Hawaii missile alert
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 Stirlingsays  15 Jan 18 6.13pm |
   |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by johnno42000
I really don't think it is as simple as 3 months. If it was a full on, let's use everything we can and end humanity type of nuclear war then no water would be drinkable for many, many years due to the radiation that seeps into the ground. What animals that survived on the surface would, likewise, be inedible. The weather patterns would be horrendous. Much better to do as the golfer did in Stuks post or create confusing patterns for future mutated cockroach Time Team programmes. No, that's too pessimistic and you are over estimating the focus of the UK for a country wide blanket attack. The main focus would be on knocking out our nuclear subs. That's why idiots like the liberal democrats and anyone else who wants to reduce their numbers from four to three when one is always in maintenance is a fruitcake....or in the case of Corbyn even question their useage. If you are going to attack the UK, then I imagine that's in concert with an attack on the US.....again, that's going to take the main focus because their arsenal is far more impressive than ours. Again....that's why anti US people are just frigging annoyingly short sighted. They literally bite the hand that protects us. Plus, you wouldn't just stock for three months, that's just the time you'd spend under the ground. I wouldn't under estimate how quickly a technologically developed country could rebound.....especially on a mid sized heavily populated island like this. If you have kids....consideration about these things isn't misplaced.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| Stirlingsays 15 Jan 18 6.32pm |
|
|---|---|
|
People over estimate the admittedly terrible power of nuclear explosions. They talk as though a country could literally be destroyed and that everybody would be dead. It's just not realistic. A modern ICBM with 30 megaton MIRV warheads is going to worse case (air blast) be pretty terrible for anything within 15 miles but after that it's third degree burns reducing with distance.......The radiation outside of that range is going to be a problem over time but many people are going to survive for weeks and people survive radiation poisoning as well. People saw the Japanese attacks and forget that most of those buildings weren't made of solid materials. To carpet bomb the UK and kill everybody...... it isn't going to happen....It would require huge numbers focused upon just one country.....and it wouldn't knock everyone out anyway....not for those who have prepared and have radiation protection when they come back up. Obviously it would be terrible beyond words but you can't can't realistically destroy the country.....At worst a massive attack would destroy widespread modern society for decades.....but there is no wiping out.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
johnno42000  15 Jan 18 6.35pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
No, that's too pessimistic and you are over estimating the focus of the UK for a country wide blanket attack. The main focus would be on knocking out our nuclear subs. That's why idiots like the liberal democrats and anyone else who wants to reduce their numbers from four to three when one is always in maintenance is a fruitcake....or in the case of Corbyn even question their useage. If you are going to attack the UK, then I imagine that's in concert with an attack on the US.....again, that's going to take the main focus because their arsenal is far more impressive than ours. Again....that's why anti US people are just frigging annoyingly short sighted. They literally bite the hand that protects us. Plus, you wouldn't just stock for three months, that's just the time you'd spend under the ground. I wouldn't under estimate how quickly a technologically developed country could rebound.....especially on a mid sized heavily populated island like this. If you have kids....consideration about these things isn't misplaced.
It really isn't pessimistic. Most of the targets would be in the northern hemisphere thus the greater intensity of radioactivity in the atmosphere and on the land would be in that region, UK included. For instance look at the spread of the damage by a relatively minor incident like Chernobyl [Link] The after effects, in addition to the initial devastation, for that region, and to a slightly lesser extent the southern hemisphere, would be truly catastrophic and possibly cause the extinction of humanity. Edited by johnno42000 (15 Jan 2018 6.38pm)
'Lies to the masses as are like fly's to mollasses...they want more and more and more' |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 15 Jan 18 6.38pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by johnno42000
It really isn't pessimistic. Most of the targets would be in the northern hemisphere thus the greater intensity of radioactivity in the atmosphere and on the land would be in that region, UK included. The after effects, in addition to the initial devastation, for that region, and to a slightly lesser extent the southern hemisphere, would be truly catastrophic and possibly cause the extinction of humanity.
By any measure it is fair to call any nuclear attack catastrophic.....but 'extinction of humanity'? Aside from the technological development of humanity and the number of humans....and especially the states who have provided for the protection of small numbers of their elites.....there's no 'extinction of humanity' Perhaps you have been watching too many movies.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| johnno42000 15 Jan 18 6.50pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
By any measure it is fair to call any nuclear attack catastrophic.....but 'extinction of humanity'? Aside from the technological development of humanity and the number of humans....especially state who have provided for this.....there's no 'extinction of humanity' Perhaps you have been watching too many movies.
