SOmeone Tell the Air Force this is same as doing nothing

[westwall]

According to Defense News, Air Force units will now head to the hills at the first sign of war, dispersing from their massive bases to local airports, isolated airstrips, any place that can support airplanes. The idea is to use those large bases not to concentrate air power but as a hub to feed dispersed air power, maintaining a steady flow of fuel, ammunition, and food to small detachments of fighters and other warplanes hiding at airfields adversaries may not even know about. U.S. Air Force Air Bases | Why Big Air Bases Are a Big Liability
The first sign of war will be these giant Airbases all burning at once. Speed of missiles these days fired from subs this must have Chinese laughing their ass off

from what I've read, though it is true that our enemies can strike us so quickly we would NOT be able to prevent mass destruction and death......AFTER the US was incinerated by (russia, china, n korea, iran....?)

our remaining forces would STILL be able to destroy the rest of the planet.

MAD.....


The chinese would not have long to laugh

The Chinese are building infrastructure to save 10% of their population from a nuclear war.

That gives them a population of 150,000,000 compared to how many in the west survive....

In other words, the Chinese win. And because they plan long term, the 100 years it takes for them to conquer the remains of the world is A-OK with them.

The Population of China is only(Only?) 1.3 billion. If they save 10% that's 1.3 million not 150 million. The US will save 85% of it's population leaving just under 278 million. China will be blown right back into the iron age while the much of the Industry in the US can be rebuilt. China has most of it's industry on the coast which it will completely lose while the US has it's industry spread out. Even Russia will fare much better than China.

Ummmm, you might want to check your math there....sport.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

According to Defense News, Air Force units will now head to the hills at the first sign of war, dispersing from their massive bases to local airports, isolated airstrips, any place that can support airplanes. The idea is to use those large bases not to concentrate air power but as a hub to feed dispersed air power, maintaining a steady flow of fuel, ammunition, and food to small detachments of fighters and other warplanes hiding at airfields adversaries may not even know about. U.S. Air Force Air Bases | Why Big Air Bases Are a Big Liability
The first sign of war will be these giant Airbases all burning at once. Speed of missiles these days fired from subs this must have Chinese laughing their ass off

from what I've read, though it is true that our enemies can strike us so quickly we would NOT be able to prevent mass destruction and death......AFTER the US was incinerated by (russia, china, n korea, iran....?)

our remaining forces would STILL be able to destroy the rest of the planet.

MAD.....


The chinese would not have long to laugh

The Chinese are building infrastructure to save 10% of their population from a nuclear war.

That gives them a population of 150,000,000 compared to how many in the west survive....

In other words, the Chinese win. And because they plan long term, the 100 years it takes for them to conquer the remains of the world is A-OK with them.

The Population of China is only(Only?) 1.3 billion. If they save 10% that's 1.3 million not 150 million. The US will save 85% of it's population leaving just under 278 million. China will be blown right back into the iron age while the much of the Industry in the US can be rebuilt. China has most of it's industry on the coast which it will completely lose while the US has it's industry spread out. Even Russia will fare much better than China.

Ummmm, you might want to check your math there....sport.

My math is just fine. Your is more than a bit inflated.

 

[westwall]

According to Defense News, Air Force units will now head to the hills at the first sign of war, dispersing from their massive bases to local airports, isolated airstrips, any place that can support airplanes. The idea is to use those large bases not to concentrate air power but as a hub to feed dispersed air power, maintaining a steady flow of fuel, ammunition, and food to small detachments of fighters and other warplanes hiding at airfields adversaries may not even know about. U.S. Air Force Air Bases | Why Big Air Bases Are a Big Liability
The first sign of war will be these giant Airbases all burning at once. Speed of missiles these days fired from subs this must have Chinese laughing their ass off

from what I've read, though it is true that our enemies can strike us so quickly we would NOT be able to prevent mass destruction and death......AFTER the US was incinerated by (russia, china, n korea, iran....?)

our remaining forces would STILL be able to destroy the rest of the planet.

