71–80 of 176 posts
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Soviet_nuclear_false_alarm...
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Archer_83
- http://rbth.com/defence/2014/04/03/ultimate_deterrent_how_th...
- http://archive.wired.com/politics/security/magazine/17-10/mf...
This had so many ways to end in tears and it still does.
>And the missile was armed. Schlosser says that the explosive force of the warhead on a Titan II is nine megatons, which is three times the force of all the bombs dropped in the Second World War, including the atomic bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If it had detonated, most of the state of Arkansas would have been wiped out. That is the scariest thing I have read in a while. I always had the impression t…
The largest nuclear detonation set off by the United States was Castle Bravo. It was fifteen megatons. It had serious fallout issues, but it did not cause the kind of damage that is claimed for this weapon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Bravo
And supposedly, the original design was for 100 megatons, but they dialed it back because of fallout concerns.
This is my problem with the American and Russian government - actually any government - they play games. Stupid, myopic and arrogant idiots who see life other than their own on this planet as a thing to be toyed with. Intellectually they're little better than teenagers. Machiavelli's blueprint smothers the benevolence of the Ghandis, the Tutus and the Mandelas. A populace too absorbed in day-to-day survival is in no…
Both "Better red than dead" and "better dead than red" were slogans thrown around in my youth here in the UK in the 70s and 80s. Utter craziness - all of it.
I wouldn't have thought how trumped up and ludicrous this all was. I was born in 1984, so I really started becoming aware in the bubble that existed after the wall fell and before 9/11. Sure, I read 1984 and Farenhiet 451 but the seemed like commentary about the future, what could become. Apparently they were just as relevant when they were written. Constant war with the "enemy". The threat of attack at any time. Con…
I'm pretty sure the Soviet Union did exist, and actually did have WMDs. Similarly, I'd like to ask how you would explain the statistical ridiculousness of terrorism to the families of the thousands of people that died in the twin towers. I'm sure they'd be fascinated to hear it.
I fully accept a lot of mistakes were made during the cold war, and I also deplore the expensive, ineffective and unnecessary overreach by western intelligence agencies, but the threats they were and are purporting to defend us from are very real. Some of our responses to those threats have been mistaken and unnecessary, but it certainly does not follow that those threats don't exist and don't need to be responded to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not really a confusion: if the letter of last resort (sealed orders to be opened in the event the Government is destroyed) says "launch the nukes", you do have a sort of dead man's switch, assuming the sub's captain follows the orders.
Not really a confusion: if the letter of last resort (sealed orders to be opened in the event the Government is destroyed) says "launch the nukes", you do have a sort of dead man's switch, assuming the sub's captain follows the orders I've always understood "dead man's switch" to literally mean something operating without human intervention. Probably explains the confusion! That said, the options available to the com…
I wouldn't have thought how trumped up and ludicrous this all was. I was born in 1984, so I really started becoming aware in the bubble that existed after the wall fell and before 9/11. Sure, I read 1984 and Farenhiet 451 but the seemed like commentary about the future, what could become. Apparently they were just as relevant when they were written. Constant war with the "enemy". The threat of attack at any time. Con…
All we need is a solar frame, pandemic, or string of larger earthquakes in some parts of the globe. That would cause some nuclear plants to meltdown. Life on Earth would become impossible. No need to worry about some accidental nuclear war. Damn, we're dumb.
Can you back that up with some numbers, or a source perhaps? Because that just sounds like fearmongering. We've already had two nuclear plant meltdowns, and life on earth is doing just fine.
First of all, Chernobyl Exclusion zone is about 1000 mile^2. [3] Life is not doing just fine there. And the effect of Fukushima meltdown are not going to be known for the next few years, but there are indications that it may not be as harmless as we are led to believe.[4]
There are currently 62 commercially operating nuclear power plants with 100 nuclear reactors in 31 states in the United States. [1]
A recent study led by European researchers found Fukushima is not alone, as 22 other plants around the world may be similarly susceptible to destructive tsunami waves, with most of them in east and southeast regions of Asia. [2]
The World Nuclear Association estimates that 20 percent of nuclear reactors worldwide operate in areas vulnerable to earthquakes.[5]
[1] http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=207&t=3 [2] http://news.discovery.com/earth/plants/nuclear-plants-at-tsu... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_Nuclear_Power_Plant_... [4]http://fukushima-diary.com/2014/07/nuclear-expert-fukushima-... [5]http://www.frontiergroup.org/blogs/blog/fg/how-many-us-nucle...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you back that up with some numbers, or a source perhaps? Because that just sounds like fearmongering. We've already had two nuclear plant meltdowns, and life on earth is doing just fine.
Fear mongering? Let's see: First of all, Chernobyl Exclusion zone is about 1000 mile^2. [3] Life is not doing just fine there. And the effect of Fukushima meltdown are not going to be known for the next few years, but there are indications that it may not be as harmless as we are led to believe.[4] There are currently 62 commercially operating nuclear power plants with 100 nuclear reactors in 31 states in the United…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Humans" as such would have still survived, but I don't know, if that what would have been left of it would be realistically to be called "civilization". I am also not to sure, if they (the remnants) would survive for long with global climate change and radioactive fallout everywhere.
Almost certainly a Cold War maximum nuclear war would result in collapse of industrialized civilization as we know it, concomitant with an enormous reduction in worldwide population. Nevertheless, a lot of things would almost certainly remain: literacy, agriculture, metalworking, the ideas of science and industry, and so on. Human civilization would be in a very bad state for a good long time, but it would mostly be…
If civilization were to collapse now, it may never rise again.
