Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 | >
Show 30 post(s) from this thread on one page

Gold & Silver Forum (http://goldismoney.info/forums/index.php)
- Survival Prep (http://goldismoney.info/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=141)
- - Don't SHOOT the nuclear weapon (http://goldismoney.info/forums/showthread.php?t=49390)

wallew | 07-27-2006 01:37 PM
Don't SHOOT the nuclear weapon I truly have NO dog in this fight. But allow me a similie if you might. Did you ever see the movie "Broken Arrow"? John Tavolta was the bad guy. He was the pilot of a B1 bomber. At least I THINK it was a B1 stealth bomber. ANYWAY, during the movie, he loses control of the nuclear tipped missle that he and his crew steals. As they chase the good guy (whose name I can't remember for some reason) who stole the weapon back, Howie Long (BG) leans out the side of the hummer and fires multiple rounds to stop the good guy. Do you remember what Travolta said? "Don't SHOOT THE NUCLEAR WEAPON". Now for a moral platitude. All those Arab countries who don't like Israel, fine. But they REALLY OUGHT to take the advice that John Travolta gave. "Don't SHOOT the nuclear weapons". Israel has admitted to having 135 nuclear missles. That's what they ADMIT they have. Israel could have a lot more than that. Let's just speculate that for some reason, Iran actually has ONE nuclear missle and has just launched it at Jerusalem. Exactly how many NUKES do you think Israel will respond with? That's RIGHT. ALL 135. Only about the first thirty will be at their local neighbors. They have VOWED to also launch the remainder against the enemies of Israel who gave the arabs either the weapon itself or the technology involved to produce nukes. The list is long and varied. Pretty much EVERY NUCLEAR STATE except the US. Now when Russia, China, N. Korea etc see those remaining 100 NUCLEAR TIPPED MISSLES approaching their biggest cities, exactly what do YOU think they are going to do. Sit by and do nothing? RIGHT! You are correct. They will empty every silo they can, WHILE THEY CAN at all their pre-emptive targets. WHICH ARE MAINLY THE US. And what will OUR response be? Do nothing. Nope, we will respond in kind. So for about an hour you will be able to bend over and kiss your @ss goodbye. And then good ol' terra firma won't be so 'firma' for at least the next 35 years. That's why ALL the nuclear powers keep that old nuclear bottle stopped up. Cause once they open the bottle, we will enter the 'NUCLEAR' age. Or should I say the 'nuclear holocost' stage. And for you folks that say that doesn't give Israel a pass, just because they have nukes, consider this. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT GAVE RUSSIA, CHINA, and yes THE USA. etc a huge pass. As long as they didn't go nuclear, the nuclear nations sat by and watched. Because unless you live in a cave, YOU KNOW that life as we know it will cease. There will be no 'The Postman' or 'Mad Max' scenarios. So all the BS around here about how BAD Israel is and how they are 'bad' people is just you venting your frustration. Go have that conversation with someone who survived Tianamin Square revolt in China. Or the Georgia provinces of Russia. Oh wait, they are all either kowtowing to THEIR PTB now, have been disappeared or end up in 'Reeducation Work camp #13'. And with all the wranting and raving going on here about Israel and their conflict with their neighbors (think the 'Hatfields & the McCoys' - Or go read Shakespears Romeo & Juliet). You all make it sound like Israel is the FIRST CLAN that has ever done this. Get a grip. You want to make a difference? Go over to Lebanon, pick up a gun or an Rpg or whatever and join the Hamas or Hezbollah. Otherwise you are just pissing upstream... And yes, I CAME BACK from my vacation with this whole ME thing still up in the air. BIG WOO!

Alric | 07-27-2006 01:55 PM
Re: Don't SHOOT the nuclear weapon Its very possible. I wouldn't say the US is in a good position but we are better off than most countries. In an all out nuclear war that we didn't start, the US is likely to get more fallout than actual nuclear hits. Europe and asia is going to be gone. Same with all the countries in the middle east. We will likely take a few hits but it will most likely just be along the cost. North america, south america and australia are out of range of a lot of the stuff. If the US wasn't in North america we would never get hit, but we make enough people made that we will probably get a couple.

wallew | 07-27-2006 02:14 PM
Re: Don't SHOOT the nuclear weapon Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric (Post 312287) Its very possible. I wouldn't say the US is in a good position but we are better off than most countries. In an all out nuclear war that we didn't start, the US is likely to get more fallout than actual nuclear hits. Europe and asia is going to be gone. Same with all the countries in the middle east. We will likely take a few hits but it will most likely just be along the cost. North america, south america and australia are out of range of a lot of the stuff. If the US wasn't in North america we would never get hit, but we make enough people made that we will probably get a couple.
While I appreciate what you are saying, both Russia AND China have a fairly large fleet of 'boomers' - large subs that are ONLY designed to sit off the coast of a given country and SHOWER THEM with MIRVs. So we are DEFINATELY SCREWED, just like everyone else.