MAD.....


The chinese would not have long to laugh

The Chinese are building infrastructure to save 10% of their population from a nuclear war.

That gives them a population of 150,000,000 compared to how many in the west survive....

In other words, the Chinese win. And because they plan long term, the 100 years it takes for them to conquer the remains of the world is A-OK with them.

The Population of China is only(Only?) 1.3 billion. If they save 10% that's 1.3 million not 150 million. The US will save 85% of it's population leaving just under 278 million. China will be blown right back into the iron age while the much of the Industry in the US can be rebuilt. China has most of it's industry on the coast which it will completely lose while the US has it's industry spread out. Even Russia will fare much better than China.

Ummmm, you might want to check your math there....sport.

My math is just fine. Your is more than a bit inflated.

No, it's not. My 13 year old daughter can do percentages a hell of a lot better than you can.

 

[Silver Cat]

Yes, sure.

Nobody "wins" a nuclear war. One side simply looses less than the other.

Really? One side simple lost its life and does not exist at all. Another - won the military control over significant part of the world. Are you sure, that there is no significant difference between being "poor and dead" and "rich and alive"?

 

[Silver Cat]

Yes, sure.

Nobody "wins" a nuclear war. One side simply looses less than the other.

We practiced the aftermath. Trust me, if a Nuclear war happens, I want the first warhead to drop right directly on my punkin head.

Weakling. I want the last warhead to drop in the last enemies military camp. We have to fight for our future and the price is nothing.

 

[Mushroom]

Really? One side simple lost its life and does not exist at all. Another - won the military control over significant part of the world. Are you sure, that there is no significant difference between being "poor and dead" and "rich and alive"?

Congratulations, you are the king of the world of ashes.

A "nuclear war" is not some local event, it is a global catastrophe. Now do not buy into the entire "global winter" nonsense, even one of the creators of that theory dismissed it 30 years ago. But you will still have radioactive poisoning on a global level for decades if not centuries afterwards. Most of the world will be pushed to insular levels, akin to what was seen in Mad Max (not those 2+1 movies that followed).

Like Daryl, I have seen the studies of 30-40 years ago and they were not pretty. The human race will undergo a population crash that would make the Black Death look like a rough rugby game in the park. And it will continue for at least decades until the fallout leeches away into the oceans and is absorbed. This will also affect the next 1-4 generations, as birth defects, stillbirths, and increased infant mortality continues due to the exposure to fallout in the ground, water, and food. And as an apex predictor we will be affected even more by the food.

And here is something that we studied a lot. In 1956, 220 people were involved in making a movie on the site where nuclear testing had been done 3 years earlier. By the 1980s, 91 of them had developed some kind of cancer and 41 had died of those cancers. The military in particular was doing a lot of research into this because we are literally talking a cancer rate of almost 50% being contracted 3 years after the nuclear tests, and 50% of those dying of it (and another 25% dying prematurely of other issues). And while this does fall only a little above the general average, the people involved started developing cancers only 4 years after this exposure.

Add in the effect that everything eaten afterwards for 50+ years will also be contaminated and maybe you will now start to get the picture. I am old enough to remember the panic in Europe over some of the radioactive clouds floating over Europe. And not even counting that little issue that the Soviets had with one of their power plants. That would be on a global scale for half a century.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

According to Defense News, Air Force units will now head to the hills at the first sign of war, dispersing from their massive bases to local airports, isolated airstrips, any place that can support airplanes. The idea is to use those large bases not to concentrate air power but as a hub to feed dispersed air power, maintaining a steady flow of fuel, ammunition, and food to small detachments of fighters and other warplanes hiding at airfields adversaries may not even know about. U.S. Air Force Air Bases | Why Big Air Bases Are a Big Liability
The first sign of war will be these giant Airbases all burning at once. Speed of missiles these days fired from subs this must have Chinese laughing their ass off

from what I've read, though it is true that our enemies can strike us so quickly we would NOT be able to prevent mass destruction and death......AFTER the US was incinerated by (russia, china, n korea, iran....?)

our remaining forces would STILL be able to destroy the rest of the planet.

