Aliens

[marharth]

Easily??? I think you seriously underestimate the destructive power of a nuclear weapon. I would also point out, that only an EXTREMELY small percentage of the worlds population would make it into any shelter.......

 

Survivability depends a lot on the scale of the war too..... If we had an all out, free for all, toss 'em if ya got 'em, war, very little would survive, and those that were left would not survive long, simply due to the lack of resources left to sustain life. It would quite probably be the end of the human race. Some would survive if they could stay underground for a year or ten... but, what would they have to come out to? A landscape devoid of vegetation, where nothing would grow? A society that has been bombed back into the stone age? And that's just the effects of the bombs, doesn't even consider the repercussions of several hundred nuclear plants scattered around the world..... look at what just happened in Japan, and they had crews that were on scene very shortly, to try and control the damage. Now, consider what would have happened if NO ONE had shown up to start repairing it....... Ruh Roh Roerge.

 

Anti-missile defense systems aren't all they are cracked up to be either. Their accuracy leaves something to be desired, and simply due to the sheer volume of landmass that qualifies as "targets", you can defend a few small areas, and that's it. You can wave goodbye to all your major cities, seaports, manufacturing centers, etc. Not to mention seats of government....... they would just be smoking craters. Not to mention the fact that certain 'protected' targets would get several missiles tossed at 'em. Odds are VERY good, at LEAST one would get thru.

 

And that ignores sub-launched ICBM's...... they would not give enough advanced warning for an anti-missile system to even get a shot off, let alone have any hope of actually hitting them.

 

And cruise missiles..... anti-missile systems wouldn't even see them coming......

 

Now, a theatre nuclear exchange would certainly be survivable.... probably just uncomfortable for those downwind. :D

 

There are so many holes in the US borders, it would be a simple matter to smuggle a bomb or three into the states. Once in, you could go anywhere you wanted, and indulge yourself in some instant urban renewal.

 

Terrorists won't necessarily have to build their own bomb either. I think the highest likelihood would be some country like N. Korea, or Iran, selling them one, (giving them one?) and then having it show up someplace inconvenient.

 

Granted, at this point, the prospects of an all-out nuke fest are rather unlikely, but, who knows what the future will bring.

I suppose your right, but I don't see a nuclear war between world powers any time soon.

 

As I said in my other post, the missiles systems aren't very good.

 

I completely forgot to take into account the sub missiles and other delivery systems for some reason.

 

I can also see NK giving nukes to terrorists in the future.

 

A single nuke launched at a city could be survivable by people at a distance, if they have radiation shelter.

 

Also note that the fallout from a nuke will be almost entirely gone after a few days since the radiation has such power. Kinda like trying to burn a really big fire with a single log, the log will burn out much faster then a normal fire.

 

A all out nuclear war is a entirely different thing, but world powers are highly unlikely to go into a nuclear war anytime soon.

[Ghogiel]

A landscape devoid of vegetation, where nothing would grow?

Ah but everything does grow. It's highly exaggerated what high level radiation does to wildlife|(we're more f***ed than anything it seems). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Forest

 

Bikini atoll and Chernobyl are largely unaffected in terms of wildlife.

 

You would have to systematically carpet the worlds surface and you would need to block out the sun for at least a couple years to cause an extinction level event like that.. There just isn't enough bombs for that. We might be reduced to a population of millions or so. But even if you dropped all the bombs that exist, people without shelters would still be out of harms way more or less.

 

Say there is a very generous estimate that there are 100k megaton+ nukes in existence. give them a very generous 10mile destructive blast radius. The US is something like 3.5+million sq miles.

 

It'll be bad. But we can't kill everything yet. getting there

Edited June 7, 2011 by Ghogiel

[JimboUK]

60 years is long enough to prove that mutually assured destruction is an effective deterrent.