drafter | 07-27-2006 02:24 PM
Re: Don't SHOOT the nuclear weapon Another thing to think about is that some countries are in my opinion more prepred to take a hit than we are. Places like North Korea, China, and Russia still have vast underground facilities available for a large amount of their population. Unless your one of the political elite, you're pretty much SOL in the US since we got rid of our civil defense shelters long ago. There is now a parking lot across the street from me where once there was a civil defense shelter. I'm not sure about everyone elses town, but here you'd be hard pressed to find an intact shelter. And even if we still had shelter, we'd still be without the supplies that would be needed to sustain a group of people for any amount of time.

mayhem | 07-27-2006 03:06 PM
Re: Don't SHOOT the nuclear weapon I can only speak as to this date 1993. Then Israel had only "tactical" nukes. Small battlefield weapons that would allow them to stop advancing armies, and to counter-attack within 1 hour. Remember it's a small country, and the battlefield is limited. But it is safe to assume that they have developed larger nukes since. The means of delivery are what need to be looked at. Their subs are diesel, not nuclear, and they are without an ICBM platform. Can they get close enough to the US without being detected to fire a missile? I doubt it. Everyone else l00k out though

Ponce Cuba | 07-27-2006 03:15 PM
Re: Don't SHOOT the nuclear weapon If twenty millions must die now in order to save three billions later then let it be so........ but will only work if we do get rid of all Zionist-JEWS, otherwiese will only be waiting for the "next" time.

Gold crown | 07-27-2006 03:24 PM
Re: Don't SHOOT the nuclear weapon Quote:
Originally Posted by Ponce Cuba (Post 312369) If twenty millions must die now in order to save three billions later then let it be so........ but will only work if we do get rid of all Zionist-JEWS, otherwiese will only be waiting for the "next" time.
This discussion was interesting until you came in with your biassed antisemitic vitriolic remarks. Too bad!

wallew | 07-27-2006 03:26 PM
Re: Don't SHOOT the nuclear weapon Quote:
Originally Posted by Ponce Cuba (Post 312369) If twenty millions must die now in order to save three billions later then let it be so........ but will only work if we do get rid of all Zionist-JEWS, otherwiese will only be waiting for the "next" time.
Ponce, NO OFFENSE, but if those 'twenty million' die, I'm fairly confident that they will take ANOTHER FOUR OR FIVE BILLION PEOPLE WITH THEM. IS THAT OK BY YOU? Cause both you and I will be on the 'big list' of people who die. Not the small list of people who live. BTW, sounds like Al Gore's book stating the earth should only have about 250 million on it MAY BECOME a reality. So, if Israel is the trigger event that starts the 'NUCLEAR WAR', that's OK BY YOU? Just curious? I don't care where or how you've hidden/buried your weapons, food or pm's, they will mean DIDDLY when the world has a radio active cloud that covers it for the next two/ten years, nicht var? That WILL OCCUR if EVERY NUCLEAR COUNTRY lets lose with ALL their arsenals... And all those people who 'went underground' are pretty much as screwed as the rest of us. And has ANYONE considered that this is a way for TPTB to punish all countries in the Middle East ECONOMICALLY??? This 'war' is occuring during the HEIGHT OF THE TOURIST SEASON for all concerned...

Alric | 07-27-2006 03:35 PM
Re: Don't SHOOT the nuclear weapon Your assuming everyone goes crazy on a nuke fest. Russia and china can both take multiple hits. They won't fire a nuke at the US unless they think their country is about to be totally destroyed. Thats why I said its important that the US doesn't start it, if we don't start they won't fire on us. Israel probably won't be able to fire all 100 nukes at once. I doubt they are just all sitting there waiting to be fired. They will probably shoot half of them at middle east countries. Russia will probably only get hit by 2-3, and the same goes for china. If thats all they get hit by it may end there. Russia will probably shoot 30 into israel and that would be that.

Alric | 07-27-2006 03:46 PM
Re: Don't SHOOT the nuclear weapon Its actually impossible to hit every US city with a nuke anyway. There isn't enough of them in the world. There would be a ton of fallout and you would have to survive the radiation that would blow across the entire planet but you would probably still be alive.

wallew | 07-27-2006 03:48 PM
Re: Don't SHOOT the nuclear weapon Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric (Post 312388) Your assuming everyone goes crazy on a nuke fest. Russia and china can both take multiple hits. They won't fire a nuke at the US unless they think their country is about to be totally destroyed. Thats why I said its important that the US doesn't start it, if we don't start they won't fire on us. Israel probably won't be able to fire all 100 nukes at once. I doubt they are just all sitting there waiting to be fired. They will probably shoot half of them at middle east countries. Russia will probably only get hit by 2-3, and the same goes for china. If thats all they get hit by it may end there. Russia will probably shoot 30 into israel and that would be that.
It's called the 'Jehrico Option'. As in 'the walls come tumbling down'. These guys have been sitting on yaweh (allah, budda, god - pick the diety of your choice) KNOWS how many MIRVS for at least twenty years, since we gave them some. So, if Beijing and/or Hong Kong is hit with several nukes that have been traced back to Israel, they WON'T RESPOND? If Moscow and/or St. Petersburg were destroyed in the nuclear fire of atomic weapons fired by Israel, they WON'T respond? And assume for one second that ISRAEL, along with the rest of the middle east is already ONE LARGE POOL of nuclear glass, are you intimating that 'calmer heads' will keep them from using their own weapons? Also, your saying that Israel is NOT ready to USE their nuclear weapons is like saying the US or Russia or China or N. Korea is NOT ready to use their nuclear weapons on a moments notice. Now you think about that. Do you think for ONE SECOND that Israel is STUPID or UNPREPARED to use weapons of mass destruction? They have them stored 'safely away'? :haha: Good luck with that idea.