MAD.....


The chinese would not have long to laugh

The Chinese are building infrastructure to save 10% of their population from a nuclear war.

That gives them a population of 150,000,000 compared to how many in the west survive....

In other words, the Chinese win. And because they plan long term, the 100 years it takes for them to conquer the remains of the world is A-OK with them.

The Population of China is only(Only?) 1.3 billion. If they save 10% that's 1.3 million not 150 million. The US will save 85% of it's population leaving just under 278 million. China will be blown right back into the iron age while the much of the Industry in the US can be rebuilt. China has most of it's industry on the coast which it will completely lose while the US has it's industry spread out. Even Russia will fare much better than China.

Ummmm, you might want to check your math there....sport.

My math is just fine. Your is more than a bit inflated.

No, it's not. My 13 year old daughter can do percentages a hell of a lot better than you can.

You got me at 50%. While my US figures are accurate, I misquoted the Chinese figures. I used 1% rather than 10%. Even so, there will be more Americans survive than Chinese unless China wants to count the People of Chinese decent that live inside the US.

 

[westwall]

According to Defense News, Air Force units will now head to the hills at the first sign of war, dispersing from their massive bases to local airports, isolated airstrips, any place that can support airplanes. The idea is to use those large bases not to concentrate air power but as a hub to feed dispersed air power, maintaining a steady flow of fuel, ammunition, and food to small detachments of fighters and other warplanes hiding at airfields adversaries may not even know about. U.S. Air Force Air Bases | Why Big Air Bases Are a Big Liability
The first sign of war will be these giant Airbases all burning at once. Speed of missiles these days fired from subs this must have Chinese laughing their ass off

from what I've read, though it is true that our enemies can strike us so quickly we would NOT be able to prevent mass destruction and death......AFTER the US was incinerated by (russia, china, n korea, iran....?)

our remaining forces would STILL be able to destroy the rest of the planet.

MAD.....


The chinese would not have long to laugh

The Chinese are building infrastructure to save 10% of their population from a nuclear war.

That gives them a population of 150,000,000 compared to how many in the west survive....

In other words, the Chinese win. And because they plan long term, the 100 years it takes for them to conquer the remains of the world is A-OK with them.

The Population of China is only(Only?) 1.3 billion. If they save 10% that's 1.3 million not 150 million. The US will save 85% of it's population leaving just under 278 million. China will be blown right back into the iron age while the much of the Industry in the US can be rebuilt. China has most of it's industry on the coast which it will completely lose while the US has it's industry spread out. Even Russia will fare much better than China.

Ummmm, you might want to check your math there....sport.

My math is just fine. Your is more than a bit inflated.

No, it's not. My 13 year old daughter can do percentages a hell of a lot better than you can.

You got me at 50%. While my US figures are accurate, I misquoted the Chinese figures. I used 1% rather than 10%. Even so, there will be more Americans survive than Chinese unless China wants to count the People of Chinese decent that live inside the US.

Your survival numbers for here in the USA are laughable at best. In a full on nuclear exchange there may be 30,000,000 who survive after a year. Maybe.

 

[westwall]

Really? One side simple lost its life and does not exist at all. Another - won the military control over significant part of the world. Are you sure, that there is no significant difference between being "poor and dead" and "rich and alive"?

Congratulations, you are the king of the world of ashes.

A "nuclear war" is not some local event, it is a global catastrophe. Now do not buy into the entire "global winter" nonsense, even one of the creators of that theory dismissed it 30 years ago. But you will still have radioactive poisoning on a global level for decades if not centuries afterwards. Most of the world will be pushed to insular levels, akin to what was seen in Mad Max (not those 2+1 movies that followed).

