G
Guest
Guest
On April 12th! HAHA, i am older than you!
Nagasaki/Hiroshima 1945
- Thread starter DarkUnderlord
- Start date
G
Guest
Guest
RE: Please get to the point!
Okay, here is a list of what i think would be the targets in a nuclear war against the USA: Primary targets: Washington D.C, Military headquarters. Secondary targets: All state capitals, missile silos, military airfields, naval bases. Tertiary targets: communication satelites. So most targets would probably against the military and the government, not the people.
Respect everyone, fear no one.
Okay, here is a list of what i think would be the targets in a nuclear war against the USA: Primary targets: Washington D.C, Military headquarters. Secondary targets: All state capitals, missile silos, military airfields, naval bases. Tertiary targets: communication satelites. So most targets would probably against the military and the government, not the people.
Respect everyone, fear no one.
K
Kilroy
Guest
RE: Effects of a nuclear war
I don't think that someone would target large cities just because they're large but many major cities in the US has some form of miltary base in or in the outskirts of it. Look in the "Myth's and facts of nuclear war" and it's there. What I ment was that if a country would be invaded it sure as hell would be bombed with normal weapons like tanks and airplanes. Look at Berlin, London and Beirut for an example. And if you in your little hometown don't have a power plant but the next town have one and all the power lines are down wouldn't you think that a good idea is to take over that plant. OR if they suddenly turned off the power what would you do then? I don't say that someone would target civilans but why shouldn't they? Maybe not with nikes but normal weapons. It takes alot of resources to help the wounded and rebuild the destroyed bulidings. And it lowers the moral. And Xotor, If nuclear weapons aren't as dangerous as everyone think, how do you explain the Gulf War/Bosnia War syndrome?
And would someone please start a new thread, this one's getting to large.
[div align=center]
http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
"Call me a vagabond, and I'll smile. Call me a thief, and I'll laugh. Call me a liar, and I feed you your liver."
I don't think that someone would target large cities just because they're large but many major cities in the US has some form of miltary base in or in the outskirts of it. Look in the "Myth's and facts of nuclear war" and it's there. What I ment was that if a country would be invaded it sure as hell would be bombed with normal weapons like tanks and airplanes. Look at Berlin, London and Beirut for an example. And if you in your little hometown don't have a power plant but the next town have one and all the power lines are down wouldn't you think that a good idea is to take over that plant. OR if they suddenly turned off the power what would you do then? I don't say that someone would target civilans but why shouldn't they? Maybe not with nikes but normal weapons. It takes alot of resources to help the wounded and rebuild the destroyed bulidings. And it lowers the moral. And Xotor, If nuclear weapons aren't as dangerous as everyone think, how do you explain the Gulf War/Bosnia War syndrome?
And would someone please start a new thread, this one's getting to large.
[div align=center]
http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
"Call me a vagabond, and I'll smile. Call me a thief, and I'll laugh. Call me a liar, and I feed you your liver."
K
Kilroy
Guest
RE: Please get to the point!
It works to starve an army out of your country, but not JUST that. Look at the nazis with their blietzkrieg. It worked fine in France where the nice frenchmen had buildt highways all the way from the border to their capital. In Russia it didn't work that good. Why? Because Russia didn't have good roads so the nazis couldn't get supplies to the front lines so their armies starved.
[div align=center]
http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
"Call me a vagabond, and I'll smile. Call me a thief, and I'll laugh. Call me a liar, and I feed you your liver."
It works to starve an army out of your country, but not JUST that. Look at the nazis with their blietzkrieg. It worked fine in France where the nice frenchmen had buildt highways all the way from the border to their capital. In Russia it didn't work that good. Why? Because Russia didn't have good roads so the nazis couldn't get supplies to the front lines so their armies starved.
[div align=center]
http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
"Call me a vagabond, and I'll smile. Call me a thief, and I'll laugh. Call me a liar, and I feed you your liver."
G
Gadro
Guest
RE: Effects of a nuclear war
Just an example in FO2 : Reno (=civilians) wasnt bomb with nuclear but with regulars bombs.
Just an example in FO2 : Reno (=civilians) wasnt bomb with nuclear but with regulars bombs.
G
Gadro
Guest
RE: Please get to the point!
Highways ? Haha ! we havent got highways for a long time ! maybe 40 or 45 years only (after WW2) we have regionals roads. But it's true for Russia. Furthermore, when Hitler strike France, we didnt do many things... (Why ? it's another question
)
Highways ? Haha ! we havent got highways for a long time ! maybe 40 or 45 years only (after WW2) we have regionals roads. But it's true for Russia. Furthermore, when Hitler strike France, we didnt do many things... (Why ? it's another question
)
G
Guest
Guest
RE: Please get to the point!
Everyone is pushing the importance of the military targets and that is true. However, Major infrastructure would also be of priority... this includes government, major commercial centers, and anything that acts as a transportation hub.
And in the case of a nuclear war your not going to hold back and plan your second coming. If the enemy launches you go out with the goal to assure mutual destruction. "it dosn't matter if we are crippled because so are they..."
well thats my opinion... and its not like i am nuclear strategist.