Alric | 07-27-2006 03:53 PM
Re: Don't SHOOT the nuclear weapon Actually the US only has half of the nukes ready to go and a third of them are in bombers which would take time to fire off. So out of our 10,000 nukes we only have 3000 we can shoot off right away. If israel was the same as us, they would only have about 30 ready to go.

Ponce Cuba | 07-27-2006 04:05 PM
Re: Don't SHOOT the nuclear weapon Quote:
Originally Posted by Gold crown (Post 312376) This discussion was interesting until you came in with your biassed antisemitic vitriolic remarks. Too bad!
Gold crown, that's the thinking of the Zionist-JEWS......."Talk only of what I want to talk and not what you want to talk about, otherwise you are antisemitic".........LOLLLLLLLLLLLL here I am talking about the Zionist-Jews and I am called a antisemitic. Don't forget peoplle that the "real" semitic-Jews are also anti-Zionists :clap2:

Book | 07-27-2006 04:32 PM
Re: Don't SHOOT the nuclear weapon Quote:
Also, your saying that Israel is NOT ready to USE their nuclear weapons is like saying the US or Russia or China or N. Korea is NOT ready to use their nuclear weapons on a moments notice. Now you think about that. Do you think for ONE SECOND that Israel is STUPID or UNPREPARED to use weapons of mass destruction? They have them stored 'safely away'? -wallew
wallew: what you are saying here [not having a dog in the fight] is to allow Israel to do whatever they want or else they will BLOW UP THE WORLD and kill us all? :rolleyes: but don't let North Korea get away with anything...

wallew | 07-27-2006 08:57 PM
Re: Don't SHOOT the nuclear weapon Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric (Post 312396) Its actually impossible to hit every US city with a nuke anyway. There isn't enough of them in the world. There would be a ton of fallout and you would have to survive the radiation that would blow across the entire planet but you would probably still be alive.
OK, EVEN the US Government has done studies in this area. I'm SURE other countries have as well. NINETY FIVE PERCENT of the US populations lives in the top 135 cities. SO hitting 135 target here in the US of A is a done deal. Will the other five percent survive? Just because you live out in the boonies or in a small town that does NOT receive a direct strike does NOT mean you will survive the coming two to ten year 'nuclear winter' where the sun is blotted out and the fallout from ALL the nuclear explosions are carried all OVER THE WORLD. So just cause you can live underground, do you WANT TO STAY THERE FOR TEN YEARS? How about staying there for TWO years? TWO MONTHS? Most people will run out of supplies LONG BEFORE the ten year period is achieved. The two year period IS possible, but it will take MEGA money and skills to do so. To say NOTHING of the ability to remain sane.

GoldenSheikUrBootie | 07-27-2006 09:18 PM
Re: Don't SHOOT the nuclear weapon asdfsdafsdf

Alric | 07-27-2006 09:20 PM
Re: Don't SHOOT the nuclear weapon Lets assume your right with the numbers you just posted. Their going to target military bases first, and we have over 500. Plus I know they are counting the suburbs in their numbers, and some cities have huge problems with urban sprawl. Infact its so bad in some places it could take up to 10 nuclear bombs to destroy just one city. And thats the big ones, if they are using the smaller stuff it could take triple that. As for 5% of the population thats 15 million people. And that number grows quickly as they will likely miss many of the cities.

