[evilgenius]

.
China arsenal is very small ,
https://fas.org/issues/nuclear-weapons/ ... ar-forces/

..

I suppose you could call 500 Megatons of throw weight small but only in comparison to the USA and Russian arsenals. And small comfort to those in Japan and Taiwan.
Just the ten ICBMs that can reach New York and any other US city with 4.5 Megaton warheads is enough in my book.
But I will give you that a nuclear war would certainly be the death of globalism.

Or the thing after which it sees a resurgence. If nationalism takes us all the way to that sort of war, then globalism may finally make sense to certain people. The conspiracy theorists would have nothing to say about it. They were the authors of the nationalism to begin with. It might be a long time before anybody listens to them again. I know that's not human nature, for others not to hear those stories, but we are talking about a real benchmark for generations. That's what that sort of war is.

[vtsnowedin]

Or the thing after which it sees a resurgence. If nationalism takes us all the way to that sort of war, then globalism may finally make sense to certain people. The conspiracy theorists would have nothing to say about it. They were the authors of the nationalism to begin with. It might be a long time before anybody listens to them again. I know that's not human nature, for others not to hear those stories, but we are talking about a real benchmark for generations. That's what that sort of war is.

The chances of a nuclear war are quite remote. There would be no sure winners and no player would take the chance of being a big loser.
Globalism will not vanish just get readjusted by countries not putting all their eggs in one competitors basket. Some cheap drugs from China are fine but a hundred percent of your supply will not be allowed. You will still buy your tea from China and India and your coffee from Brazil and Columbia. Intellectual properties will be much better protected and the means of production of high tech equipment will be kept in house at levels sufficient to withstand any cutoff of international trade.
It all will pass a test of not is it the cheapest thing to do but what is the wisest thing to do.

[Tanada]

.......
The vast majority of modern weapons are intended to detonate at moderate altitudes like those over Hiroshima and Nagasaki which in turn means the fallout is very low compared to a ground burst. Hiroshima and Nagasaki started rebuilding in weeks after the bombs, not years or decades, because their was very little residual radiation after 14 days.

The whole point of a "fall out shelter" is to allow people to avoid the fallout during that 14 day period when it is decaying away. To an extent the same thing happens with a nuclear power plant, the decay products are extremely intense at shutdown and the core needs strong cooling for the first week after shut down to deal with the energy released. What destroyed the cores at Three Mile Island and Fukushima was lack of adequate cooling during that first two weeks after shut down. It isn't magic, it is physics.

I find it hard to imagine that you can not see the difference between a radiation leak from a failed fission nuclear power station and the devastation from a 1.2 megaton hydrogen bomb that will vaporize everything within five miles of it's ground zero.
Do you really believe the crap you just posted?

Yes because once again you are ignoring the realities. The vast bulk of the existing arsenal are 500 Kt or less in yield so talking about 1.2 Mt yield weapons as if they were the standard to go by is no more sensible that talking about the 9 Mt yield of the old Titan II missiles or the 50-100 Mt yield of the Tsar Bomba. The reality is if you took every existing nuclear device and set them off so that the area of damage barely overlapped at the edges you would only destroy one very small country in terms of "turning the surface to glass and leaving only Cockroaches behind" which was the claim you made in your first post on this sub topic.

Even if there are say 20,000 weapons today and they all glass over 5 square miles each that only adds up to 100,000 square miles of total devastation. What does that mean in real world terms? Well you could aim every weapon in perfect deployment at Great Britain and sterilize the surface of the island. If you aimed instead at New Zealand you would have a few thousand square miles left over. If you aimed at Japan you would have about a third of the nation left pristine. Aim at France and half the nation is left untouched. Aim at Turkey and 2/3rds of the land is untouched. Aim at Bolivia and over 3/4ths of the area is untouched.

If that doesn't make my point clear enough nothing ever will. We simply lack the capability to actually destroy the planet with the combined world nuclear arsenal. We could easily crash our current civilization, but that is a vastly different thing than killing everything everywhere which is certainly not in the interest of any but a few nut jobs who we work very hard at keeping away from nuclear technology.

Propaganda movies like "On The Beach" convinced generations of concerned people that we could kill everything accidentally in the event of a nuclear war. It was never true, but that doesn't stop people from repeating the myth as you did above.

This is what you wrote that I was responding to.