Everyone is pushing the importance of the military targets and that is true. However, Major infrastructure would also be of priority... this includes government, major commercial centers, and anything that acts as a transportation hub.
And in the case of a nuclear war your not going to hold back and plan your second coming. If the enemy launches you go out with the goal to assure mutual destruction. "it dosn't matter if we are crippled because so are they..."
well thats my opinion... and its not like i am nuclear strategist.
G
Guest
Guest
RE: Please get to the point!
Has anyone here thought of the possible consequences of all the EMP blasts that would go of in a nuclear war? Wouldn't that fry most of the computers and electronic devices in the USA? And wouldn't the communications networks be pretty much fucked? What kind of effect would this have, Xotor?
Has anyone here thought of the possible consequences of all the EMP blasts that would go of in a nuclear war? Wouldn't that fry most of the computers and electronic devices in the USA? And wouldn't the communications networks be pretty much fucked? What kind of effect would this have, Xotor?
Hmm.
Xotor, what you are saying is 99.9% the same what I was saying on FALLOUT.RU forum
Except for the following:
Nuking the cities
You seem to know history very well, Xotor. Tell me, how many accidents with nuclear weapons America had? How many dumb mistakes with the war strategy they had? And the whole nuclear strategy - for 'sakes, they put MATHEMATICIANS do the POLITICIANS' job! I'm not saying that somebody will put a missile with megaton-class warhead on all major cities, but hey - kiloton-class warheads are retiring, why not put them in MIRV (if they weren't put out of use by whats-it-called treaty)? Shouldn't that be cheaper? Can't some dumb-ass general give a green light on it? Sure, it's wasteful, but that's why there is People Against Stupidity. You can't guarantee that there wouldn't be some Cold War schizo giving orders.
Nuclear Winter
Although I agree with you on 100%, it seems that many people forget that Nuclear Winter is not only "muchroom dust", but also burning forests (from nearby explosions). Again, I agree that winter is impossible (though local change of climate - definitely. Brief example - when a dam was built in my home city, it became colder).
Radiation particles
Yes, it's mostly just dust that should come down from atmosphere before it can do any damage, but when it comes down on your corn field, what are you gonna do about it? How many rains will it take to wash it away? And how long will it take? Starvation, IMHO, is a serious threat.
Internet
As I understand, servers are located in cities? So unless explosion will damage 'backbones' and trans-Atlantic communication, there shouldn't be much of the damage to it (admit it, much of the Internet is in America).
You're talking a lot about what will happen if US does this, if Russia does that, if, if, if... If there will be global-scale nuclear war... You can't be sure what will happen. I don't believe in global-scale nuclear war. I don't think destruction will be world-wide.
Xotor, what you are saying is 99.9% the same what I was saying on FALLOUT.RU forum
Except for the following:
Nuking the cities
You seem to know history very well, Xotor. Tell me, how many accidents with nuclear weapons America had? How many dumb mistakes with the war strategy they had? And the whole nuclear strategy - for 'sakes, they put MATHEMATICIANS do the POLITICIANS' job! I'm not saying that somebody will put a missile with megaton-class warhead on all major cities, but hey - kiloton-class warheads are retiring, why not put them in MIRV (if they weren't put out of use by whats-it-called treaty)? Shouldn't that be cheaper? Can't some dumb-ass general give a green light on it? Sure, it's wasteful, but that's why there is People Against Stupidity. You can't guarantee that there wouldn't be some Cold War schizo giving orders.
Nuclear Winter
Although I agree with you on 100%, it seems that many people forget that Nuclear Winter is not only "muchroom dust", but also burning forests (from nearby explosions). Again, I agree that winter is impossible (though local change of climate - definitely. Brief example - when a dam was built in my home city, it became colder).
Radiation particles
Yes, it's mostly just dust that should come down from atmosphere before it can do any damage, but when it comes down on your corn field, what are you gonna do about it? How many rains will it take to wash it away? And how long will it take? Starvation, IMHO, is a serious threat.
Internet
As I understand, servers are located in cities? So unless explosion will damage 'backbones' and trans-Atlantic communication, there shouldn't be much of the damage to it (admit it, much of the Internet is in America).
You're talking a lot about what will happen if US does this, if Russia does that, if, if, if... If there will be global-scale nuclear war... You can't be sure what will happen. I don't believe in global-scale nuclear war. I don't think destruction will be world-wide.