wallew | 07-28-2006 12:03 PM
Re: Don't SHOOT the nuclear weapon Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric (Post 312769) Lets assume your right with the numbers you just posted. Their going to target military bases first, and we have over 500. Plus I know they are counting the suburbs in their numbers, and some cities have huge problems with urban sprawl. Infact its so bad in some places it could take up to 10 nuclear bombs to destroy just one city. And thats the big ones, if they are using the smaller stuff it could take triple that. As for 5% of the population thats 15 million people. And that number grows quickly as they will likely miss many of the cities.
Alric, let me help you out here so YOU can understand what I've known for way to many years. Any of our enemies (start with Russia and China and work your way down the list) will give a rat's patoot about our military bases. If this whole shebang goes nuclear, the only place our military will be used is on our own population - or what's left of it. Once the nukes fly (and there is no calling them back - like 'OOPS we just launched a nuke) it's all over. Cause it's NOT like we are only going to see a handful. Once it starts, EVERYONE is going to fire EVERY NUKE they have. WHY? Because once nukes start going off, it is unknown if anyone will be able to get the rest out of the silos. SO off they go. And there are THOUSANDS of nuclear weapons on ALL sides. It has been estimated that even AFTER we (and everyone else including Russia) destroyed all those nuke that were destroyed, what was left over could kill THE WHOLE WORLD about 1000 times over. Every man, woman and child. Will there be survivors? Sure. Probably. Will there be a nuclear winter. ABSOLUTELY. Think about how far the volcano in Washington state spread it's ash across the world - almost half way. And that was ONE event in ONE location. Multiply that by THOUSANDS. There will be radioactive dust in the air for many, many months. ALL OVER THE WORLD. This has been studied and studied and studied again. It ain't gonna be pretty, that's for SURE. Hope that gives you some insight as to what COULD happen if we don't step back from the brink of the nuclear 'solution'. GoldenSheikUrBootie, Thanks for that article. I read it a year or so ago and had lost it. thx Let me add one more 'minor' item. Can we say CHERNOBLE (SP?)?? Does anyone know how large of an area was and STILL IS contaminated. Do you have any idea how few children in the effected are do NOT have birth defects? The number is below 10 percent. And that's ONE nuclear reactor blowing up and spread it's small amount (comparitively speaking) of nuclear dust over a relatively small area (again, comparitively speaking). Now, MULTIPLY THAT BY 10,000. Because that's approximately how many nukes mankind still has sitting in sileo. In the ground. Hooked to airplanes in the sky. In the boomers under the sea. If the NUKES do fly, we are ALL screwed. Even all those 'genuis' politicians (American, Russian, Chinese, N. Korean, Iranian) who think their 'bunker' will protect them and their families. PUULLLLEASE!

AlloyDragon | 07-28-2006 12:46 PM
Re: Don't SHOOT the nuclear weapon You make a good case for glassing Israel before they start a thermonuclear war.

wallew | 07-28-2006 02:58 PM
Re: Don't SHOOT the nuclear weapon http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.a...050wmv&ak=null the case HAS BEEN MADE by an arabic woman that ISLAM does not deserve ANYTHING.... Watch this video IF YOU DARE. FOR ALL YOU ANTI-SEMITES, watch closely.... It will make you boil. TRUTH OFTEN DOES THAT. And from one of my fathers JEWISH friends ... 1. ISRAEL BECAME A STATE IN 1312 B.C., TWO MILLENNIA BEFORE ISLAM; 2. ARAB REFUGEES FROM ISRAEL BEGAN CALLING THEMSELVES "PALESTINIANS" IN 1967, TWO DECADES AFTER (MODERN) ISRAELI STATEHOOD; 3. AFTER CONQUERING THE LAND IN 1272 B.C., JEWS RULED IT FOR A THOUSAND YEARS AND MAINTAINED A CONTINUOUS PRESENCE THERE FOR 3,300 YEARS; 4. THE ONLY ARAB RULE FOLLOWING CONQUEST IN 633 B.C. LASTED JUST 22 YEARS; 5. FOR OVER 3,300 YEARS, JERUSALEM WAS THE JEWISH CAPITAL. IT WAS NEVER THE CAPITAL OF ANY ARAB OR MUSLIM ENTITY. EVEN UNDER JORDANIAN RULE, (EAST) JERUSALEM WAS NOT MADE THE CAPITAL, AND NO ARAB LEADER CAME TO VISIT IT; 6. JERUSALEM IS MENTIONED OVER 700 TIMES IN THE BIBLE, BUT NOT ONCE IS IT MENTIONED IN THE QUR'AN; 7. KING DAVID FOUNDED JERUSALEM; MOHAMMED NEVER SET FOOT IN IT; 8. JEWS PRAY FACING JERUSALEM; MUSLIMS FACE MECCA. IF THEY ARE BETWEEN THE TWO CITIES, MUSLIMS PRAY FACING MECCA, WITH THEIR BACKS TO JERUSALEM; 9. IN 1948, ARAB LEADERS URGED THEIR PEOPLE TO LEAVE, PROMISING TO CLEANSE THE LAND OF JEWISH PRESENCE. 68% OF THEM FLED WITHOUT EVER SETTING EYES ON AN ISRAELI SOLDIER; 10. VIRTUALLY THE ENTIRE JEWISH POPULATION OF MUSLIM COUNTRIES HAD TO FLEE AS THE RESULT OF VIOLENCE AND POGROMS; 11. SOME 630,000 ARABS LEFT ISRAEL IN 1948, WHILE CLOSE TO A MILLION JEWS WERE FORCED TO LEAVE THE MUSLIM COUNTRIES; 12. IN SPITE OF THE VAST TERRITORIES AT THEIR DISPOSAL, ARAB REFUGESS WERE DELIBERATELY PREVENTED FROM ASSIMILATING INTO THEIR HOST COUNTRIES. OF 100 MILLION REFUGEES FOLLOWING WORLD WAR 2, THEY ARE THE ONLY GROUP TO HAVE NEVER INTEGRATED WITH THEIR CORELIGIONISTS. MOST OF THE JEWISH REFUGEES FROM EUROPE AND ARAB LANDS WERE SETTLED IN ISRAEL, A COUNTRY NO LARGER THAN NEW JERSEY; 13. THERE ARE 22 MUSLIM COUNTRIES, NOT COUNTING PALESTINE. THERE IS ONLY ONE JEWISH STATE. ARABS STARTED ALL FIVE WARS AGAINST ISRAEL, AND LOST EVERY ONE OF THEM; 14. FATAH AND HAMAS CONSTITUTIONS STILL CALL FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF ISRAEL. ISRAEL CEDED MOST OF THE WEST BANK AND ALL OF GAZA TO THE PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY, AND EVEN PROVIDED IT WITH ARMS; 15. DURING THE JORDANIAN OCCUPATION, JEWISH HOLY SITES WERE VANDALIZED AND WERE OFF LIMITS TO JEWS. UNDER ISRAELI RULE, ALL MUSLIM AND CHRISTIAN HOLY SITES ARE ACCESSIBLE TO ALL FAITHS; 16. OUT OF 175 UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS UP TO 1990, 97 WERE AGAINST ISRAEL; OUT OF 690 GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTIONS, 429 WERE AGAINST ISRAEL; 18. THE U.N. WAS SILENT WHEN THE JORDANIANS DESTROYED 58 SYNAGOGUES IN THE OLD CITY OF JERUSALEM. IT REMAINED SILENT WHILE JORDAN SYSTEMATICALLY DESECRATED THE ANCIENT JEWISH CEMETERY ON THE MOUNT OF OLIVES, AND IT REMAINED SILENT WHEN JORDAN ENFORCED APARTHEID LAWS PREVENTING JEWS FROM ACCESSING THE TEMPLE MOUNT AND WESTERN WALL.

