SOmeone Tell the Air Force this is same as doing nothing

[westwall]

Any time a Giant Volcanic Caldera erupts, it kills pretty much everything for a thousand miles downwind. The critters die from suffocation as hundreds of cubic miles of rock are turned into fine particles that bury everything in its path. There is little correlation between a GVC eruption, and a fallout pattern. The reason why the critters died out, all over the world, is the corresponding lowering of temperature shortens the growing seasons dramatically. Think nuclear winter on steroids. It took at least 20 years for the climate effects to disappear.

Which if you had bothered to check, even the creators of the "Nuclear Winter" theory threw that away almost 30 years ago. It is no longer a valid theory taken seriously by anybody.

And if you studied volcanology, you should know that it affects even more than that. But other than radioactive fallout it is silicosis of the lungs that is the real killer. Like fallout it clings to the ground and kills for many years after the event.

And "little correlation"? It is mostly downwind, just like fallout. Animals in California were much less affected than those in say Wyoming. They use the exact same models to predict volcanic ashfall and fallout. It is all just particles in the atmosphere.

But we know the dangers of fallout, we have been studying them for over 70 years now. And even 34 years after Chernobyl hunting is prohibited because of dangerously high levels of radioactive caesium and potassium. And in many areas of the UK (Scotland and Whales) sheep could not be used for food until 2012. Because of high levels of radioactivity still in the plants they could only be raised for wool for decades.

And it is believed the area around will be unhabitable for hundreds of years, because of the radioactivity that has now leeched into the soil.

Remember, in that disaster only around 250 people actually died from radiation exposure from the accident itself. But in the decades since, over 5,000 have died from secondary exposure to the radioactive particulate. And we still can not get accurate numbers of those further away, but we did for a fact see the dangerous levels in the UK.

I have absolutely no idea why you are so dismissive of the dangers of fallout. Not even the Civil Defense which promoted basement shelters and sheltering in schools were as dismissive about fallout as you are. And it was their job to paint things as good as possible to prevent a panic. You are just outright denying the facts.

No, a GVC eruption is a GLOBAL event. The downwind deaths are immediate, the widespread deaths are from the freeze that comes after.

Critters are long dead looong before they would ever suffer from silicosis. The nuclear winter theory hasn't been disproved, it has been modified.

I have been to Chernobyl, and other than some very localized areas it is safe to wander around. Downtown, where the bridge of death was, is now mainly clear.

Had you been in that area during the catastrophe you died in days. Now, it's no big deal.

I am dismissive about fallout because, for the most part it isn't a big deal after a few months. Yes there are local areas that are dangerous as hell, but they are easily marked, and avoided.

Isotopes with long half lives are basically benign. You are far more at risk from ingesting the element and dying of heavy metal poisoning, than you are of radiation sickness. That is a simple fact.

I worked at the Nevada Test Site for a couple of years and we traipsed all over the place. There are about 6 square miles where you can't go. The rest is safe.

You worked around clean detonations. After the initial (30 to 90 days) only the immediate area of the detonation becomes unstable. If 4000 of these nasty things are set off, there are going to be a percentage that aren't clean. They are going to be detonated at or below ground level. It's going to scoop up a large portion of the ground and send it into the Stratosphere. It only takes a min of 12 one mt unites anywhere in the world being set off as a dirty bomb to trigger Nuclear Winter. And if 4000 of these nasties are set off there is going to be one hell of a lot more than 12 dirty bombs.

No, they were pretty dirty. The NTS has craters all over the place. The only clean detonations (comparatively) are atmospheric bursts.
When they are on the ground they are, by definition, dirty.

My point is fallout, with isotopes of long half life are only really dangerous if you ingest them. They give off Alpha and Beta particles, and those are stopped by a sheet of paper. Ionizing radiation is the only radiation that truly matters.

That penetrates cell walls, causes mutations in those who live, and kill the unfortunate ones.

You will die of heavy metal poisoning long before you will suffer the effects of radiation sickness with the other isotopes.