[img align=center" src="//redrival.com/aptyp/ftclogo-t.gif] |
[font color=#DDDDDD]Íå îñòàëîñü íè ñèë îùóùåíèÿ áîëè [font color=#CCCCCC]Òîñêîé èçúåäåíà äóøà êàê ëè÷èíêàìè ìîëè [font color=#BBBBBB]Âñå êàòèòñÿ â ïðîïàñòü ïðè÷åì óæå íå â ïåðâûé ðàç [font color=#AAAAAA]È ðàâåí íóëþ ñìûñë äðóæåñêèõ ôðàç [font color=#999999]Âñå êîìó-òî ïîäàðåíî ïîòåðÿíî ïðîäàíî [font color=#888888]È ñåðäöå êðîâüþ îáëèòîå çà óæèíîì ïîäàíî [font color=#777777]Îñòàëàñü òîëüêî ãðÿçü íà äíå êàðìàíîâ îäåæä [font color=#666666]È êàêîå-òî ÷óâñòâî ÷òî-òî âðîäå íàäåæäû [font color=#666666]Íàäåæäà ñàìîîáìàí íî ýòî âñå ÷òî ó íàñ åñòü [font color=#777777]Îíà õîäèò ïî ðóêàì ïðîäàâàÿ ñâîþ ÷åñòü [font color=#888888]Ýòà ëæèâàÿ òâàðü ïûëü ïóñêàåò â ãëàçà [font color=#999999]Èñ÷åçàÿ â òîò ìîìåíò êîãäà îíà òàê íóæíà [font color=#AAAAAA]Îíà áóäåò óõîäèòü è âîçâðàùàòüñÿ ìíîãî ðàç [font color=#BBBBBB]Âñåãäà äåðæà íà ðàññòîÿíèè çàâåòíûé àëìàç [font color=#CCCCCC]ß áåç íàäåæäû óáèò òîñêîé íàâûëåò ïðîñòðåëåí [font color=#DDDDDD]Ïîòîìó ÷òî ÿ íàäåÿëñÿ à íå áûë óâåðåí |
G
Guest
Guest
RE: Effects of a nuclear war
>I don't think that someone would
>target large cities just because
>they're large but many major
>cities in the US has
>some form of miltary base
>in or in the outskirts
>of it. Look in the
>"Myth's and facts of nuclear
>war" and it's there. What
>I ment was that if
>a country would be invaded
>it sure as hell would
>be bombed with normal weapons
>like tanks and airplanes. Look
>at Berlin, London and Beirut
>for an example.
Those cities were *centers of operations* for those countries. However we are living in the 21st century where command centers are located all over countries, some invisible to recon. Sure, the Pentagon has a lot of military commanders, but do you actually believe that in the prescence of a nuclear war, any of the *real* operations would be held at that location due to the threat of a nuke landing there?
The world was a LOT different back then.
>And if
>you in your little hometown
>don't have a power plant
>but the next town have
>one and all the power
>lines are down wouldn't you
>think that a good idea
>is to take over that
>plant.
Kilroy, you need to realize that most countries rely on what is known as a "power grid" where power plants work together to produce power and prevent downtime. This is also why the price of electrical power is relatively low. Because of the grid, the "mass production" of power makes it cheap, but when power must be bought on the "open market" it is expensive, as what is happening in the Californian energy crisis. It also explains why my state, Utah, is also concerned with California's energy grid, because the Mountain West is essentially interconnected.
The funny thing is that California's energy crisis is not because they are using so much power, but that three power plants simultaneously went down at once, probably a ploy by the power companies to earn some profits from the public's hysteria. The state of California is considering suing the power companies for creating the crisis for their own gain.
Now what happens if San Francisco goes up in a mushroom cloud? More power for the rest of the Mountain West. Therefore unless a country plans on wasting their nukes hitting every powerplan in existence, they're not going to "down" a country.
>don't say that someone would
>target civilans but why shouldn't
>they? Maybe not with
>nikes but normal weapons. It
>takes alot of resources to
>help the wounded and rebuild
>the destroyed bulidings.
*Ahem*, you don't seem to understand that civilians are a WASTE OF TIME. Not only does killing civilians produce bad publicity in your country unless you block out the news, but more importantly, your munitions could be better spent taking out the enemy's military might more quickly.
Let me get this straight, you actually believe that a country would lob their million-dollar apiece nukes at residential zones in order to decrease moral when they could lob that same nuke at a battleship which is consequently *closer* to your country than the enemy's cities?
>And it
>lowers the moral. And Xotor,
>If nuclear weapons aren't as
>dangerous as everyone think, how
>do you explain the Gulf
>War/Bosnia War syndrome?
>And would someone please start a
>new thread, this one's getting
>to large.
Depleted uranium shells are far more concentrated than the fallout of a nuclear weapon provided that the nuclear weapon strikes the ground at all. The shells are essentially intact, and rather than simply making the particles radioactive from the emittion of neutrons from a blast, you are dealing with the raw radioactive element itself, and not only that, reactor-grade pure uranium.
Read my other post also.
-Xotor-
[div align=center]
http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
>I don't think that someone would
>target large cities just because
>they're large but many major
>cities in the US has
>some form of miltary base
>in or in the outskirts
>of it. Look in the
>"Myth's and facts of nuclear
>war" and it's there. What
>I ment was that if
>a country would be invaded
>it sure as hell would
>be bombed with normal weapons
>like tanks and airplanes. Look
>at Berlin, London and Beirut
>for an example.
Those cities were *centers of operations* for those countries. However we are living in the 21st century where command centers are located all over countries, some invisible to recon. Sure, the Pentagon has a lot of military commanders, but do you actually believe that in the prescence of a nuclear war, any of the *real* operations would be held at that location due to the threat of a nuke landing there?
The world was a LOT different back then.