A meme you say? Hiroshima and Nagasaki were 15 to 20 Kilotons. Today's active weapons range form 100 KT to 1.2 Megatons (1200kt) and a single SLBM can have eight 475kt independently targeted warheads on a single missile. A single Trident submarine can have 24 SLBMs each with 8 MIRVed warheads. The football that follows the president has access to something on the order of 500 MT of throw weight at any time. The Russians and Chinese can match us warhead for warhead.

There is plenty of evidence that a full blown nuclear war would almost certainly wipe out all life forms on the planet higher then a cockroach.

Particularly that last sentence, which is patently false as any rational thinking person should be able to figure out if they just stop and consider the actual facts in the actual real world.

[sparky]

.
@ energy unlimited

"Nuclear power both civilian and military is powerful stuff and is no joking matter
but the meme of demonic nuclear is just that , a made up propaganda exaggeration

...unless it goes Fukushima...

could you enlighten me on Fukushima nuclear casualties ?

I know the earthquake killed about 16 thousand and 2500 missing presumed dead
it shifted the whole island of Honshu by 8 feet Eastward
among the many industrial installation devastated was the Fukushima Daini nuclear power plant
it was shut down properly in spite of severe damage ,
however the overburdened storage pools dried up and went critical
to this day there is ONE death linked to the accident
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-45423575

[vtsnowedin]

Tanada wrote:

Yes because once again you are ignoring the realities. The vast bulk of the existing arsenal are 500 Kt or less in yield so talking about 1.2 Mt yield weapons as if they were the standard to go by is no more sensible that talking about the 9 Mt yield of the old Titan II missiles or the 50-100 Mt yield of the Tsar Bomba. The reality is if you took every existing nuclear device and set them off so that the area of damage barely overlapped at the edges you would only destroy one very small country in terms of "turning the surface to glass and leaving only Cockroaches behind" which was the claim you made in your first post on this sub topic.

The modern MIRVed missile uses eight to ten separate warheads to make it harder to intercept them all and spread the blast zones around a city to maximize damage. Ten 300KT warheads adds up to 3 megatons of damage.
You don't have to destroy the corn fields in Iowa just the cities. There are only 314 cities in the USA with populations over 100,000 people. Only 87 of them hold 250,000 people and just ten have one million plus populations.
No the whole land mass will not be glass covered and maybe the baboons in Africa will survive but you and I would not be around to find out.

[EnergyUnlimited]

.
@ energy unlimited

"Nuclear power both civilian and military is powerful stuff and is no joking matter
but the meme of demonic nuclear is just that , a made up propaganda exaggeration

...unless it goes Fukushima...

could you enlighten me on Fukushima nuclear casualties ?

You don't need many (or any) casualties.
It is enough to keep vast areas off range.

[Tanada]

Tanada wrote:

Yes because once again you are ignoring the realities. The vast bulk of the existing arsenal are 500 Kt or less in yield so talking about 1.2 Mt yield weapons as if they were the standard to go by is no more sensible that talking about the 9 Mt yield of the old Titan II missiles or the 50-100 Mt yield of the Tsar Bomba. The reality is if you took every existing nuclear device and set them off so that the area of damage barely overlapped at the edges you would only destroy one very small country in terms of "turning the surface to glass and leaving only Cockroaches behind" which was the claim you made in your first post on this sub topic.

The modern MIRVed missile uses eight to ten separate warheads to make it harder to intercept them all and spread the blast zones around a city to maximize damage. Ten 300KT warheads adds up to 3 megatons of damage.
You don't have to destroy the corn fields in Iowa just the cities. There are only 314 cities in the USA with populations over 100,000 people. Only 87 of them hold 250,000 people and just ten have one million plus populations.
No the whole land mass will not be glass covered and maybe the baboons in Africa will survive but you and I would not be around to find out.

Well this is progress of a sort, we have gone from nothing but cockroaches in a glass covered landscape to baboons in Africa inheriting the earth.

I hate to put to fine a point on this yet again but if you took out every town/city with a population of 10,000 or more there would still be millions of people living in the villages and small towns surrounded by those corn fields and other agricultural lands. Even if they were all pretty dumb and danced outside naked on the day after the total nuclear war where every single weapon was used millions in places like the Andes, the Rockies, rural Arkansas, Alaska, Siberia, Tibet, the Sahara, the Swiss Alps would still be alive and healthy in a world where their local crops could sustain their local population even without any technology better than a garden hoe and the knowledge on how to use it. Sure if you live on Manhattan Island your odds are extremely grim, but today urban dwellers make up just about 52% of the total human population and that is if you count every town of 10,000 or more residents in the urban list.