Mutually Assured Destruction is the modern equivalent of the Sword without the Shield. I am not afraid on the opponent with a storehouse of weapons but I am afraid of the opponent with just one. Even illiterate Knights of the dark ages knew the value of armor. So I am not as sanguine as you about the proven viability of a strategy that is based upon an absence of defense.

 

You don't need a shield if your foe won't strike because that strike will lead to his own destruction.

[Aurielius]

60 years is long enough to prove that mutually assured destruction is an effective deterrent.

Mutually Assured Destruction is the modern equivalent of the Sword without the Shield. I am not afraid on the opponent with a storehouse of weapons but I am afraid of the opponent with just one. Even illiterate Knights of the dark ages knew the value of armor. So I am not as sanguine as you about the proven viability of a strategy that is based upon an absence of defense.

 

You don't need a shield if your foe won't strike because that strike will lead to his own destruction.

You are assuming that your foe is as rational as you..bad tactics in warfare. There is always someone crazy enough to flunk the sanity test.

Edited June 8, 2011 by Aurielius

[marharth]

60 years is long enough to prove that mutually assured destruction is an effective deterrent.

Mutually Assured Destruction is the modern equivalent of the Sword without the Shield. I am not afraid on the opponent with a storehouse of weapons but I am afraid of the opponent with just one. Even illiterate Knights of the dark ages knew the value of armor. So I am not as sanguine as you about the proven viability of a strategy that is based upon an absence of defense.

 

You don't need a shield if your foe won't strike because that strike will lead to his own destruction.

What Aurielius said.

 

Just look at North Korea, the leader is arguably crazy, and many people would be more then willing to give their life.

 

Also look at our current enemy, we went to war with them over a suicide bombing...

[JimboUK]

60 years is long enough to prove that mutually assured destruction is an effective deterrent.

Mutually Assured Destruction is the modern equivalent of the Sword without the Shield. I am not afraid on the opponent with a storehouse of weapons but I am afraid of the opponent with just one. Even illiterate Knights of the dark ages knew the value of armor. So I am not as sanguine as you about the proven viability of a strategy that is based upon an absence of defense.

 

You don't need a shield if your foe won't strike because that strike will lead to his own destruction.

What Aurielius said.

 

Just look at North Korea, the leader is arguably crazy, and many people would be more then willing to give their life.

 

Also look at our current enemy, we went to war with them over a suicide bombing...

 

OK lets look at North Korea, why hasn't anyone attacked them? could it be that the attackers would in fact be condeming themselves to annihilation? As for the War in Afganistan, that is a conventional war and poses no threat to humanity.

[HeyYou]

A landscape devoid of vegetation, where nothing would grow?

Ah but everything does grow. It's highly exaggerated what high level radiation does to wildlife|(we're more f***ed than anything it seems). http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Red_Forest

 

Bikini atoll and Chernobyl are largely unaffected in terms of wildlife.

 

You would have to systematically carpet the worlds surface and you would need to block out the sun for at least a couple years to cause an extinction level event like that.. There just isn't enough bombs for that. We might be reduced to a population of millions or so. But even if you dropped all the bombs that exist, people without shelters would still be out of harms way more or less.

 

Say there is a very generous estimate that there are 100k megaton+ nukes in existence. give them a very generous 10mile destructive blast radius. The US is something like 3.5+million sq miles.

 

It'll be bad. But we can't kill everything yet. getting there

 

Have you checked just how many nukes there are available in the world? Just the US has enough weapons to wipe all semblance of civilization off the face of the world a dozen times over. In an all out nuclear war, we wouldn't be the only ones expending that kind of firepower either. If even half of those are ground bursts, the amount of dust kicked up into the atmosphere would seriously compromise that amount of sunlight getting thru, not to mention completely erasing the ozone layer. Got your SPF 500 sunblock handy?

 

How long after the last bomb was detonated in Bikini did the vegetation start to recover?

 

There was no firestorm at chernobyl. Just a big radioactive cloud.