>And if
>you in your little hometown
>don't have a power plant
>but the next town have
>one and all the power
>lines are down wouldn't you
>think that a good idea
>is to take over that
>plant.
Kilroy, you need to realize that most countries rely on what is known as a "power grid" where power plants work together to produce power and prevent downtime. This is also why the price of electrical power is relatively low. Because of the grid, the "mass production" of power makes it cheap, but when power must be bought on the "open market" it is expensive, as what is happening in the Californian energy crisis. It also explains why my state, Utah, is also concerned with California's energy grid, because the Mountain West is essentially interconnected.
The funny thing is that California's energy crisis is not because they are using so much power, but that three power plants simultaneously went down at once, probably a ploy by the power companies to earn some profits from the public's hysteria. The state of California is considering suing the power companies for creating the crisis for their own gain.
Now what happens if San Francisco goes up in a mushroom cloud? More power for the rest of the Mountain West. Therefore unless a country plans on wasting their nukes hitting every powerplan in existence, they're not going to "down" a country.
>don't say that someone would
>target civilans but why shouldn't
>they? Maybe not with
>nikes but normal weapons. It
>takes alot of resources to
>help the wounded and rebuild
>the destroyed bulidings.
*Ahem*, you don't seem to understand that civilians are a WASTE OF TIME. Not only does killing civilians produce bad publicity in your country unless you block out the news, but more importantly, your munitions could be better spent taking out the enemy's military might more quickly.
Let me get this straight, you actually believe that a country would lob their million-dollar apiece nukes at residential zones in order to decrease moral when they could lob that same nuke at a battleship which is consequently *closer* to your country than the enemy's cities?
>And it
>lowers the moral. And Xotor,
>If nuclear weapons aren't as
>dangerous as everyone think, how
>do you explain the Gulf
>War/Bosnia War syndrome?
>And would someone please start a
>new thread, this one's getting
>to large.
Depleted uranium shells are far more concentrated than the fallout of a nuclear weapon provided that the nuclear weapon strikes the ground at all. The shells are essentially intact, and rather than simply making the particles radioactive from the emittion of neutrons from a blast, you are dealing with the raw radioactive element itself, and not only that, reactor-grade pure uranium.
Read my other post also.
-Xotor-
[div align=center]
http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
G
Guest
Guest
RE: Please get to the point!
>It works to starve an army
>out of your country, but
>not JUST that. Look at
>the nazis with their blietzkrieg.
>It worked fine in France
>where the nice frenchmen had
>buildt highways all the way
>from the border to their
>capital. In Russia it didn't
>work that good. Why? Because
>Russia didn't have good roads
>so the nazis couldn't get
>supplies to the front lines
>so their armies starved.
Gee, and Napoleon's army suffered for the same reasons.. but that was a LONG TIME AGO. Kilroy, WW2 was a completely different situation than any modern war now. Think about what it was like back then: food was transfered by *trains*, troops *marched* into cities, tanks were the *staple* of the armies, the airforces consisted of planes with *propellers*, catch the drift?
You cannot judge tomorrow's wars by yesterday's standards. Today, ground troops are used to *maintain* the peace *AFTER* the long range weapons take out the enemy. So dependant on our technology nowadays for war that the United States used something like 300 cruise missiles at $1 million dollars apiece in that relatively minor "war" of Kosovo (or was it Iraq?) just so we didn't have to expend the lives of American troops, which we did not. Now do you expect me to believe that starvation will really be an issue? If anything the troops will be on standby within their OWN country.
So trivial is the "food" argument that you may find it amusing that some Iraqi troops actually *wanted* to be captured by American forces because they were treated to much better food and conditions.
-Xotor-
[div align=center]
http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
>It works to starve an army
>out of your country, but
>not JUST that. Look at
>the nazis with their blietzkrieg.
>It worked fine in France
>where the nice frenchmen had
>buildt highways all the way
>from the border to their
>capital. In Russia it didn't
>work that good. Why? Because
>Russia didn't have good roads
>so the nazis couldn't get
>supplies to the front lines
>so their armies starved.
Gee, and Napoleon's army suffered for the same reasons.. but that was a LONG TIME AGO. Kilroy, WW2 was a completely different situation than any modern war now. Think about what it was like back then: food was transfered by *trains*, troops *marched* into cities, tanks were the *staple* of the armies, the airforces consisted of planes with *propellers*, catch the drift?
You cannot judge tomorrow's wars by yesterday's standards. Today, ground troops are used to *maintain* the peace *AFTER* the long range weapons take out the enemy. So dependant on our technology nowadays for war that the United States used something like 300 cruise missiles at $1 million dollars apiece in that relatively minor "war" of Kosovo (or was it Iraq?) just so we didn't have to expend the lives of American troops, which we did not. Now do you expect me to believe that starvation will really be an issue? If anything the troops will be on standby within their OWN country.
So trivial is the "food" argument that you may find it amusing that some Iraqi troops actually *wanted* to be captured by American forces because they were treated to much better food and conditions.
-Xotor-
[div align=center]
http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
G
Guest
Guest
RE: Please get to the point!