Like Daryl, I have seen the studies of 30-40 years ago and they were not pretty. The human race will undergo a population crash that would make the Black Death look like a rough rugby game in the park. And it will continue for at least decades until the fallout leeches away into the oceans and is absorbed. This will also affect the next 1-4 generations, as birth defects, stillbirths, and increased infant mortality continues due to the exposure to fallout in the ground, water, and food. And as an apex predictor we will be affected even more by the food.

And here is something that we studied a lot. In 1956, 220 people were involved in making a movie on the site where nuclear testing had been done 3 years earlier. By the 1980s, 91 of them had developed some kind of cancer and 41 had died of those cancers. The military in particular was doing a lot of research into this because we are literally talking a cancer rate of almost 50% being contracted 3 years after the nuclear tests, and 50% of those dying of it (and another 25% dying prematurely of other issues). And while this does fall only a little above the general average, the people involved started developing cancers only 4 years after this exposure.

Add in the effect that everything eaten afterwards for 50+ years will also be contaminated and maybe you will now start to get the picture. I am old enough to remember the panic in Europe over some of the radioactive clouds floating over Europe. And not even counting that little issue that the Soviets had with one of their power plants. That would be on a global scale for half a century.

There is an even better and long term study that has been going on since WWII. There were Australians in a POW camp 1.7 miles from Ground Zero during the Nagasaki blast. They are monitored like no other people on the planet. They suffer the same leukemia and cancer rates as the general population. The reality of radiation sickness is this, if you get hit by a massive dose of gamma radiation. You are toast. If you get a moderate dosage, and you are susceptible, you are going to die a miserable death.

On the other hand, if you are not one of those who die within a month, you will live a relatively normal life. Your offspring may, or may not suffer from genetic mutations. Their offspring probably won't. The fallout will concentrate in the low lying areas, but for the most part, so long as you don't eat it you won't get sick.

I have a PhD in geology, so this is not stuff pulled from the ether. This is legit peer reviewed science I am reciting. Obviously, there a re a shitload of caveats based on very specific, localized conditions, but generally speaking, this is the outlook. And yes, it is grim.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

According to Defense News, Air Force units will now head to the hills at the first sign of war, dispersing from their massive bases to local airports, isolated airstrips, any place that can support airplanes. The idea is to use those large bases not to concentrate air power but as a hub to feed dispersed air power, maintaining a steady flow of fuel, ammunition, and food to small detachments of fighters and other warplanes hiding at airfields adversaries may not even know about. U.S. Air Force Air Bases | Why Big Air Bases Are a Big Liability
The first sign of war will be these giant Airbases all burning at once. Speed of missiles these days fired from subs this must have Chinese laughing their ass off

from what I've read, though it is true that our enemies can strike us so quickly we would NOT be able to prevent mass destruction and death......AFTER the US was incinerated by (russia, china, n korea, iran....?)

our remaining forces would STILL be able to destroy the rest of the planet.

MAD.....


The chinese would not have long to laugh

The Chinese are building infrastructure to save 10% of their population from a nuclear war.

That gives them a population of 150,000,000 compared to how many in the west survive....

In other words, the Chinese win. And because they plan long term, the 100 years it takes for them to conquer the remains of the world is A-OK with them.

The Population of China is only(Only?) 1.3 billion. If they save 10% that's 1.3 million not 150 million. The US will save 85% of it's population leaving just under 278 million. China will be blown right back into the iron age while the much of the Industry in the US can be rebuilt. China has most of it's industry on the coast which it will completely lose while the US has it's industry spread out. Even Russia will fare much better than China.

Ummmm, you might want to check your math there....sport.

My math is just fine. Your is more than a bit inflated.

No, it's not. My 13 year old daughter can do percentages a hell of a lot better than you can.

You got me at 50%. While my US figures are accurate, I misquoted the Chinese figures. I used 1% rather than 10%. Even so, there will be more Americans survive than Chinese unless China wants to count the People of Chinese decent that live inside the US.

Your survival numbers for here in the USA are laughable at best. In a full on nuclear exchange there may be 30,000,000 who survive after a year. Maybe.