Book | 07-28-2006 03:38 PM
Re: Don't SHOOT the nuclear weapon Quote:
Originally Posted by AlloyDragon (Post 313556) You make a good case for glassing Israel before they start a thermonuclear war.
We will all be inhaling Tel Aviv before Israel wises up. :rolleyes:

keehah | 07-28-2006 04:04 PM
Re: Don't SHOOT the nuclear weapon Quote:
And with all the wranting and raving going on here about Israel and their conflict with their neighbors (think the 'Hatfields & the McCoys' - Or go read Shakespears Romeo & Juliet). You all make it sound like Israel is the FIRST CLAN that has ever done this. Get a grip.
True. Problem is we are supporting one of the clan members. Thus I (tax dollars, etc) am supporting one clan over another and I would choose to support niether!

AlloyDragon | 07-28-2006 04:13 PM
Re: Don't SHOOT the nuclear weapon Quote:
Originally Posted by keehah (Post 313755) True. Problem is we are supporting one of the clan members. Thus I (tax dollars, etc) am supporting one clan over another and I would choose to support niether!
Damn straight!

Alric | 07-28-2006 04:39 PM
Re: Don't SHOOT the nuclear weapon Your assuming all the leaders go totally insane in bloodlust. If they have any chance of living they are going to take it, their not going to try to destroy the world when theres a chance of them getting out alive. Thats just common sense. As for theres enough to kill everyone 1000 times over, thats just not true. There isn't even enough to kill everyone once over. Any study like that takes the population of like new york and counts how many people that will kill then multiply it by how many nukes there are. Yea if everyone was bunched up in a big city the number might be true but in reality its not. Chernobyl is actually worse than a nuclear blast in how much radation it released. Since its a bomb all the radation is release rapidly and the result is that most of the radation is gone within weeks. Since chernobyl wasn't a full explosion the radation is of the kind that stays around for a very long time. We have bunker busting nuclear bombs, made JUST to destroy underground structers, its their entire job, and even they suck horrible at destroying stuff underground. Unless a nuclear bomb drops on top of you, really on top of you, like within 100 feet, your probably going to live if your in a concrate structer even 10 feet underground. The leaders inside the huge underground buildings or inside mountains and stuff, they are totally safe. Nuclear bombs just don't go through soild earth. As for a volcano, its not even a competition, they shoot up far more dirt that any nuclear bomb. If you take the largest volcano on earth and it went off, it would be more powerful than all the nuclear bombs combined.

wallew | 07-28-2006 05:05 PM
Re: Don't SHOOT the nuclear weapon Quote:
Originally Posted by keehah (Post 313755) True. Problem is we are supporting one of the clan members. Thus I (tax dollars, etc) am supporting one clan over another and I would choose to support niether!
This is an INCORRECT ASSUMPTION. That we are NOT supporting each side. We give money (via trade and/or aid) to almost EVERY COUNTRY that is supporting BOTH SIDES. So when you say we are supporting ONE SIDE, that is an INCORRECT STATEMENT. Our tax dollars are being spent by BOTH sides. It's just we send it DIRECTLY to Israel. We JUST STOPPED sending money to the Palestinians recently. For 'food and aid'. Which went for arms and munitions. But we STILL SENT IT. Now it goes to a different country who uses it to send arms and munitions to the OTHER clan. This is, AS I HAVE SAID NUMEROUS TIMES a 'trigger' event. This could be (will be?) the event historians (whats left of them) look back at and go "SEE, this is where the great nuclear holocost ACTUALLY STARTED, not several weeks (months) later when the missles actually flew all over the world and the modern society of THAT TIME destroyed itself." Alric, No offense, but if you personally believe that a nuclear weapon is NOT going to effect any city that it is unleased on for more than three or four months, the WHY is it that the ONLY thing in Hiroshima AND Nagasake are memorials? Soil samples THERE STILL come up with trace amounts of radioactivity. And that's from the FIRST nuclear weapons we released. The ones these days are MUCH more efficient.

