US/NATO rule out halt to expansion,reject Russia demands.

You said - "You were wrong to say it doesn't matter"

Now back up claim - and remember .. twirling around in circle crying "Wrong Wrong" -- is not an argument for much.

 

Good grief.

The reason why it matters is because China being damaged by the fallout from Russia's destruction is not the same as China being destroyed by direct attack.

Another reason why it matters is because Russia being damaged by the fallout from China's destruction is not the same as Russia being destroyed by direct attack.

 

You were the one that claimed the fallout from US/Russia would destroy the world. Don't blame me that you can't figure out that China is part of the world.

 

What are you talking about? I know that China is part of the world.

 

Clearly you forgot -- as you claimed Russia/US nukes would destroy the world .. then claimed China would not be destroyed by such an attack .. contradicting yourself - and wrong once again.

 

How is it different? Dead is dead.

 

Scenario 1 a Chinese man checks his geiger counter for radiation levels when winds are from the north
Scenario 2 a Chinese man, and his whole city, are engulfed in an atomic fireball.

 

Scenario 1 as above scenario 2

Scenario 2 Chinese man dies in about 3 days to a week, rather gruesomely,

Both are dead.

 

This is the emotive mentality that led to tens of thousands of babies being aborted in Europe
during the Chenobyl scare.
No-one died at the Fukashima incident - thousands die every year with installation, maintence,
manufacture and fire prevention with solar panels.

No-one knows what would happen. But I would fear people more than I would fear the fallout.
With an airburst there may not even be any fallout. And some bombs are 'cleaner' than others.
Radioactivity is extremely variable - from half lives of seconds to half lives of months, and some
have a half life of about 28 years. So avoid anything falling on your head. Wash often. Avoid hot
spots. Keep a gun handy.

 

And avoid nuclear war at all costs
Any use of nukes implies MAD unavoidably. It's been studied and gamed by all sides and no other outcome is possible. Like in the movie. "A strange game, the only winning move is not to play"

Fallout btw is not mainly caused by dust being sucked up into the cloud and "falling out" later. It's caused mainly by the "neutron flash" which turns everything strongly radioactive. Nothing survives that and it's a particularly unpleasant way to die.

 

Saying to avoid nuclear war at all costs can cost more lives that facing that war.
China's entry into the Korean War came about when China found out that America
would not use a nuclear weapon in that war.
That bit of intelligence cost a lot of allied lives, and the missery that North Korea
faces to this day.
If someone gave me a choice of some Stalinist gulag if I renounced nuclear weapons
I simply wouldn't renounce them. What happens if Islamic State gets hold of nuclear
missiles - you going to avoid that conflict 'at all costs.' ???

 

That isn't true.

 

Mao himself once said "What does it matter if 300 million Chinese die? 300 million will still remain".

 

I did not forget anything.

I made no such claim.

I have not contradicted myself.

Everything that I have said is correct.

 

It is different because in one of the scenarios China is directly destroyed by American weapons.

Nuclear war is preferable to conventional defeat.

Actually it mostly comes from the fragments of the atoms that were split to produce the nuclear explosion.

 

It would be hard to limit escalation once nuclear weapons start being used.

 

You don't grasp my point: When the US or Russia launches a nuke, every other nuclear nation will launch a nuke. That will domino in to more and more launches, at broader and broader targets.

 

Sure they are. Just like we totally never get lied to by our governments and no governments have any secrets from each other because everyone is singing kumbahyah. Right Right.

 

Why would every other nuclear nation launch a nuke just because the US or Russia did??

It's not possible to hide something that big. Road mobile ICBMs can be hidden. Giant fixed-position silos, not so much.

 

Mutual defense pacts for one, ala WW1.
Axes to grind as pointed out by other posters.
Etc

I think you'd be surprised what various governments have tucked away up their sleeves.

 

Clearly you did forget. Did you not claim the fallout from US/Russia shooting all their nukes at each other would destroy the world. ?

A simple Yes/No will prove you wrong yet again.

 

Yes. It would. This was known as far back as the 1950s and bombs have gotten MUCH more powerful since then

 

I wasn't sure - but definitely a possibility - and concurred. Regardless .. was Toggles claim - now has denied making this claim .. playing two sides of fence.. in a continuous circle

 

How isn't it? What would stop it once it started?

 

Where do you get a stupid idea like that?