Mine was an initial number. You just moved the goalposts. You just supported why I want to be one of the lucky ones that get vaporized in the initial attack.

 

[westwall]

According to Defense News, Air Force units will now head to the hills at the first sign of war, dispersing from their massive bases to local airports, isolated airstrips, any place that can support airplanes. The idea is to use those large bases not to concentrate air power but as a hub to feed dispersed air power, maintaining a steady flow of fuel, ammunition, and food to small detachments of fighters and other warplanes hiding at airfields adversaries may not even know about. U.S. Air Force Air Bases | Why Big Air Bases Are a Big Liability
The first sign of war will be these giant Airbases all burning at once. Speed of missiles these days fired from subs this must have Chinese laughing their ass off

from what I've read, though it is true that our enemies can strike us so quickly we would NOT be able to prevent mass destruction and death......AFTER the US was incinerated by (russia, china, n korea, iran....?)

our remaining forces would STILL be able to destroy the rest of the planet.

MAD.....


The chinese would not have long to laugh

The Chinese are building infrastructure to save 10% of their population from a nuclear war.

That gives them a population of 150,000,000 compared to how many in the west survive....

In other words, the Chinese win. And because they plan long term, the 100 years it takes for them to conquer the remains of the world is A-OK with them.

The Population of China is only(Only?) 1.3 billion. If they save 10% that's 1.3 million not 150 million. The US will save 85% of it's population leaving just under 278 million. China will be blown right back into the iron age while the much of the Industry in the US can be rebuilt. China has most of it's industry on the coast which it will completely lose while the US has it's industry spread out. Even Russia will fare much better than China.

Ummmm, you might want to check your math there....sport.

My math is just fine. Your is more than a bit inflated.

No, it's not. My 13 year old daughter can do percentages a hell of a lot better than you can.

You got me at 50%. While my US figures are accurate, I misquoted the Chinese figures. I used 1% rather than 10%. Even so, there will be more Americans survive than Chinese unless China wants to count the People of Chinese decent that live inside the US.

Your survival numbers for here in the USA are laughable at best. In a full on nuclear exchange there may be 30,000,000 who survive after a year. Maybe.

Mine was an initial number. You just moved the goalposts. You just supported why I want to be one of the lucky ones that get vaporized in the initial attack.

How about we avoid the war altogether.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

According to Defense News, Air Force units will now head to the hills at the first sign of war, dispersing from their massive bases to local airports, isolated airstrips, any place that can support airplanes. The idea is to use those large bases not to concentrate air power but as a hub to feed dispersed air power, maintaining a steady flow of fuel, ammunition, and food to small detachments of fighters and other warplanes hiding at airfields adversaries may not even know about. U.S. Air Force Air Bases | Why Big Air Bases Are a Big Liability
The first sign of war will be these giant Airbases all burning at once. Speed of missiles these days fired from subs this must have Chinese laughing their ass off

from what I've read, though it is true that our enemies can strike us so quickly we would NOT be able to prevent mass destruction and death......AFTER the US was incinerated by (russia, china, n korea, iran....?)

our remaining forces would STILL be able to destroy the rest of the planet.

MAD.....


The chinese would not have long to laugh

The Chinese are building infrastructure to save 10% of their population from a nuclear war.

That gives them a population of 150,000,000 compared to how many in the west survive....

In other words, the Chinese win. And because they plan long term, the 100 years it takes for them to conquer the remains of the world is A-OK with them.

The Population of China is only(Only?) 1.3 billion. If they save 10% that's 1.3 million not 150 million. The US will save 85% of it's population leaving just under 278 million. China will be blown right back into the iron age while the much of the Industry in the US can be rebuilt. China has most of it's industry on the coast which it will completely lose while the US has it's industry spread out. Even Russia will fare much better than China.

Ummmm, you might want to check your math there....sport.

My math is just fine. Your is more than a bit inflated.