Unlike the other guy, I am not going for a win in this discussion. I know you don't express views that there can be ANY winners in a full scale Nuclear exchange. You may be a right wing nutjob but you just ain't that crazy.

Nope there are no winners in a nuclear exchange, only the dead, and those who will soon die.

And finally, those who wish they were dead.

Very, very few would actually like that experience.

I am just laying out the science behind it all.

 

[Silver Cat]

1. It is better to be a live "King of ashes" than to be a dead body in the "communistic heaven".
2. The world will be changed anyway, and the only question is who will survive in the changed world.
3. Few hundreds of Chernobyls and Fukushimas is absolutely nothing, comparing with "normal effects" of seven thousands of nukes.
4. Seven thousands (actually much less) of nuclear bursts is nothing, comparing with the total power of conventional weapon of the world's armies.

World War III is enevitable, we don't need to "prevent" it, we have to be ready to "win" it.
Nuclear weapon will be very important, but not "decisive" - nuclear exchange is just an opening. The infantry will make the point.

 

[westwall]

1. It is better to be a live "King of ashes" than to be a dead body in the "communistic heaven".
2. The world will be changed anyway, and the only question is who will survive in the changed world.
3. Few hundreds of Chernobyls and Fukushimas is absolutely nothing, comparing with "normal effects" of seven thousands of nukes.
4. Seven thousands (actually much less) of nuclear bursts is nothing, comparing with the total power of conventional weapon of the world's armies.

World War III is enevitable, we don't need to "prevent" it, we have to be ready to "win" it.
Nuclear weapon will be very important, but not "decisive" - nuclear exchange is just an opening. The infantry will make the point.

World War III is already underway, the goal is to keep it from degenerating into the use of WMD's, of any kind.

The second that happens, the only group that will remain are the communist chinese.
Far better to prevent that. Yes, communism sucks, but as in all things, time passes, and governments fall.

Use WMD's however, and there is a real chance that mankind ends.

I'm not willing to risk that.

 

[Silver Cat]

1. It is better to be a live "King of ashes" than to be a dead body in the "communistic heaven".
2. The world will be changed anyway, and the only question is who will survive in the changed world.
3. Few hundreds of Chernobyls and Fukushimas is absolutely nothing, comparing with "normal effects" of seven thousands of nukes.
4. Seven thousands (actually much less) of nuclear bursts is nothing, comparing with the total power of conventional weapon of the world's armies.

World War III is enevitable, we don't need to "prevent" it, we have to be ready to "win" it.
Nuclear weapon will be very important, but not "decisive" - nuclear exchange is just an opening. The infantry will make the point.

World War III is already underway, the goal is to keep it from degenerating into the use of WMD's, of any kind.

No. The only goal is to win. If it will be possible to win without WMD usage - it will be good. If we'll have to use WMD to win - it's OK, too.
Surrender because of nucleophobia - is not OK.

The second that happens, the only group that will remain are the communist chinese.

No. I'm pretty sure, that we can be survivors.

Use WMD's however, and there is a real chance that mankind ends.

No. There is no such a chance. As well as nobody can destroy NY with one grenade.

 

[Silver Cat]

Marshall Billingslea says New START fate hangs on China

The United States is unlikely to extend the New START arms treaty with Russia by next year’s deadline unless China is also part of the deal, the Trump administration’s new presidential envoy for arms control said.

m.washingtontimes.com

-----------------------

Overall, however, Mr. Billingslea said the United States is not interested in “arms control for arms control’s sake,” a criticism leveled at many policymakers and advocates of treaties and negotiations. New START contains “many glaring deficiencies,” and President Trump is not interested in perpetuating the flawed treaty approved by his predecessor.
----------------------------
We are not interested in arms control, nuclear non-prolifiration, peace or non-usage of WMD just for itself.
Rest of the world must "pay for safety", and pay much more than they want. No money - no safety. And "no safety" means a possibility of our direct attact, too.