Book | 07-28-2006 05:30 PM
Re: Don't SHOOT the nuclear weapon FYI wallew: U.S. Financial Aid To Israel: Figures, Facts, and Impact Benefits to Israel of U.S. Aid Since 1949 (As of November 1, 1997) Foreign Aid Grants and Loans $74,157,600,000 Other U.S. Aid (12.2% of Foreign Aid) $9,047,227,200 Interest to Israel from Advanced Payments $1,650,000,000 Grand Total $84,854,827,200 Total Benefits per Israeli $14,630 Cost to U.S. Taxpayers of U.S. Aid to Israel Grand Total $84,854,827,200 Interest Costs Borne by U.S. $49,936,680,000 Total Cost to U.S. Taxpayers $134,791,507,200 [and growing] Total Taxpayer Cost per Israeli $23,240

perl | 07-28-2006 05:42 PM
Re: Don't SHOOT the nuclear weapon As to type of explosions preferred, airburst is much more effective at destroying cities. Most won't be ground bursts unless they are targeting bunkers or silos. So most won't unleash large amounts of dirt into the atmosphere. The first two nukes used in ww2 were airburst.

eat_beef | 07-28-2006 06:04 PM
Re: Don't SHOOT the nuclear weapon Hey, Book, could you post up the # of FRNs wasted on the Arabs? I'd be willing to bet that they are similar. I know Mr. Peanut wasted a lot on Egypt back in the day. I don't know why we send money to anyone. And when are those Frenchmen going to send us our mercenary payments for pulling their tails out of a sling not once, but twice in the last hundred years.

eat_beef | 07-28-2006 06:06 PM
Re: Don't SHOOT the nuclear weapon Quote:
Originally Posted by perl (Post 313868) As to type of explosions preferred, airburst is much more effective at destroying cities. Most won't be ground bursts unless they are targeting bunkers or silos. So most won't unleash large amounts of dirt into the atmosphere. The first two nukes used in ww2 were airburst.
And they didn't release large amounts of dirt into the atmosphere? I guess those mushroom clouds were made of pixie dust. :banghead:

Book | 07-28-2006 07:34 PM
Re: Don't SHOOT the nuclear weapon Quote:
Originally Posted by eat_beef (Post 313893) Hey, Book, could you post up the # of FRNs wasted on the Arabs? I'd be willing to bet that they are similar. I know Mr. Peanut wasted a lot on Egypt back in the day. I don't know why we send money to anyone. And when are those Frenchmen going to send us our mercenary payments for pulling their tails out of a sling not once, but twice in the last hundred years.
Sorry pal. To support your statement you will be doing your own Google searching. Israel gets more than all the other Nations combined. :haha:

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:19 AM. |
Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 | >
Show 30 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright = None use it and Link to GIM

Gold & Silver Forum - Don't SHOOT the nuclear weapon

Page 2 of 2 | < | 1 | 2
Show 30 post(s) from this thread on one page

Gold & Silver Forum (http://goldismoney.info/forums/index.php)
- Survival Prep (http://goldismoney.info/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=141)
- - Don't SHOOT the nuclear weapon (http://goldismoney.info/forums/showthread.php?t=49390)

Alric | 07-28-2006 07:52 PM
Re: Don't SHOOT the nuclear weapon Quote:
Originally Posted by eat_beef (Post 313897) And they didn't release large amounts of dirt into the atmosphere? I guess those mushroom clouds were made of pixie dust. :banghead:
Actually I think they are made of the flamming gasses that a large explosion makes. Though there is dirt in it too but most of that falls to the ground pretty quickly.

Wyldwil | 07-28-2006 08:06 PM
Re: Don't SHOOT the nuclear weapon I'm starting to feel like what is the difference if that region gets nuked or not? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060728/...ZhBHNlYwM3MjE- Maybe that will be only way to get the fighting to finally stop there....make it un-inhabitable so that no one can live there.... I can't believe I'm saying this stuff. But really, I am officially resigned that this will never be solved. Ever.

wallew | 07-28-2006 09:43 PM
Re: Don't SHOOT the nuclear weapon Can ANYONE remember the FIRST Gulf War? The one that Sadam 'lost'. Did he or did he not 'light his world on fire'? Was there or was there not HUGE ecological impacts? So, multiply THAT by what, 1000? 10,000? 100,000? Exactly what TYPE of ecological impact does anyone here THINK that will have? NONE? Think again.