>Okay, here is a list of
>what i think would be
>the targets in a nuclear
>war against the USA: Primary
>targets: Washington D.C, Military headquarters.
>Secondary targets: All state capitals,
>missile silos, military airfields, naval
>bases. Tertiary targets: communication satelites.
>So most targets would probably
>against the military and the
>government, not the people.
The only reason Washington DC would be targetted would be simply for ceremonial value, "gee I killed their capitol." Realistically, most nukes are targetted at military targets, not state capitols (big deal) or big cities. People are a big waste of resources to kill, it's like trying to kill a country by attacking their trees, it is worthless.
-Xotor-
[div align=center]
http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
>Okay, here is a list of
>what i think would be
>the targets in a nuclear
>war against the USA: Primary
>targets: Washington D.C, Military headquarters.
>Secondary targets: All state capitals,
>missile silos, military airfields, naval
>bases. Tertiary targets: communication satelites.
>So most targets would probably
>against the military and the
>government, not the people.
The only reason Washington DC would be targetted would be simply for ceremonial value, "gee I killed their capitol." Realistically, most nukes are targetted at military targets, not state capitols (big deal) or big cities. People are a big waste of resources to kill, it's like trying to kill a country by attacking their trees, it is worthless.
-Xotor-
[div align=center]
http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
G
Guest
Guest
RE: Please get to the point!
>Everyone is pushing the importance of
>the military targets and that
>is true. However, Major infrastructure
>would also be of priority...
>this includes government, major commercial
>centers, and anything that acts
>as a transportation hub.
>
>And in the case of a
>nuclear war your not going
>to hold back and plan
>your second coming. If the
>enemy launches you go out
>with the goal to assure
>mutual destruction. "it dosn't matter
>if we are crippled because
>so are they..."
>
>well thats my opinion... and its
>not like i am nuclear
>strategist.
That was the idea of the Cold War, that if one country pushed the button, the planet would go up in fire. However that was more of a scare tactic than anything. Why bother hitting cities when you can hit their nuke silos and airfields? Does hitting their large cities really accomplish anything other than make you feel good? No. Because those are wasted nukes, nukes that could be used to wipe out the invading navy or knock out their communication systems. Even in a full-out nuclear war, the nukes could be better used. Why not level the enemy's nuclear silo system? How about their harbors? Because you're still in the same boat if you kill their cities as when you don't.
And what happens when the enemy launches everything they've got at you, but you wisely took out their military might? That means that whatever you have left, you can use to your advantage. The other country would be essentially defenseless, and you, with your spared arsenal, hidden inside mountains that the other country did not notice, would have the upper hand, and also with the advantage that you have *something* to take over: the enemy's undestroyed cities, the commercial infrastructure ready for new leadership. Essentially an all-out nuclear was better destroy the world, or be limited, because the person with the last of the nukes and army is going to inherit the planet, whatever remains that is.
-Xotor-
[div align=center]
http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
>Everyone is pushing the importance of
>the military targets and that
>is true. However, Major infrastructure
>would also be of priority...
>this includes government, major commercial
>centers, and anything that acts
>as a transportation hub.
>
>And in the case of a
>nuclear war your not going
>to hold back and plan
>your second coming. If the
>enemy launches you go out
>with the goal to assure
>mutual destruction. "it dosn't matter
>if we are crippled because
>so are they..."
>
>well thats my opinion... and its
>not like i am nuclear
>strategist.
That was the idea of the Cold War, that if one country pushed the button, the planet would go up in fire. However that was more of a scare tactic than anything. Why bother hitting cities when you can hit their nuke silos and airfields? Does hitting their large cities really accomplish anything other than make you feel good? No. Because those are wasted nukes, nukes that could be used to wipe out the invading navy or knock out their communication systems. Even in a full-out nuclear war, the nukes could be better used. Why not level the enemy's nuclear silo system? How about their harbors? Because you're still in the same boat if you kill their cities as when you don't.
And what happens when the enemy launches everything they've got at you, but you wisely took out their military might? That means that whatever you have left, you can use to your advantage. The other country would be essentially defenseless, and you, with your spared arsenal, hidden inside mountains that the other country did not notice, would have the upper hand, and also with the advantage that you have *something* to take over: the enemy's undestroyed cities, the commercial infrastructure ready for new leadership. Essentially an all-out nuclear was better destroy the world, or be limited, because the person with the last of the nukes and army is going to inherit the planet, whatever remains that is.
-Xotor-
[div align=center]
http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
G
Guest
Guest
RE: Please get to the point!
>Has anyone here thought of the
>possible consequences of all the
>EMP blasts that would go
>of in a nuclear war?
>Wouldn't that fry most of
>the computers and electronic devices
>in the USA? And wouldn't
>the communications networks be pretty
>much fucked? What kind of
>effect would this have, Xotor?
EMP bombs are actually quite effective. However you need to detonate the weapon (preferably large > 1MT) high in the atmosphere, around 500km. The pulse(s) would have a dramatic effect on unshielded wires and sensitive electronics.
A couple EMP pulse missiles, those specially designed to emit large amounts of electromagnetic radiation rather than explosive power would probably be the first step in launching a nuclear attack, as it would "short circuit" the attacked nation.