[marharth]

60 years is long enough to prove that mutually assured destruction is an effective deterrent.

Mutually Assured Destruction is the modern equivalent of the Sword without the Shield. I am not afraid on the opponent with a storehouse of weapons but I am afraid of the opponent with just one. Even illiterate Knights of the dark ages knew the value of armor. So I am not as sanguine as you about the proven viability of a strategy that is based upon an absence of defense.

 

You don't need a shield if your foe won't strike because that strike will lead to his own destruction.

What Aurielius said.

 

Just look at North Korea, the leader is arguably crazy, and many people would be more then willing to give their life.

 

Also look at our current enemy, we went to war with them over a suicide bombing...

 

OK lets look at North Korea, why hasn't anyone attacked them? could it be that the attackers would in fact be condeming themselves to annihilation? As for the War in Afganistan, that is a conventional war and poses no threat to humanity.

Its not about anyone attacking them, its about them attacking us...

 

I wasn't talking about the Afghanistan war, I was talking about the "War on terror" and terrorists/Al Qeuda in general.

[HeyYou]

60 years is long enough to prove that mutually assured destruction is an effective deterrent.

Mutually Assured Destruction is the modern equivalent of the Sword without the Shield. I am not afraid on the opponent with a storehouse of weapons but I am afraid of the opponent with just one. Even illiterate Knights of the dark ages knew the value of armor. So I am not as sanguine as you about the proven viability of a strategy that is based upon an absence of defense.

 

You don't need a shield if your foe won't strike because that strike will lead to his own destruction.

What Aurielius said.

 

Just look at North Korea, the leader is arguably crazy, and many people would be more then willing to give their life.

 

Also look at our current enemy, we went to war with them over a suicide bombing...

 

OK lets look at North Korea, why hasn't anyone attacked them? could it be that the attackers would in fact be condeming themselves to annihilation? As for the War in Afganistan, that is a conventional war and poses no threat to humanity.

Its not about anyone attacking them, its about them attacking us...

 

I wasn't talking about the Afghanistan war, I was talking about the "War on terror" and terrorists/Al Qeuda in general.

 

I think the main reason no one has bothered to blow the crap out of N. Korea is.........

 

China.

 

The Chinese would be highly annoyed. Look at our 'reasons' for invading Iraq....... which all turned out to be lies. N. Korea on the other hand, all of those stipulations for Iraq, have been verified in N. Korea..... so, why aren't we in there??? Two reasons really, China being one, and the other? No Oil there.

[JimboUK]

60 years is long enough to prove that mutually assured destruction is an effective deterrent.

Mutually Assured Destruction is the modern equivalent of the Sword without the Shield. I am not afraid on the opponent with a storehouse of weapons but I am afraid of the opponent with just one. Even illiterate Knights of the dark ages knew the value of armor. So I am not as sanguine as you about the proven viability of a strategy that is based upon an absence of defense.

 

You don't need a shield if your foe won't strike because that strike will lead to his own destruction.

What Aurielius said.

 

Just look at North Korea, the leader is arguably crazy, and many people would be more then willing to give their life.

 

Also look at our current enemy, we went to war with them over a suicide bombing...

 

OK lets look at North Korea, why hasn't anyone attacked them? could it be that the attackers would in fact be condeming themselves to annihilation? As for the War in Afganistan, that is a conventional war and poses no threat to humanity.

Its not about anyone attacking them, its about them attacking us...

 

I wasn't talking about the Afghanistan war, I was talking about the "War on terror" and terrorists/Al Qeuda in general.

 

Why would North Korea attack the U.S? They'd have nothing to gain and everything to lose. The Chinese wouldn't be very impressed either, we know from those leaked cables that the Chinese are as fed up with North Korea as everybody else.

 

We can dismiss the "War on Terror" as a power grab by western governments over their own people, anyway whatever it is it doesn't threaten humanity.