eat_beef | 07-28-2006 10:45 PM
Re: Don't SHOOT the nuclear weapon Book, As of 2004, total US foreign aid was 20.673 billion FRNs. Israel was #2 in payments with 2.62 Billion. Egypt was #3 with 1.87 Afghanistan #4 with 1.77 Jordan had .56, Pakistan .39, Ethiopia .16, Turkey .15, Sudan .14 Oh, almost forgot # 1, with 18.44 billion...........Iraq. So, even when you take out the money being thrown down the "war on terrah" drain, the Arabs are still getting more than the Joos. Thanks for coming out, though. http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/...les/98-916.pdf

tulsamal | 08-01-2006 10:58 PM
Re: Don't SHOOT the nuclear weapon Quote:
Will the other five percent survive? Just because you live out in the boonies or in a small town that does NOT receive a direct strike does NOT mean you will survive the coming two to ten year 'nuclear winter' where the sun is blotted out and the fallout from ALL the nuclear explosions are carried all OVER THE WORLD.
I'm surprised to see someone in 2006 bringing up "nuclear winter." It's a fraud. A hoax. A bunch of non-science created to push a certain political agenda. Nobody says it would be pretty but there won't be a "new ice age." Do a google search and use nuclear winter and then fraud or fake. Something like that. And notice this first article I'm quoting is for a scenario that is FAR more "comprehensive" than what we are likely to see today. http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/showthread.php?t=10912 Quote:
"Bunk is a pretty fair description(of nuclear winter). The "nuclear winter" theory was predicated on a series of hypothetical models that had been constructed by a group of "concerned scientists" lead by Carl Sagan who constructed a computerized model of earth, cranked in a series of hypothetical statistics on the effects of nuclear weapons and then claimed that the results from that model constituted "facts". There were a number of serious problems with this process. One of them was that, when the hypothetical effects of nuclear initiations were cranked into other models of earth, they didn't produce the results Sagan had reported. In fact, the results reported by Sagan's group were only achieved when his particular model of the earth was used. This was a remarkable thing so people looked at Sagan's model to see how it differed from the rest. The answer turned out to be quite simple. The model Sagan had shown to the world press to �prove� the danger of �nuclear winter,� depicted the earth as being a barren ball of rock with no mountains and no oceans. Oceans, as Sagan well knew, act as gigantic energy flywheels that moderate temperature, helping cool adjacent continents in summer and warm them in winter. Sagan, in other words, knowingly committed deliberate scientific fraud. He cooked up a phony computer model to concoct the phony �nuclear winter� results he wanted for political reasons. It subsequently became apparent that he had avoided using the already-available NCAR computer climate model precisely because he knew it would not produce the �nuclear winter� he wanted to sell to gullible journalists and an ignorant public. Once that point had been realized, Sagan's assumptions were examined in greater depth. It turned out that none of the people in his group of "concerned scientists" were nuclear weapons experts. What they'd done was taken some generalist public sources, cherry-picked the ones that suited them and used them without examining how the various nuclear weapons effects interacted. Again, there was a healthy dollop of deliberate scientific fraud here. Where effects didn't give the results required, they were exagerrated or morphed until they did. By the time the critique was over, "nuclear winter" as a concept was totally discredited; today its a touchstone. If somebody starts to spout forth on the dangers of "nuclear winter" they're nutcases. Sagan's credibility never recovered; he never got another hearing from the serious nuclear weapons and policy community. However, one useful thing did come out of all this. In order to examine the probability of Sagan's fairy stories, people cranked real data on nuclear weapons into real atmospheric models. The results were actually quite interesting (there is a novel currently being posted in HPCA called "Anvil of Necessity" which draws on that work). For those who like grim details, the following was the nuclear exchange used as a basis for these studies. The US was presumed to have been hit by 5,800 warheads witha total yield of 3,900 megatons. Nuclear devices initiated in Europe totalled 3,300 with a total yield of 1,200 megatons The USSR was deemed to have been hit by 6,100 devices having a total yield of 1,900 megatons. China got hit by 900 devices witha total yield of 1,300 megatons. By way of comparison in TBO, Germany got hit by 232 devices totalling 8.6 megatons. Other areas receiving at least a dozen warheads include Canada, North and South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Greenland, Puerto Rico, India, Israel, Australia, Guam, Cuba, Syria, and Egypt. Other countries got single devices, mostly on their capitals. Nobody didn't get hit by something. This massive exchange used about half the global strategic and theater nuclear arsenal; about 10% was launched but did not reach a target and 30% was destroyed on the ground. By the time we finished there were 10,000 nuclear weapons left in the arsenals out of the 67,000 that we started with. Initial casualties were 400 million dead; by the time things had worked out, this increased to 1.2 billion. Welcome to my world. The smoke clouds from the fires etc peak three days after the exchange. Essentially, they would spread to form a doughnut shaped band around the world that would essentially cover North America, Europe and the USSR. This smoke (actually, its particulates rather than smoke) cloud consisted of 1,500 million tons of dust, 25 million tons of smoke from vegetation, and 80 million tons of smoke from cities and other manmade sources. It is very important to note that the last type of smoke has the greatest impact: smoke from petroleum and petroleum products is particularly effective at absorbing sunlight. Altogether, about 0.4 cubic km (0.1 cu. mi.) of dust and smoke is in the stratosphere. The general effect (and this is the peak remember) would be to reduce sunlight intensity and temperature by a degree comparable to an overcast day. That's a general comment, if the observer is downwind of a stricken target, the intense plume from the smoke generated by large continuing fires will reduced mid-day light levels to that of twilight. The average peak temperature will be reduced by around 13 degrees F. However, there is a peculiar effect here; average trough temperatures will be increased by roughly the same amount (for exactly the same reason that a cloudy night is warmer than a clear one; the smoke clouds also tend to hold warm air in. That was an effect that Sagan and his crew deliberately suppressed. Within ten days, the smoke/particulate concentration would decline rapidly although smoke in the upper atmosphere still absorbs much sunlight. The primary effect ceased to become temperature and the gross temperature changes would already be a thing of the past. Instead, the patchyness of the initiation effects would cause unusual weather conditions including strong winds in some coastal areas (in effect we've dumped huge amounts of energy into the climatoscene and that starts to work its way out). A curious predictable phenomena is that dense fogs would develop over the oceans and along waterways. Another interesting effect is that the ozone layer would be reduced by nearly half yet nearly all of the Earth's surface would receive less solar ultraviolet radiation than before the war. The reason is curious; although smoke levels would be dropping rapidly, there would now be a thin veil of very fine high altitude particulates that effectively act as a block to UV radiation. The sunsets will be incredibly beautiful. Twenty days after the nuclear exchange climatic effects would have peaked. By this time, areas alongside seas, oceans and other large bodies of water would have effectively returned to their pre-exchange temperature sets. High-altitude areas woudl actually be warmer than before the exchange, sometimes dramatically so. At an altitude of 40,000 feet, the air termperature would be no less than 70 degrees F higher than normal (!!!) Surface temperatures far inland will drop by around 20 degrees F but this is a transient phenomena. The critical thing is light level; although the veil of fine high-altitude dust doesn't have a critical temperature effect, it cuts light levels by around 25 percent, ensuring that crops fail. Within three months, temperature effects are virtually over. Worldwide, peak temperatures will have been reduced by, at most, 2 degrees F while trough will be increased by the same amount. This will shorten crop growing seasons a bit but since the crops are failing anyway it won't make much difference. This temperature change will persist for two or three years. by which time the atmosphere will have been purged of dust and smoke. The best way to describe the real climate change would be that a state of "nuclear autumn" would become widespread. In other words both the high and low ends of the temperature spectrum would be shaved so that things tend to the "median" situation." __________________