For more info, read http://www.fas.org/nuke/hew/Nwfaq/Nfaq5.html
-Xotor-
[div align=center]
http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
>Has anyone here thought of the
>possible consequences of all the
>EMP blasts that would go
>of in a nuclear war?
>Wouldn't that fry most of
>the computers and electronic devices
>in the USA? And wouldn't
>the communications networks be pretty
>much fucked? What kind of
>effect would this have, Xotor?
EMP bombs are actually quite effective. However you need to detonate the weapon (preferably large > 1MT) high in the atmosphere, around 500km. The pulse(s) would have a dramatic effect on unshielded wires and sensitive electronics.
A couple EMP pulse missiles, those specially designed to emit large amounts of electromagnetic radiation rather than explosive power would probably be the first step in launching a nuclear attack, as it would "short circuit" the attacked nation.
For more info, read http://www.fas.org/nuke/hew/Nwfaq/Nfaq5.html
-Xotor-
[div align=center]
http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
G
Guest
Guest
RE: Hmm.
>Nuking the cities
>You seem to know history very
>well, Xotor. Tell me, how
>many accidents with nuclear weapons
>America had? How many dumb
>mistakes with the war strategy
>they had? And the whole
>nuclear strategy - for 'sakes,
>they put MATHEMATICIANS do the
>POLITICIANS' job! I'm not saying
>that somebody will put a
>missile with megaton-class warhead on
>all major cities, but hey
>- kiloton-class warheads are retiring,
>why not put them in
>MIRV (if they weren't put
>out of use by whats-it-called
>treaty)? Shouldn't that be cheaper?
>Can't some dumb-ass general give
>a green light on it?
>Sure, it's wasteful, but that's
>why there is People Against
>Stupidity. You can't guarantee that
>there wouldn't be some Cold
>War schizo giving orders.
Retired nuclear weapons aren't worth cramming into MIRVs, they are old technology, sometimes they don't work right, and hell, they're usually heavier and less potent than modern upgraded weapons.
Oh I'm sure that there are some nukes poised to hit major cities, but realistically, if any capable general was to choose between nuking a city and killing a carrier, he's obviously going to take out the carrier. And yeah, there *are* probably some morons who want to see the enemy's cities burn, but for the most part, that is not going to happen, and those nukes would be better used to hit tactical targets, and every general knows that.
>Nuclear Winter
>Although I agree with you on
>100%, it seems that many
>people forget that Nuclear Winter
>is not only "muchroom dust",
>but also burning forests (from
>nearby explosions). Again, I agree
>that winter is impossible (though
>local change of climate -
>definitely. Brief example - when
>a dam was built in
>my home city, it became
>colder).
Or rather burning cities. You need a volcano and a large one at that, to discharge any notable amounts of particles, enough to cause any noticable temperature change.
>Radiation particles
>Yes, it's mostly just dust that
>should come down from atmosphere
>before it can do any
>damage, but when it comes
>down on your corn field,
>what are you gonna do
>about it? How many rains
>will it take to wash
>it away? And how long
>will it take? Starvation, IMHO,
>is a serious threat.
Most farming is automated, and removing that earth is as simple a matter as getting out the tractor and attaching the bulldozer plow to the front of it. And do you really expect that fallout radiation will drift as far as to really affect major agriculture centers or that any nukes would land in the area? Why do you think that many nuclear silos are hidden in farming land? Because #1, it is unsuspecting, #2, it is easily hidable, and most importantly, #3, there is a HELL OF A LOT OF LAND.
Now starvation where the transportation infrastructure has been destroyed would be a problem, like cities near a military base, but provided that transportation is re-established, starvation would not last very long.
In Hiroshima, many people starved only because the truck drivers refused to transport food into the region.
>You're talking a lot about what
>will happen if US does
>this, if Russia does that,
>if, if, if... If there
>will be global-scale nuclear war...
>You can't be sure what
>will happen. I don't believe
>in global-scale nuclear war. I
>don't think destruction will be
>world-wide.
I don't believe that there will ever be a nuclear war, except maybe some small nation will launch one on another small nation, but global-scale, no. What needs to be built is a global anti-missile satellite system maintained by an international agency to shoot down any nuclear weapon no matter what the nation. That will be the end of the nuclear threat.
I also believe that WWIII will either never happen, or that when and if it does, the world will be going downhill anyway.
-Xotor-
[div align=center]
http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
>Nuking the cities
>You seem to know history very
>well, Xotor. Tell me, how
>many accidents with nuclear weapons
>America had? How many dumb
>mistakes with the war strategy
>they had? And the whole
>nuclear strategy - for 'sakes,
>they put MATHEMATICIANS do the
>POLITICIANS' job! I'm not saying
>that somebody will put a
>missile with megaton-class warhead on
>all major cities, but hey
>- kiloton-class warheads are retiring,
>why not put them in
>MIRV (if they weren't put
>out of use by whats-it-called
>treaty)? Shouldn't that be cheaper?
>Can't some dumb-ass general give
>a green light on it?