Vastly more than the minimum number needed to maintain a viable gene pool live far enough from any city to repopulate the Earth after a maximum effort nuclear war.

This is a very old argument along the lines of a super deadly designer plague is set loose and kills 99.99% of the population. That would leave just 1/1000 of the population as survivors kind of The Stand scenario from Stephen King. But as portrayed in the novel and miniseries 1/1000 multiplied by 350,000,000 Americans and Canadians adds up to 350,000 survivors in just English speaking North America. Give those survivors a century to recover and the population will be a lot higher and all of those alive 100 years later will have been born after the great die off.

[vtsnowedin]

You are totally discounting the radioactive fallout and the firestorms from the wooden framed houses on the fringes of the blast zones and how far and wide that would spread. The areas without lethal levels of fallout radiation are few and far between and fallout shelters with three feet of earth cover over them and air filtration systems for ventilation are scarcer then hen's teeth.
And those rural survivors if any have been dependent on those cities for a multitude of products and services they have been trading food crops and livestock for. The going with a blast zone where your market used to be will by quite difficult in a post war world.
Estimates are just estimates and yours can be as far off as mine but I suggest we don't do a live fire experiment to see who is right.

[sparky]

.
It's a mistake to believe cities would be targeted , that would be a waste of a warhead
targets are
other nuclear missile sites
military airbases , navy yards , communications and X- band radar sites
oil facilities , transport nodes , electrical grid
some targets are in some cities limits but not that many ,
Manhattan probably wouldn't be worth hitting , but the panic and disruption would destroy it
all advanced mega-cities would suffer not from the bombs but from the collateral damages
many poor countries would be totally unaffected ,
in fact the majority of the world population would simply watch the war on television

[dissident]

The catch all explanation for nuclear war dieoff is the mythical nuclear winter. Supposedly all nuclear exchange will ignite fires everywhere (from cities to rural and wild areas). It is basically an assertion that a huge amount of burnable carbon on the surface will be ignited and burned off. This, of course, is utter nonsense. We have had massive urban fires in the past when the amount of surrounding biomass was vastly greater. Clearly none of these urban fires ignited a chain reaction burn of the whole country. Nukes will have limited impact as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... city_fires

The nuclear winter theory tries to maximize the amount of black carbon aerosol pumped into the atmosphere to substantially block insolation on the surface. But here there is a major fail in this theory. Black carbon emissions from fires will not enter the high altitude stratosphere which would allow the fine mode fraction of the aerosol to persist for much longer (over two years) than if it only reached the tropopause region. This is not like the meteor impact that contributed to the wiping out of the dinosaurs. This meteor did release vast amounts of fine mode aerosol into the stratosphere and even above 50 km. Any fire aerosol will be rapidly removed by wet scavenging. The skies will clear substantially after one week and be near normal after a couple of months. There will be a haze that persists for a few months but it is not enough to produce winter in summer or even kill of the grain crops.

[dissident]

.
It's a mistake to believe cities would be targeted , that would be a waste of a warhead
targets are
other nuclear missile sites
military airbases , navy yards , communications and X- band radar sites
oil facilities , transport nodes , electrical grid
some targets are in some cities limits but not that many ,
Manhattan probably wouldn't be worth hitting , but the panic and disruption would destroy it
all advanced mega-cities would suffer not from the bombs but from the collateral damages
many poor countries would be totally unaffected ,
in fact the majority of the world population would simply watch the war on television

Bombing cities is just WWII terror bombing to "break the spirit of the people". It is a primitive and BS concept. The most useful targets are the economic ones. So all factories, oil storage and distribution, and other industrial infrastructure will be targeted. This is to stop any attempts to wage conventional war after the nuclear exchange assuming there is enough viable military spread around in the wild to re-form and carry on.

Urban areas will be collateral damage from the attacks on the electrical grid and energy distribution grid. No city can function without electricity, fuel and transport for delivery of vital goods. Before trying to start wars they have no hope of winning, the deciders need to consider whether all the lame "existential threats" they bitch about are worth it.

[vtsnowedin]

Well I stand corrected.
Lets launch simultaneous strikes at both Russia and China to knock them off the game board and show the rest of the nuclear wannabees who is the real boss.

