Japan.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Zaphod58
We didn't nuke anyone else because the situation was never serious enough to. Nuclear weapons are a weapon of last resort. The situation has never gotten to that point since the end of WWII.

My understanding is that there was absolutely no need/reason for either of the two bombs we used on Japan.

Then your understanding is wrong and your hindsight is not 20/20. I suggest you study actual history and not the progressive revisionism that is so popular these days.

SMH

a reply to: tanstaafl

The estimate was a million plus casualties among the military forces alone. The civilians would have fought as well so it actually would have been higher.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Zaphod58
We didn't nuke anyone else because the situation was never serious enough to. Nuclear weapons are a weapon of last resort. The situation has never gotten to that point since the end of WWII.

My understanding is that there was absolutely no need/reason for either of the two bombs we used on Japan.

And there was no reason for the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor either, but they did it anyway.

"Evidence is emerging...widespread agreement among people...perhaps it is a coincidence...almost certainly isn’t a coincidence...enough evidence to suggest..."

Conspiracy theorists feel they are viewed as crackpots and don't get the respect they deserve [eye roll]

A little education from some non-conspiracy-info sources helps.

A lot.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: letni

Why the order to cease? Because one of the roads shifted 6 feet after one of the quakes. You don't keep testing when you have damage to the range or to the base. And you can't assess damage in five minutes. Lightning strikes have been known to stop testing, let alone something that causes this much damage.

Of course they were testing weapons there. It's the China Lake Weapons Testing Range. They don't test weapons that could cause a 6.4 or 6.9 earthquake though.

Actually, bombs can trigger the release of tension on faults. They did some research on nuclear tests and resulting seizmic activity a while back and found that underground nuclear tests or huge regular underground tests can trigger quakes almost half way around the world. The evidence was so convincing that the whole world started to restrict underground nuclear testing. But they do have huge bombs that are not considered nuclear now that could still trigger events. Even Russia is aware of this happening worldwide and has accepted the evidence as legit.

I read some of the research that was presented to the UN and it clearly shows an association that spans the whole globe. It defined world nuclear testing parameters and NK broke the rules with their testing. I am surprised it took up until like eight to ten years ago for someone to see the direct relationship of how underground testing effects the fault line tension world wide.

Is this swarm related to testing as the OP implies? I do not know, the US does follow the guidelines the world is requiring, but it could be a non-nuclear bomb that just triggered a local event, I am sure the government is not going to admit any wrong doing no matter what. Our military does need to test things, that is the world we live in.

a reply to: rickymouse

Yes, they can. But the Navy isn't testing anything like that. Large weapons on that scale are Air Force systems. They test them above ground. The only underground testing recently were some nuclear cores, but they're not large by any definition.

originally posted by: Krakatoa
"My understanding is that there was absolutely no need/reason for either of the two bombs we used on Japan."

Then your understanding is wrong and your hindsight is not 20/20. I suggest you study actual history and not the progressive revisionism that is so popular these days.

SMH? Really? It is not my personal hindsight I am going by, I am going by the very words of Generals and other high ranking military officers of the day - including one Dwight D. Eisenhower (maybe you heard of him?) wherein he stated:

"...in [July] 1945... Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. ...the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.

"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."

- Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380

SMH? Maybe you want to try again?

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
"My understanding is that there was absolutely no need/reason for either of the two bombs we used on Japan."

And there was no reason for the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor either, but they did it anyway.

Actually, they most certainly did have a reason. You may not agree with it, but they certainly didn't attack 'for no reason'.

So, thanks but no thanks for your snitty remark.

a reply to: tanstaafl

It was his belief that they were defeated. He might have been a hell of a commander but he wasn't infallible. If he was wrong they were looking at atrocious casualties on both sides.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: tanstaafl

The estimate was a million plus casualties among the military forces alone. The civilians would have fought as well so it actually would have been higher.

If we invaded, yes...

But apparently Japan was already in talks with Russia trying to find a way to surrender without losing face.

a reply to: tanstaafl

And if they didn't find a way then they were looking at having time to build up defenses and prepare. That would have made it even worse.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: tanstaafl

And if they didn't find a way then they were looking at having time to build up defenses and prepare. That would have made it even worse.

Not at all... they had no air cover (their air force was decimated). We could have simply bombed factories and military installations at will.

a reply to: tanstaafl

Ike was, at that time, less a general and more a politician. He was more concerned about his public perception and chances of his upcoming presidential bid being tarnished if the public turned on him by nuking Japan. It was already going in that direction as the news of the fire bombing of Dresden was making the news. The war would have lasted at least a year longer using conventional ground assaults, and aerial fire bombing (which as mentioned prior, was getting negative reactions already). The fact that the Japanese cities were made of more flammable materials that the industrialized European Theater also was at issue. That is why the targets that were chosen were industrial based, and Nagasaki was located within a "bowl" of a valley that would contain any spread of devastation beyond that area.

Broad and deep knowledge of the conflict and historic accuracy using facts and not opinions is a good thing. Appealing to authority is still a bad thing when only opinions are taken as facts.