Trump Preparing for Nuclear War

Discussion in 'United States' started by HereWeGoAgain, Jun 20, 2019.

  1. AltLightPride

    AltLightPride Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    2,034
    Likes Received:
    1,215
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Title is fake news, this has nothing to do with Trump whatsoever.

    Pentagon officials thinking about how a nuclear war would go is not that alarming, it's their job to be prepared for it after all.

    Also, opposing warhawks should be one of the few subjects where both sides could agree. Sadly, partisan hacks ruin that completely.
     
    Blaster3, 10A and Dayton3 like this.
  2. Turin

    Turin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2012
    Messages:
    5,685
    Likes Received:
    1,853
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    Dead serious. Trump is the kind of guy who used firecrackers to blow up frogs imo.
     
  3. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    25,310
    Likes Received:
    6,670
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Actual evidence of this or your own biases?

    And oh yeah, I'm sure there is a straight line from killing frogs to starting a nuclear holocaust and killing millions of people.

    You cannot be real.
     
    Fred C Dobbs and Blaster3 like this.
  4. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,707
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are truly unbelievable - you make a completely false claim saying that all deployed Russian nukes are cold war era - this claims is proven false by me showing you a whole lot of nukes that are later than this era.

    You then change your claim - moving the goal posts and spout more demonstrably false nonsense - to "the most advanced Russian ICBMs" are cold war - in spite of the fact that what I already provided you clearly details that the newer stuff is more advanced. The idea that newer nukes would be less advanced is mindless nonsense to begin with.

    You then select some of the nukes on the list that are not cold war (proving your initial claim was a heap of BS) - and make a bunch of more unsubstantiated nonsense - which I have already proven to you is false in previous threats - related to our ability to track these subs continuously.

    You then refer to some cold war nukes that still exist in the Russian arsenal - as if I claimed otherwise - something I did not do.

    You have issues.
     
  5. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,707
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Now you are parroting a claim that Dayton made that was proven to be a complete falsehood. You have no clue what you are talking about. You just spout what ever gibberish comes into your head - or other gibberish that others have claimed in this case - claims that completely lacked substantiation and were proven completely false.

    You are the one who doesn't get it and are just projecting your issues on to others. Help can be found here:

    https://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/psychpedia/projection

    [​IMG]
     
  6. Heartburn

    Heartburn Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2015
    Messages:
    13,499
    Likes Received:
    4,973
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It would be criminal if the Pentagon did not plan for a nuclear war and how to win one. That's their job.
     
    Dayton3 likes this.
  7. alexa

    alexa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    18,965
    Likes Received:
    3,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    On a Russian Program they were talking about what the US might do about Iran and how really it was a no win situation..eventually someone suggested Trump might use nukes. One of them said absolutely not. The US would not do that. They would shoot anyone trying to do that. Others suggested the US might. The other guy said something like 'they can't. The whole point of nukes is deterrent. If they change from that, it is over'.

    Some people in the US sound like they are on a suicide mission to me. There is no winning of a nuclear war. The fact that people are even discussing this when time is running out for preventing a climate catastrophe is insanity. One way or another it seems people want the end of humanity.
     
    Sallyally likes this.
  8. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    25,310
    Likes Received:
    6,670
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What would you call it if the U.S. only suffered 6 nuclear strikes (not necessarily cities by the way) and the enemy suffered over 100?

    That is a nuclear war. And if that happened I would definitely call it a "win" for the United States
     
  9. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    25,310
    Likes Received:
    6,670
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    There is enough information on the Wikipedia alone to refute the rubbish you are claiming. I suppose you never thought to ask just how the Russians would've been able to afford to build a nice, shiny new nuclear arsenal with a moribund economy over the last 30 years?
     
    Thedimon likes this.
  10. Papastox

    Papastox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2014
    Messages:
    10,296
    Likes Received:
    2,731
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Plain and simple and stupid fear mongering! Destroying the world? LOL You people are so funny AND desperate. It's really sad that that is all Democrats have.
     