[sparky]

.
" Well I stand corrected.
Lets launch simultaneous strikes at both Russia and China to knock them off the game board and show the rest of the nuclear wannabees who is the real boss."

this is not a joke , there is currently some very worrying developments

the US is withdrawing or taking a position to withdraw from the few disarmament treaties left
Russia nuclear posture is to use tactical weapons first should their homeland be in danger
Nato has a policy of advancing to the very borders of Russia stockpiling supplies and having permanent rotation of troop " to deter aggression "
Russia consider the "near Abroad" as a security space
very low yield nuclear warhead are being deployed as "usable"
hypersonic missiles are game changers , their full deployment would create anew weapon race

I follows those developments with some concern , for decade fear has been the mother of wisdom
not so much now , not so much !
https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org ... n-exercise

[vtsnowedin]

I do not think nuclear war is a joke. Some peoples positions are absurd which I pointed out. Russia will defend itself if attacked? Well of course and so would any and all of NATO. But why would anybody attack them? Napoleon and Hitler demonstrated the futility of that and all the Russians have is Vodka and oil and gas all of which they need to sell at market prices. Just buy it FOB delivered .
Deployed as "usable" and used will remain very different things.
Hyper sonic missiles will of course be an arms race that make American defense contractors billions but like all nuclear tipped weapons can only be used once so do not change the risk factor at all.
Russia and China are both not the real concern as they understand the consequences. What keeps pentagon planners and generals up at night is the prospect of some Zealot packing a bomb into a container on a ship and having it sailed right up to the dock of their worst enemy.Which is usually us.

[Tanada]

If you survived, you may well envy those who didn't, unless you are in your 20-thies and evaded debilitating dose of radiation within first 2 weeks.
Young and strong man can pursue career of warlord after modernity is gone and this can be cool.
Perhaps worth nuclear war.

This same attitude applies to any major civilization collapse. If the Super-flu of fiction writers like Stephen King took out 99% and you were a 60 year old survivor of the illness the changed world would be a very tough challenge. But the same is true of an asteroid setting off a global catastrophe, or a Super-volcano like Yellowstone erupting, or a solar EMP knocking out transportation for weeks or months leading to starvation in the major population centers that are not self sufficient in food.

It doesn't matter which end of civilization scenario you pick, being 20 and healthy gives you much greater survival odds that be 60 and healthy, and being sickly at any age puts you at extreme risk without modern medicine and civilization.

The question is not "Will the living envy the dead" as surely some of them will. The question is "If you survive the X event will you live close to the same lifespan you would have lived if X never happened?" When you ask that question the healthy 60 year old is much more likely to make it the 15 years to 75 consuming the dregs of resources recovered from the collapsed society than the 20 year healthy person is of living to 75. Not only that, the healthy 60 year old will also have spent most of their life, 80% of the total, in a comfortable technology bubble. If the healthy 20 year old makes it to 75 they will have spent 73.3% of their life in the post technology world. Both example persons lived 75 years but the 60 and healthy subject spent the far greater portion of that lifespan in relative technological luxury. So which one is actually worse off? It is all about how you look at it.

[vtsnowedin]

If you survived, you may well envy those who didn't, unless you are in your 20-thies and evaded debilitating dose of radiation within first 2 weeks.
Young and strong man can pursue career of warlord after modernity is gone and this can be cool.
Perhaps worth nuclear war.

This same attitude applies to any major civilization collapse. If the Super-flu of fiction writers like Stephen King took out 99% and you were a 60 year old survivor of the illness the changed world would be a very tough challenge. But the same is true of an asteroid setting off a global catastrophe, or a Super-volcano like Yellowstone erupting, or a solar EMP knocking out transportation for weeks or months leading to starvation in the major population centers that are not self sufficient in food.

It doesn't matter which end of civilization scenario you pick, being 20 and healthy gives you much greater survival odds that be 60 and healthy, and being sickly at any age puts you at extreme risk without modern medicine and civilization.

The question is not "Will the living envy the dead" as surely some of them will. The question is "If you survive the X event will you live close to the same lifespan you would have lived if X never happened?" When you ask that question the healthy 60 year old is much more likely to make it the 15 years to 75 consuming the dregs of resources recovered from the collapsed society than the 20 year healthy person is of living to 75. Not only that, the healthy 60 year old will also have spent most of their life, 80% of the total, in a comfortable technology bubble. If the healthy 20 year old makes it to 75 they will have spent 73.3% of their life in the post technology world. Both example persons lived 75 years but the 60 and healthy subject spent the far greater portion of that lifespan in relative technological luxury. So which one is actually worse off? It is all about how you look at it.

