Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Someone or something could deploy a hundred nukes and there's absolutely zero you could know, or more to the point, do about it. We gave up that option of civilian control of the government in 1947 with the National Security Act. How secure do you feel now? What used to be government bu the people is now a spectator event. Just enjoy the show.That is actually theoretical. Weve never done a high-altitude detonation over a population with modern infrastructure to really know what will or wont get fried by an EMP.
WTF are you whining about?Way In future, top secret, your idiot speaker should pay for this stupidity....
This morning the "news" talking heads are leaning toward an EMP device.I doubt it's nuclear weapons. More likely a nuclear powered satellite destroyer/disabler.
The more weapons are based on sat data, the worse it can get when they are not functional during a war.
Speaking of which, Russia tested a nuclear powered missile a couple of years ago and there was an accident. I think they tried to downplay the radiation.
‘Nuclear-powered’ missile accident in Russia – what really happened?
Take off your tin foil hat and join reality for a while.Nothing that a little more Russia hating, fear mongering, making up shit in order to justify more spying on citizens ( if that is even possible), rounding up dissidents here, and doubling the deficit with some good old martial law won't cure. Throw in a few mandatory Jack Baur flag whipping movie viewings with regular news "updates" and we're right back on track. We are totally unhinged, and don't ever realize it.
Your post is spot on with what the "news" folks are saying, which probably means its a cover story of sorts.Every nuke is an EMP. The higher you detonate a nuke above ground, the less physical damage is done, but the EMP spreads further the higher up it is. Any super power with dreams of taking over the US, wont nuke our cities. They will keep the cities intact. Instead they will wipe out our power grid with high altitude nuclear detonations, which will soften us up for a ground invasion.
Nukes in space doesn't make much sense to me, unless its only purpose is to cut down our response time against a nuke targeted at the US, but im told that these nukes in space are just to take out satellites. ICBM's already go into space. If you want to take out satellites, then just launch a nuke and detonate it in orbit.
True.I am calling American media propaganda on this one, especially after listening to interviews with Putin. I don't think Putin has any intention of blowing up any US satellites.
First off Russia and the US has had the capability to put nukes in space since the 1960's. Both the US and Russia have detonated nukes in space before for testing purposes.
Go get 'em tiger. Show 'em who's the boss.Take off your tin foil hat and join reality for a while.
EMPs are very serious threats.
I always figured that people launching rockets have a detailed radar system, in order to avoid running into large pieces of junk.This was my thought at first. I figured if we ever had a Kessler Effect situation, we could perhaps nuke the debris, but we dont have enough nukes to cover the entire orbit. Then i thought, maybe we could at least detonate a nuke prior to launching a rocket, in order to give it a debris free path into space, but im doubtful that would work either.
The Kessler Effect could really fuck us. We could be trapped on Earth for centuries.
What is the force used to shatter satellites? There is no atmosphere to transfer a shock wave. Radiation and induced voltages are the biggest problem for satellites. Physically they would remain intact, cancelling out your Kessler effect.If a nuke is detonated in orbit, it could shatter nearby satellites, thereby causing the Kessler Effect, or at least start the process of it.
How does it generate force? I hate to use a movie as a reference, you need to watch the movie Armageddon as to why they had to drill inside the meteor/asteroid.You need to learn a little more about nukes in space. They can absolutely generate force, even in the vacuum of space. There is no air to allow that energy to travel a long distance, but the initial explosion will generate a ton of force in the immediate area. You can move an asteroid off its trajectory by detonating a nuke next to it, for example.
Nukes dont need an atmosphere to generate a shockwave, but dont take my word for it, look up "using nuclear weapons to alter asteroid trajectory".What is the force used to shatter satellites? There is no atmosphere to transfer a shock wave. Radiation and induced voltages are the biggest problem for satellites. Physically they would remain intact, cancelling out your Kessler effect.
Lol, you dont fight asteroids like they did in Armageddon. You literally do the opposite of what they suggested in the "fire cracker in your hand" scene. You dont want to break it, you just want to move it off its course by a hair. After traveling a million miles, a "hair" off course becomes many many miles.How does it generate force? I hate to use a movie as a reference, you need to watch the movie Armageddon as to why they had to drill inside the meteor/asteroid.
Your idiot speaker.Try news.WTF are you whining about?
1. What does the speaker have to do with Russia's EMPs?Your idiot speaker.Try news.
He revealed this top secret bs DUHHH1. What does the speaker have to do with Russia's EMPs?
2. How about that our idiot president has no clue what to do?
Interesting that I could not find one source that explains how you would get a nuclear device close enough to do what you propose. The yield of the weapon required was also never mentioned. This is all a mental exercise with so many variables unaccounted for as to make the task impossible.Nukes dont need an atmosphere to generate a shockwave, but dont take my word for it, look up "using nuclear weapons to alter asteroid trajectory".
How will you calculate the intercept point and sufficient yield of the weapon to make that happen? Right now we do not have the capability to launch a weapon and guide it to an intercept point much farther than the moon and there would be little possibility to calculate an effective yield to move the asteroid so it would miss. You would merely be pissing up a rope.Lol, you dont fight asteroids like they did in Armageddon. You literally do the opposite of what they suggested in the "fire cracker in your hand" scene. You dont want to break it, you just want to move it off its course by a hair. After traveling a million miles, a "hair" off course becomes many many miles.
Russia's nuclear weapon is a BOP.Russia wants to put a nuclear weapon in space. Congress has their hair on fire. Is it an EMP?
Brainwashed functional moron ignoramus seditionist pos conspiracy nut job lol. He's the best guy around, pure success... dupe....Is it possible that the U.S. "intelligence agencies" under Biden use Russian propaganda to deflect America's attention from a doddering old fool who has his trembling thumb on the nuclear button?
He knows, brainwashed functional moron. MSM is rino, wh doctors say he's fine...and the thread is about way in the future....1. What does the speaker have to do with Russia's EMPs?
2. How about that our idiot president has no clue what to do?