    Blaster3 likes this.
  11. Sallyally

    Sallyally Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2017
    Messages:
    15,834
    Likes Received:
    28,238
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    You’ve got a point there.
     
  12. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,707
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I did not write the stuff in the link you were given - It is not my fault that it refutes your completely false claim that Russia has nothing but cold war relics in its nuclear arsenal. Your claim was false - first you backtracked and tried to change the goalposts and now you are spouting more false nonsense.

    It is not "rubbish" that we use Russian rocket technology to get into space - and have been ever since the shuttle program shut down in 2011.
    It is not rubbish that we use Russian rockets to get satellites into orbit.
    It is not rubbish that Russia, China and India have been working together on missile technology for two decades.

    The missile technology presented to you on the Center for Strategic and International Studies site is not "Rubbish".

    What is Rubbish is you going into some kind of denial and demonization mode because you were proven wrong.
     
    Sallyally likes this.
  13. scarlet witch

    scarlet witch Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2016
    Messages:
    11,951
    Likes Received:
    7,714
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    You can cut the hysterics he's most likely referring to the low yield weapons that was in the Nuclear posture review a year ago

    US nuclear weapons: first low-yield warheads roll off the production line
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...w-yield-warheads-roll-off-the-production-line

     
    Blaster3 likes this.
  14. Thedimon

    Thedimon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2018
    Messages:
    12,121
    Likes Received:
    8,714
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Whatever makes you sleep better.
     
  15. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,707
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I sleep very well - with those voices in your brain it must be tough ...
     
  16. Sallyally

    Sallyally Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2017
    Messages:
    15,834
    Likes Received:
    28,238
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    The use of Low yield bombs doesn’t reassure me that there will be no escalation.
    “While low-yield nuclear bombs can range from .1 kilotons to 10, 20, or 50 kilotons, according to Cirincione, the explosive yield from a low-yield nuclear weapon is equivalent to 1,000 MOABs. That is equivalent to the sizes of bombs dropped by the U.S. over Nagasaki and Hiroshima at the end of World War II.”

    http://dc.medill.northwestern.edu/b...ow-yield-nuclear-weapon/#sthash.uWqhpznx.dpbs
     
  17. Thedimon

    Thedimon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2018
    Messages:
    12,121
    Likes Received:
    8,714
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You still didn’t explain - how is it that a few hundred nukes can leave us all without power and communication, while we have videos or and photos of the nuclear explosions. Why did the navy ships continue to operate while they were within observable horizon of the burst? How come nuclear weapons testing a didn’t leave Nevada without power and communications?

    These are giant holes in your logic that you can’t explain. But keep repeating things to yourself.
     
  18. Blaster3

    Blaster3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2018
    Messages:
    6,008
    Likes Received:
    5,302
    Trophy Points:
    113
    scarlet witch likes this.
  19. Durandal

    Durandal Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 25, 2012
    Messages:
    55,518
    Likes Received:
    27,044
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    There's no need to worry. There won't be any nuke war. Trump wouldn't want to put his real estate holdings or his friendship with Papa Bear Putin, Little Rocket Man, MBS or any of his other authoritarian pals at risk.
     
    Sallyally likes this.
  20. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,707
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    When you say the EMP is a couple of miles - when in reality it is over 500 miles obviously you have some homework to do and should at least temper yourself on this basis - rather than calling others "kids"/non adults when it is you who is lacking.

    The EMP blast is maximized by altitude - the EMP from a ground burst (like the test in Nevada) is not going to go far. This is however not going to wipe out all communications. It is going to fry alot of circuits causing major havoc with anything that is not shielded - Navy ships are shielded. The power grid suffers much damage Major communications are lost when the satellites are taken out - no cell phone for you. The remote radar installations are also taken out.

    At this point not a single person has died. No nukes have destroyed anything on the ground. Obviously when the nukes hit - everything within a large diameter is wiped out. When you vaporize all the wires and so on in New York - they are vaporized. As you move further out from the vapo zone - there is major damage from the blast. The grid is interconnected to a large degree so just taking out the wires in one location will effect others. . Obviously if there is a power plant anywhere nearby - it is gone.