>Sure, it's wasteful, but that's
>why there is People Against
>Stupidity. You can't guarantee that
>there wouldn't be some Cold
>War schizo giving orders.
Retired nuclear weapons aren't worth cramming into MIRVs, they are old technology, sometimes they don't work right, and hell, they're usually heavier and less potent than modern upgraded weapons.
Oh I'm sure that there are some nukes poised to hit major cities, but realistically, if any capable general was to choose between nuking a city and killing a carrier, he's obviously going to take out the carrier. And yeah, there *are* probably some morons who want to see the enemy's cities burn, but for the most part, that is not going to happen, and those nukes would be better used to hit tactical targets, and every general knows that.
>Nuclear Winter
>Although I agree with you on
>100%, it seems that many
>people forget that Nuclear Winter
>is not only "muchroom dust",
>but also burning forests (from
>nearby explosions). Again, I agree
>that winter is impossible (though
>local change of climate -
>definitely. Brief example - when
>a dam was built in
>my home city, it became
>colder).
Or rather burning cities. You need a volcano and a large one at that, to discharge any notable amounts of particles, enough to cause any noticable temperature change.
>Radiation particles
>Yes, it's mostly just dust that
>should come down from atmosphere
>before it can do any
>damage, but when it comes
>down on your corn field,
>what are you gonna do
>about it? How many rains
>will it take to wash
>it away? And how long
>will it take? Starvation, IMHO,
>is a serious threat.
Most farming is automated, and removing that earth is as simple a matter as getting out the tractor and attaching the bulldozer plow to the front of it. And do you really expect that fallout radiation will drift as far as to really affect major agriculture centers or that any nukes would land in the area? Why do you think that many nuclear silos are hidden in farming land? Because #1, it is unsuspecting, #2, it is easily hidable, and most importantly, #3, there is a HELL OF A LOT OF LAND.
Now starvation where the transportation infrastructure has been destroyed would be a problem, like cities near a military base, but provided that transportation is re-established, starvation would not last very long.
In Hiroshima, many people starved only because the truck drivers refused to transport food into the region.
>You're talking a lot about what
>will happen if US does
>this, if Russia does that,
>if, if, if... If there
>will be global-scale nuclear war...
>You can't be sure what
>will happen. I don't believe
>in global-scale nuclear war. I
>don't think destruction will be
>world-wide.
I don't believe that there will ever be a nuclear war, except maybe some small nation will launch one on another small nation, but global-scale, no. What needs to be built is a global anti-missile satellite system maintained by an international agency to shoot down any nuclear weapon no matter what the nation. That will be the end of the nuclear threat.
I also believe that WWIII will either never happen, or that when and if it does, the world will be going downhill anyway.
-Xotor-
[div align=center]
http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
G
Guest
Guest
RE: Please get to the point!
If Washington D.C was destroyed by saboteurs from the enemy before the launch of the nuclear ICBMs, then there would be no government, no organization. Also, in most nuclear wars you would expect to see your own country being blasted by nuclear weapons. And who wins? A country with no army, or a country with neither government nor much of an army?
If Washington D.C was destroyed by saboteurs from the enemy before the launch of the nuclear ICBMs, then there would be no government, no organization. Also, in most nuclear wars you would expect to see your own country being blasted by nuclear weapons. And who wins? A country with no army, or a country with neither government nor much of an army?
G
Gadro
Guest
RE: Effects of a nuclear war
[font size=1" color="#FF0000]LAST EDITED ON Jan-19-01 AT 09:47AM (GMT)[p]>*Ahem*, you don't seem to understand that civilians are a WASTE
>OF TIME. Not only does killing civilians produce bad publicity
>in your country unless you block out the news, but more
>importantly, your munitions could be better spent taking out
>the enemy's military might more quickly.
Well, at the end of the 2nd WW, allies striked Dresde in germany, which was only a civilian city, with no military and no industrial facilities. It was just because they want a "revenge" of the nazis' strikes. For 18hours there were a bombs' rain.
So civilian are targets sometime. Ok, this example is an extreme one, but they are sometimes...
[font size=1" color="#FF0000]LAST EDITED ON Jan-19-01 AT 09:47AM (GMT)[p]>*Ahem*, you don't seem to understand that civilians are a WASTE
>OF TIME. Not only does killing civilians produce bad publicity
>in your country unless you block out the news, but more
>importantly, your munitions could be better spent taking out
>the enemy's military might more quickly.
Well, at the end of the 2nd WW, allies striked Dresde in germany, which was only a civilian city, with no military and no industrial facilities. It was just because they want a "revenge" of the nazis' strikes. For 18hours there were a bombs' rain.
So civilian are targets sometime. Ok, this example is an extreme one, but they are sometimes...
RE: Hmm.
> Most farming is automated, and removing that earth is as
> simple a matter as getting out the tractor and attaching the
> bulldozer plow to the front of it. And do you really expect
> that fallout radiation will drift as far as to really affect
> major agriculture centers or that any nukes would land in the
> area? Why do you think that many nuclear silos are hidden in
> farming land? Because #1, it is unsuspecting, #2, it is easily
> hidable, and most importantly, #3, there is a HELL OF A LOT OF
> LAND.