wallew | 08-01-2006 11:25 PM
Re: Don't SHOOT the nuclear weapon Quote:
Originally Posted by tulsamal (Post 317910) I'm surprised to see someone in 2006 bringing up "nuclear winter." It's a fraud. A hoax. A bunch of non-science created to push a certain political agenda. Nobody says it would be pretty but there won't be a "new ice age." Do a google search and use nuclear winter and then fraud or fake. Something like that. And notice this first article I'm quoting is for a scenario that is FAR more "comprehensive" than what we are likely to see today.
Not trying to 'twist your tale' as it were. But were you ANYWHERE NEAR Portland, Oregon when the ONE volcano erupted back in the mid 1980's? My inlaws were living just outside Portland. They say it rained ash for more than three days. I have friends of mine who were/are pilots. And they told me that ash went well above 35000 ft and was pushed via the jetstream halfway across the country. And that was all from ONE volcano. EXACTLY what do you THINK will happen if all the crazies (including those here in the US) who think they can 'survive' a nuclear holocost just 'let it rip'? And kindly remember that IF you are crazy enough to start a nuclear war, you ain't gonna leave any in the silos for a second strike. Because there won't be ANYTHING LEFT to strike the second time around. So you think what would occur if all the nations in the world launched ALL their nuclear weapons at each other? Trust me when I say that ONE VOLCANO erupting in the NW will be PEANUTS consider how much dirt will be BLOWN UP into the air with what 10,000 nuclear devices set off all over the world? Don't like that number? Then how about 1000 nuclear weapons set off. Let me give you a hint. Current US Boomer subs carry a MINIMUM of 24 missles. EACH MISSLE has a MRV warhead on it that can target a minmium of 16 targets each. TIMES how ever many US boomers we have. And that DOES NOT take into account all the land based 'Patriot' missiles. AND CERTAINLY DOES NOT take into account everybody ELSE'S nuclear arsenal. Trust me, it ain't gonna last long and it won't be pretty. And the AMOUNT of nuclear dirt/dust forced into the air is INCALCULABLE. NO ONE KNOWS FOR SURE how much dirt and dust will be blown up into the air. GO LOOK at the map of RUSSIA of how large a plot of land was covered by nuclear dust and debris from the fall out of the explosion of ONE nuclear powerplant. Then multiply that by 1000. OR 10,000. OR ONE MILLION. So much for NO nuclear winter.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:19 AM. |
Page 2 of 2 | < | 1 | 2
Show 30 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright = None use it and Link to GIM