    The 3-400 nukes is what it takes to contaminate almost the entire US with nuclear fallout. More will die from this and the anarchy in the aftermath than the explosions themselves.

    These are not "hiroshima bombs" those are firecrackers compared to a thermonuclear bomb. The yield of Hiroshima was 12-14 kilotons. The stuff Russia will be sending is "megatons". They don't make the 20 megaton monsters anymore but still have a few. The yield is roughly 1500 times that of what hit Hiroshima. It is more efficient to use smaller ones - most are 1-2 these days. "Only" 150-300 times the yield of Hiroshima.

    Just one sub has 16 missiles (10 MIRV's) = 160 nuclear explosions. These are only 5-7 times the size of Hiroshima. Wipe out 160 US cities off the map - with population of 500,000 or more - and tell me what you are left with ?

    That's one Sub.... and while these are massive bombs 5-7 times Hiroshima is not some joke - the big ones are on the way from Russia and they can send thousands.

    So when New York, Philly, Pittsburgh, Cleveland have all been nuked and the people are running out from the city .. where do they go ?

    The fallout from the Castle bravo test contaminated 7000 sq miles of Ocean - A fishing boat 90 miles away got hit with the fallout. All were hospitalized with severe radiation sickness and one died. These folks were able to get out of the radioactive zone rather quickly (same as those in Hiroshima) - the effects of radiation are cumulative over time. Where to the people in the cities go - when everywhere is radioactive. It is not one bomb that has hit like in Hiroshima - such that you can easily escape the radiation - we are talking many hundreds and possibly more than a thousand - or a number of thousand if Russia desires.

    You cant go outside for 3 to 5 weeks - due to radioactivity in the air - and when you do come out there is nothing to come out to. What will you eat - what will you drink ? Its all contaminated. If you are lucky and smart enough to find a farm with a water well you might be able to find some uncontaminated water - you and the other 100,000 people - who are killing each other over scarce resources.

    I'm not sure what you think will be left after such an attack - but you are living in dreamland if you think the US as we know it will still exist.

     
    Sallyally likes this.
  21. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    25,310
    Likes Received:
    6,670
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
     
  22. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    25,310
    Likes Received:
    6,670
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Fallout is only significant from ground burst nuclear weapons. Air bursts which are detonated in such a way to maximize blast damage to targets generates little fallout.

    And while radiation will indeed be in most everything for a long time it won't be in levels high enough to kill for the most part or cause long lasting physical injury.
     
    Thedimon likes this.
  23. Sallyally

    Sallyally Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2017
    Messages:
    15,834
    Likes Received:
    28,238
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Weren’t Fat Man and Little Boy both air burst detonations?
     
  24. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,707
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Depends on how high the air burst is in general you are correct. A ground burst generates much more and more dangerous due to the particle interaction with the soil.

    With a ground burst - the radiation levels are quite high for a long time uninhabitable for 1-5 years.

    So even 60 years later levels are still 6 times above what is considered safe but yeah - you could tough it out.

    So what is your suggestion then - we evacuate those that survived the apocalypse for 3 years and then bring them back ?
     
  25. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    25,310
    Likes Received:
    6,670
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes. Basically if a nuclear device doesn't detonate close enough to the ground to produce a crater you can call it an airburst and figure on much reduced fallout.

    By the way has anyone considered the Russian island of Novaya Zemlya?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novaya_Zemlya

    It is the former Soviet test site for many nuclear weapons. It is about the size of the state of Maine or Indiana. There were 224 nuclear devices detonated there for a total of 265 megatons of yield. On the surface, subsurface, in the air, in the water, everywhere. .

    Yet, there are over 2,400 people living there today (and have for years) and from what I've read the low population has more to do with the harsh Arctic conditions than anything related to the nuclear tests. This should repudiate all on its own the idea of nuclear detonations making regions contaminated and uninhabitable for extended periods.
     
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2019

Share This Page