It's not surviving the initial conflict it is more the aftermath and length of time that lasts. Not at all. Plenty of reports out in internet world that suggest it is a possibility. [Link] There are plenty more out there. Now I would say that there are plenty that say it wouldn't cause the extinction of humanity. Most of both sides seem to say that no-one truly knows. So I'm happy enough to go along believing it will and I genuinely respect your right to believe it won't. Edited by johnno42000 (15 Jan 2018 6.51pm)
'Lies to the masses as are like fly's to mollasses...they want more and more and more' |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 15 Jan 18 7.07pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by johnno42000
It's not surviving the initial conflict it is more the aftermath and length of time that lasts. Not at all. Plenty of reports out in internet world that suggest it is a possibility. [Link] There are plenty more out there. Now I would say that there are plenty that say it wouldn't cause the extinction of humanity. Most of both sides seem to say that no-one truly knows. So I'm happy enough to go along believing it will and I genuinely respect your right to believe it won't. Edited by johnno42000 (15 Jan 2018 6.51pm) Like you say we can believe what we want. Lots of people believe lots of stuff. Extinction isn't realistic for the multiple reasons provided.....read the first link....doesn't really deal with the provisions set aside. Edited by Stirlingsays (15 Jan 2018 7.08pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| johnno42000 15 Jan 18 7.51pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Extinction isn't realistic for the multiple reasons provided.....read the first link....doesn't really deal with the provisions set aside. Edited by Stirlingsays (15 Jan 2018 7.08pm) As I said I respect your belief and if it all goes off, and humans don't survive, you can apologise to me when we come back reincarnated as 6 foot tall mutated cockroaches :-)
'Lies to the masses as are like fly's to mollasses...they want more and more and more' |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 15 Jan 18 8.13pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by johnno42000
As I said I respect your belief and if it all goes off, and humans don't survive, you can apologise to me when we come back reincarnated as 6 foot tall mutated cockroaches :-)
Let's hope we are lucky.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| serial thriller The Promised Land 15 Jan 18 11.27pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
People over estimate the admittedly terrible power of nuclear explosions. They talk as though a country could literally be destroyed and that everybody would be dead. It's just not realistic. A modern ICBM with 30 megaton MIRV warheads is going to worse case (air blast) be pretty terrible for anything within 15 miles but after that it's third degree burns reducing with distance.......The radiation outside of that range is going to be a problem over time but many people are going to survive for weeks and people survive radiation poisoning as well. People saw the Japanese attacks and forget that most of those buildings weren't made of solid materials. To carpet bomb the UK and kill everybody...... it isn't going to happen....It would require huge numbers focused upon just one country.....and it wouldn't knock everyone out anyway....not for those who have prepared and have radiation protection when they come back up. Obviously it would be terrible beyond words but you can't can't realistically destroy the country.....At worst a massive attack would destroy widespread modern society for decades.....but there is no wiping out.
One nuclear bomb kills not only those it takes in the blast, but those decades later who consistently consume radioactive food and water. It destroys ecosystems and wildlife on a scale nothing else manmade can match, and can damage the ozone layer, permitting harmful UV rays to penetrate the atmosphere for decades. In fact, a full scale nuclear war of, say, 100 detonations, would permanently damage the ozone layer and accelerate climate change at a level which could easily lead to human extinction. 1 modern nuclear bomb, remember, carries as much explosive power as all the non-nuclear missiles used in the second world war combined. It doesn’t just condemn innocent men women and children in the explosion’s vicinity to a cruel, painful death, but millions of animals, and countless children from subsequent generations who had absolutely no role in the conflict. And the worst thing is, the closest we’ve ever come, post ww2, to detonation, has been because of human errors such as the one in Hawaii. Countries have to act, adhere to the non proliferation treaty, and follow countries like Argentina and South Africa in disarming, because not doing so is still the single greatest threat to human existence in the world today.
If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4 |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 16 Jan 18 3.07am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by serial thriller
One nuclear bomb kills not only those it takes in the blast, but those decades later who consistently consume radioactive food and water. It destroys ecosystems and wildlife on a scale nothing else manmade can match, and can damage the ozone layer, permitting harmful UV rays to penetrate the atmosphere for decades. In fact, a full scale nuclear war of, say, 100 detonations, would permanently damage the ozone layer and accelerate climate change at a level which could easily lead to human extinction. 1 modern nuclear bomb, remember, carries as much explosive power as all the non-nuclear missiles used in the second world war combined. It doesn’t just condemn innocent men women and children in the explosion’s vicinity to a cruel, painful death, but millions of animals, and countless children from subsequent generations who had absolutely no role in the conflict. And the worst thing is, the closest we’ve ever come, post ww2, to detonation, has been because of human errors such as the one in Hawaii. Countries have to act, adhere to the non proliferation treaty, and follow countries like Argentina and South Africa in disarming, because not doing so is still the single greatest threat to human existence in the world today.
Countries have to do nothing. Listen to yourself. This kind of thing can't be controlled by appeals to emotion. Countries act in their individual self interest. Countries that have nuclear weapons don't get invaded by other countries. As for your 'human extinction' nonsense......Look answer the points I made in my posts showing why there is not going to be any 'human extinction'. 100 detonations would definitely screw the atmosphere for decades and those who can't get long term access to facilities are going to die.....but enough in the US military and some other western entities have prepared for this for any notion of 'extinction' to be just unrealistic. The very worst that could happen is that for a decade or two societies were sent back to the stone age....But enough underground facilities exist and probably there are going to be enough people with knowledge in them to restart societies relatively quickly......knowledge isn't going to be lost....but the ability to distribute it for a while probably would be due to the environment and numbers. Edited by Stirlingsays (16 Jan 2018 10.10am)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
pefwin  Where you have to have an English ... 16 Jan 18 5.00pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Countries have to do nothing. Listen to yourself. This kind of thing can't be controlled by appeals to emotion. Countries act in their individual self interest. Countries that have nuclear weapons don't get invaded by other countries. As for your 'human extinction' nonsense......Look answer the points I made in my posts showing why there is not going to be any 'human extinction'. 100 detonations would definitely screw the atmosphere for decades and those who can't get long term access to facilities are going to die.....but enough in the US military and some other western entities have prepared for this for any notion of 'extinction' to be just unrealistic. The very worst that could happen is that for a decade or two societies were sent back to the stone age....But enough underground facilities exist and probably there are going to be enough people with knowledge in them to restart societies relatively quickly......knowledge isn't going to be lost....but the ability to distribute it for a while probably would be due to the environment and numbers. Edited by Stirlingsays (16 Jan 2018 10.10am)
Interesting but I don't fancy trying it.
"Everything is air-droppable at least once." "When the going gets tough, the tough call for close air support." |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 16 Jan 18 5.07pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Edited by Stirlingsays (16 Jan 2018 5.15pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.