No, it's not. My 13 year old daughter can do percentages a hell of a lot better than you can.

You got me at 50%. While my US figures are accurate, I misquoted the Chinese figures. I used 1% rather than 10%. Even so, there will be more Americans survive than Chinese unless China wants to count the People of Chinese decent that live inside the US.

Your survival numbers for here in the USA are laughable at best. In a full on nuclear exchange there may be 30,000,000 who survive after a year. Maybe.

Mine was an initial number. You just moved the goalposts. You just supported why I want to be one of the lucky ones that get vaporized in the initial attack.

How about we avoid the war altogether.

Works for me. Luckily, most Vets, Retired and Currently serving Military members also agree. It's the ones that have never looked at it in depth that seem to think a Nuclear War can be a good idea. And I am including Russian and Chinese in that statement.

 

[Mushroom]

There is an even better and long term study that has been going on since WWII. There were Australians in a POW camp 1.7 miles from Ground Zero during the Nagasaki blast. They are monitored like no other people on the planet. They suffer the same leukemia and cancer rates as the general population. The reality of radiation sickness is this, if you get hit by a massive dose of gamma radiation. You are toast. If you get a moderate dosage, and you are susceptible, you are going to die a miserable death.

On the other hand, if you are not one of those who die within a month, you will live a relatively normal life. Your offspring may, or may not suffer from genetic mutations. Their offspring probably won't. The fallout will concentrate in the low lying areas, but for the most part, so long as you don't eat it you won't get sick.

I have a PhD in geology, so this is not stuff pulled from the ether. This is legit peer reviewed science I am reciting. Obviously, there a re a shitload of caveats based on very specific, localized conditions, but generally speaking, this is the outlook. And yes, it is grim.

Great, they did a study of people only exposed to the immediate effects of an explosion, then were taken home. They were not forced to live under that type of conditions for years afterwards. And I am sure if you compared them to those that had to live in the immediate aftermath of Hiroshima or Nagasaki they are doing better as you say.

Fallout is an accumulative disorder, where the longer you live in it, the more problems you will have. Gamma Rays, super. All those do is turn you into the Incredible Hulk.

Now all joking aside, we know that most people do die of the immediate effects. Heat, Blast, Radiation. But that is only most people who are within the range of those effects. Long term, the fallout is the big killer, spreading out over tens of thousands of square miles. And even worse it accumulates over time in the body. Herbivores suffer the least, they eat plants which get at most moderate doses. For Carnivores and high level omnivores (us), we get even higher levels because we consume the herbivores that have accumulated what they have eaten. And many particles once introduced into the body like joining things like bones, so they continue to poison the body.

You are a geologist, great. So tell me, what killed the most when the Yellowstone Caldera (then still the Bruneau-Jarbridge) blew up? Sure, most of the life in and around that area of Idaho-Oregon-Nevada died almost instantly, but the ash clouds were killing enough animals in Nebraska half a continent away that there is now a state park because of those fossils. In reality, almost half the life on the entire continent died, mostly from the ash and not the eruption itself. This is no different.

Geologically, replace the ashfall from a supervolcano with fallout and maybe you will understand what I am saying.

Fallout is no different. That is the real long-term killer in any nuclear exchange. Millions will die in the blast, tens of millions will die over the next 20-50 years downwind who were not even affected by the initial event. And no, the fallout will not "concentrate in the low lying areas". That is direct effect. It will effect our water, our food supply, the animals we eat. Just like how tuna which almost never travel to inland waters are effected by mercury. They eat the fish that migrate from fresh to salt water, and they get the mercury in inland freshwater areas where mining happens. The migrating salmon and trout pick it up, the tuna then eat it and get the mercury.

Come on, you claim to have a PhD in Geology! Yes, as me you tend to think of thousands of years of time as hardly worth looking at. But you must understand the accumulative effects of radioactive fallout flowing up and down the food chain.