1-I used fallout modelling software. Maybe it's inaccurate.
2-Aren't there any nukes targeted at silos? Because you can't hide every damn shaft...
> Most farming is automated, and removing that earth is as
> simple a matter as getting out the tractor and attaching the
> bulldozer plow to the front of it. And do you really expect
> that fallout radiation will drift as far as to really affect
> major agriculture centers or that any nukes would land in the
> area? Why do you think that many nuclear silos are hidden in
> farming land? Because #1, it is unsuspecting, #2, it is easily
> hidable, and most importantly, #3, there is a HELL OF A LOT OF
> LAND.
1-I used fallout modelling software. Maybe it's inaccurate.
2-Aren't there any nukes targeted at silos? Because you can't hide every damn shaft...
[img align=center" src="//redrival.com/aptyp/ftclogo-t.gif] |
[font color=#DDDDDD]Íå îñòàëîñü íè ñèë îùóùåíèÿ áîëè [font color=#CCCCCC]Òîñêîé èçúåäåíà äóøà êàê ëè÷èíêàìè ìîëè [font color=#BBBBBB]Âñå êàòèòñÿ â ïðîïàñòü ïðè÷åì óæå íå â ïåðâûé ðàç [font color=#AAAAAA]È ðàâåí íóëþ ñìûñë äðóæåñêèõ ôðàç [font color=#999999]Âñå êîìó-òî ïîäàðåíî ïîòåðÿíî ïðîäàíî [font color=#888888]È ñåðäöå êðîâüþ îáëèòîå çà óæèíîì ïîäàíî [font color=#777777]Îñòàëàñü òîëüêî ãðÿçü íà äíå êàðìàíîâ îäåæä [font color=#666666]È êàêîå-òî ÷óâñòâî ÷òî-òî âðîäå íàäåæäû [font color=#666666]Íàäåæäà ñàìîîáìàí íî ýòî âñå ÷òî ó íàñ åñòü [font color=#777777]Îíà õîäèò ïî ðóêàì ïðîäàâàÿ ñâîþ ÷åñòü [font color=#888888]Ýòà ëæèâàÿ òâàðü ïûëü ïóñêàåò â ãëàçà [font color=#999999]Èñ÷åçàÿ â òîò ìîìåíò êîãäà îíà òàê íóæíà [font color=#AAAAAA]Îíà áóäåò óõîäèòü è âîçâðàùàòüñÿ ìíîãî ðàç [font color=#BBBBBB]Âñåãäà äåðæà íà ðàññòîÿíèè çàâåòíûé àëìàç [font color=#CCCCCC]ß áåç íàäåæäû óáèò òîñêîé íàâûëåò ïðîñòðåëåí [font color=#DDDDDD]Ïîòîìó ÷òî ÿ íàäåÿëñÿ à íå áûë óâåðåí |
G
Guest
Guest
RE: Hmm.
I would think that Russian spies would have gotton the locations of at least some of the bigger silos in the farmland areas.
I also think some nukes would be targeted on port cities, or cities that are major railroad centers or have major airports. I think an attacking enemy would try to cripple the infastructure as much as possible so that the military would have trouble keeping it's suplly lines together.
I would think that Russian spies would have gotton the locations of at least some of the bigger silos in the farmland areas.
I also think some nukes would be targeted on port cities, or cities that are major railroad centers or have major airports. I think an attacking enemy would try to cripple the infastructure as much as possible so that the military would have trouble keeping it's suplly lines together.
G
Guest
Guest
RE: Effects of a nuclear war
>Well, at the end of the
>2nd WW, allies striked Dresde
>in germany, which was only
>a civilian city, with no
>military and no industrial facilities.
>It was just because they
>want a "revenge" of the
>nazis' strikes. For 18hours there
>were a bombs' rain.
>
>So civilian are targets sometime. Ok,
>this example is an extreme
>one, but they are sometimes...
That was also at the end of the war when bad feelings were at their high. Also, the directive to shell Dresde would not have occurred if there were more strategic targets to kill (after all, the war was pretty much won at that point).
Yeah, there would be some targets hit, the major cities might be hit just for the fact that it's a big target and holds a lot of ceremonial value, but it isn't like commanders are going to make it their first priority when a battleship would make a better target.
-Xotor-
[div align=center]
http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
>Well, at the end of the
>2nd WW, allies striked Dresde
>in germany, which was only
>a civilian city, with no
>military and no industrial facilities.
>It was just because they
>want a "revenge" of the
>nazis' strikes. For 18hours there
>were a bombs' rain.
>
>So civilian are targets sometime. Ok,
>this example is an extreme
>one, but they are sometimes...
That was also at the end of the war when bad feelings were at their high. Also, the directive to shell Dresde would not have occurred if there were more strategic targets to kill (after all, the war was pretty much won at that point).
Yeah, there would be some targets hit, the major cities might be hit just for the fact that it's a big target and holds a lot of ceremonial value, but it isn't like commanders are going to make it their first priority when a battleship would make a better target.
-Xotor-
[div align=center]
http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]