In a post apocalypse world survival will be measured by the family unit. A sixty year old will look to protecting his children and grandchildren and if he has none might try to get adopted into a family that has. The prosperity of the unit will be measured by how well it raises up the children to carry on and will be all important. What skills and experience the older members can bring to bare securing food ,shelter and energy for the younger members will be what has value.

[dissident]

.
" Well I stand corrected.
Lets launch simultaneous strikes at both Russia and China to knock them off the game board and show the rest of the nuclear wannabees who is the real boss."

this is not a joke , there is currently some very worrying developments

the US is withdrawing or taking a position to withdraw from the few disarmament treaties left
Russia nuclear posture is to use tactical weapons first should their homeland be in danger
Nato has a policy of advancing to the very borders of Russia stockpiling supplies and having permanent rotation of troop " to deter aggression "
Russia consider the "near Abroad" as a security space
very low yield nuclear warhead are being deployed as "usable"
hypersonic missiles are game changers , their full deployment would create anew weapon race

I follows those developments with some concern , for decade fear has been the mother of wisdom
not so much now , not so much !
https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org ... n-exercise

The risk of WWIII today is much greater than in the 1980s. In the 1980s there was a risk of accidental launch but there were no real plans for war. In the last 20+ years I have been listening to congenitally retarded NATO politicians trash talk like they can stage limited nuclear wars and that they can actually carry out a successful first strike. These retards are something else. They actually believe that B-2s are "invisible" and will penetrate deep into Russia to launch their gravity bombs to "decapitate" it (see the Diplomat article from around 2006). Being without a physics education and arrogant chauvinists (a condition of their retardation) they think that their "enemy" can't have a network of wide spectrum "radars" that can see these invisible wunderwaffen from over the horizon. Somebody needs to write these specimens a memo about the fact that even ICBMs can be tracked from launch all the way to their release of warheads by over-horizon "radars".

The only thing that a first strike attempt by dick stroking losers will achieve is a counter-strike and MAD.

[sparky]

.
a big factor of worry is the anti missile shield
It was sold as a protective measure against two countries , north Korea and Iran
neither had the mean or the motivation to throw bombs at Europe at the time

Russians diplomat freaked out ,
it would enable a decapitating first strike with the system mopping up the remaining survivor missiles

the US absolute insistence to proceed with in spite of protest was troublesome by itself


now , with cold war 2 in full swing , there is no pretense whatsoever that it was targeted at Russia

a strange case was the Vardo Radar , once touted as a civilian program to watch satellite
use the translator function
https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globus_II

[bochen777]

America's evil plan to nuke China as the final solution to genocide all 1.4 billion Chinese people on Earth


https://forum.ascendchina.ch/t/americas ... n-earth/85

[bochen777]

Americans EXPLAIN the REAL reason the US hates China
https://vimeo.com/444718946


US war planners willing to sacrifice up to 200+ million American citizens in an all out nuclear exchange with China, starting with the SCS in 2020 and rapidly escalating from there if China doesn’t give in…
https://chinamatters.blogspot.com/2019/ ... h.html?m=1
https://www.intellihub.com/government-l ... d-off-map/


2 separate executive orders:
for TikTok: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential ... ed-tiktok/
for WeChat: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential ... ed-wechat/
https://www.state.gov/announcing-the-ex ... as-assets/

The executive orders and “Clean Network” is in part designed to slow the internationalization of the digital Yuan. This is the biggest threat to US. If China rolls out DCEP and foreign merchants can use Chinese fintech platforms, I.e., alipay and wechat pay, to conduct cross-border exchanges then the USD and by extension the US empire is doomed. The timing of these announcements are partly due to trump’s reelection and partly because the US is starting to feel the heat, given the recent announcement regarding ant financial IPO and DCEP testings…


America's New World Order Is Officially Dead
China and Russia have fully derailed the post-Cold War movement toward U.S.-led global integration.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/artic ... ially-dead


Amerikkka will cut China’s internet cables before US attacks China in a war, and US will force all its vassals to sever cables to China…
China's Intranet is self sufficient but for the Internet it still needs cables to other countries... if US can convince the other countries to cut it, China will be walled off from the rest of the world...

https://www.zdnet.com/article/oracle-ch ... -intranet/