 

[Mushroom]

Works for me. Luckily, most Vets, Retired and Currently serving Military members also agree. It's the ones that have never looked at it in depth that seem to think a Nuclear War can be a good idea. And I am including Russian and Chinese in that statement.

For me, probably the best movie relating to the effects of an exchange is a little known BBC movie called "Threads". Released in 1984, the last part of the movie was then following the children and grandchildren of a global nuclear exchange.

And unlike American movies of the era (The Day After), they followed what was known of the effects of such a war at the time. Food production minimal, most technology vanishes (because the technology needed to use it no longer exists), long term radiation still killing people decades later and causing abnormal births.

There was a huge effort made in the years after Hiroshima and Nagasaki to clean up the area of all contamination. In a global war, there will be nobody to do that. The contamination will continue. Might as well claim that if nobody had left the area around that marvel of Soviet Engineering in the Ukraine 30 years ago they would all be doing fine today.

 

[westwall]

There is an even better and long term study that has been going on since WWII. There were Australians in a POW camp 1.7 miles from Ground Zero during the Nagasaki blast. They are monitored like no other people on the planet. They suffer the same leukemia and cancer rates as the general population. The reality of radiation sickness is this, if you get hit by a massive dose of gamma radiation. You are toast. If you get a moderate dosage, and you are susceptible, you are going to die a miserable death.

On the other hand, if you are not one of those who die within a month, you will live a relatively normal life. Your offspring may, or may not suffer from genetic mutations. Their offspring probably won't. The fallout will concentrate in the low lying areas, but for the most part, so long as you don't eat it you won't get sick.

I have a PhD in geology, so this is not stuff pulled from the ether. This is legit peer reviewed science I am reciting. Obviously, there a re a shitload of caveats based on very specific, localized conditions, but generally speaking, this is the outlook. And yes, it is grim.

Great, they did a study of people only exposed to the immediate effects of an explosion, then were taken home. They were not forced to live under that type of conditions for years afterwards. And I am sure if you compared them to those that had to live in the immediate aftermath of Hiroshima or Nagasaki they are doing better as you say.

Fallout is an accumulative disorder, where the longer you live in it, the more problems you will have. Gamma Rays, super. All those do is turn you into the Incredible Hulk.

Now all joking aside, we know that most people do die of the immediate effects. Heat, Blast, Radiation. But that is only most people who are within the range of those effects. Long term, the fallout is the big killer, spreading out over tens of thousands of square miles. And even worse it accumulates over time in the body. Herbivores suffer the least, they eat plants which get at most moderate doses. For Carnivores and high level omnivores (us), we get even higher levels because we consume the herbivores that have accumulated what they have eaten. And many particles once introduced into the body like joining things like bones, so they continue to poison the body.

You are a geologist, great. So tell me, what killed the most when the Yellowstone Caldera (then still the Bruneau-Jarbridge) blew up? Sure, most of the life in and around that area of Idaho-Oregon-Nevada died almost instantly, but the ash clouds were killing enough animals in Nebraska half a continent away that there is now a state park because of those fossils. In reality, almost half the life on the entire continent died, mostly from the ash and not the eruption itself. This is no different.

Geologically, replace the ashfall from a supervolcano with fallout and maybe you will understand what I am saying.

Fallout is no different. That is the real long-term killer in any nuclear exchange. Millions will die in the blast, tens of millions will die over the next 20-50 years downwind who were not even affected by the initial event. And no, the fallout will not "concentrate in the low lying areas". That is direct effect. It will effect our water, our food supply, the animals we eat. Just like how tuna which almost never travel to inland waters are effected by mercury. They eat the fish that migrate from fresh to salt water, and they get the mercury in inland freshwater areas where mining happens. The migrating salmon and trout pick it up, the tuna then eat it and get the mercury.

Come on, you claim to have a PhD in Geology! Yes, as me you tend to think of thousands of years of time as hardly worth looking at. But you must understand the accumulative effects of radioactive fallout flowing up and down the food chain.

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.

 

[Mushroom]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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.