The Myth That Nuclear Weapons Can Kill Everyone On Earth-many times over

Who ever said that.

And note that he uses the excuse that weapons are in storage. In storage for what? We have 5,000 ready to go, not a hundred.

So if we have all out nuclear war, we are talking about something close to 10,000 nuclear detonations.

 

Very much inflated. I might add that far more were killed on the night of March 9/10 with the conventional bombing of Tokyo. In that bombing 16 square miles of Tokyo was burn out.

A further myth is that anywhere that is hit by a nuclear bomb will be uninhabitable for thousand of years is laughable. Look at the pictures of both japanese cities that were A bombed now. They are huge thriving cities.

 

We do not have 5,000 ready to go. Most nuclear weapons that exist in the US and Russia would cease to be within 30 minutes of nuclear war as their storage sites themselves got nuked.

 

Nuclear Weapons are symbolic of a much broader threat.

 

Where are they? How deep? You don't think they protect these? You don't think they know they are targets?

4000 not 5000, We have 6800 with 2800 awaiting decommissioning.

 

No we don't have "5,000 read to go". We and the Russians combined do not have that many strategic nuclear warheads (as in ones that can actually be used against the mainland U.S. or Russia) combined.

 

A W88 nuclear warhead (U.S.) or if the Russians have anything equivalent can destroy ANY known or projected hardened underground target.

 

This has to be one of the dumbest threads I've ever seen, anywhere.

Now the righties are paving the way for nuclear war.

 

We have 4000. Look it up and stop making crackpot arguments.

 

The whole thread is a stupid excuse for a nuclear war.

Who could be this stupid?

 

That is the point of this thread: The trumpees want a nuclear war.

 

Evidence of this

, wind and water currents will carry their radiological devastation all over the globe.

 

The US and Russia only have about 1,400 deployed warheads each. At least some of those will fail to launch, fail to detonate, or get attritted by counter-force strikes. Warheads that are in storage are prime nuclear targets and will get wiped out.

There is no way a nuclear war involves 10,000 detonations.

 

It doesn’t matter how deep they are buried. You collapse the entrance to a storage bunker under a nuke strike crater and those nukes aren’t going to be recovered.

 

Why are you lying? That is not what Dayton is doing.

 

Awesome. So they'll either be atomized into the atmosphere by a direct nuclear strike or damaged beyond control by an atmospheric strike. Either way, they vent their radioactive stockpile into the environment. How is this not a global environmental catastrophe of unparallelled and possibly unsurvivable proportions?

 

That is not what the link in the OP says.

 

The US has approximately 1,400 deployed warheads. Those are the only warheads that could possibly get used.

 

Why are you feeding this stupidity?

 

How does truth feed anything but the truth?

 

Deleting the parts of my comment that're inconvenient to your position is not a practice of honest discussion.

Fukushima radiation has spread throughout the pacific, and it was limited to that because of the countless dollars and manhours poured into mitigating its damage. Are you trying to argue that reactors wont go into full meltdown if left unchecked as result of socioeconomic collapse in a global nuclear war scenario, or are you trying to argue that their environmental impact will be limited when they do?

 

It's "subjective" truth at best.

And it's trying to make it seem as if a nuclear war is something we could survive.

Total horse crap

 

From the website and I've no reason to doubt their figures.

The United States may have had 27,519 warheads in 1975, but today that's down to an estimated 4,480, of which 61 percent are in storage with several hundred slated for retirement. Meanwhile, Russia's arsenal, which it inherited from the Soviet Union, went from 39,197 warheads to about 4,500, of which 1,800 are tactical weapons. 2,700 are in storage and 2,800 are set for retirement.

That means that at any give time the United States has

1747 nuclear weapons give or take that we are able to launch at targets around the world.

That means that Russia has at any one time about 1,800 nuclear weapons give or take that they can launch at targets around the world.

Now I'll be perfectly honest, if 1,000 Russian nuclear warheads struck the United States it would be devastating. The worse loss of life the U.S. has suffered in its entire history combined all at once.

The same if a similar U.S. attack struck Russia. Probably worse as the Russian population centers are more concentrated than in the U.S. despite Russia being two and a half times larger overall.

But it wouldn't kill everyone in the U.S. or everyone in Russia. Even if you factor in radiation, disease, and famine in the aftermath.

And it certainly wouldn't kill everyone on Earth. Not even close.

 

Radiation being spread even around the world doesn't mean it will be strong enough to have any significant effect on the global ecosystem.

The difference between low and high level radiation is much like the difference between drinking one beer a day for 100 days and drinking 100 beers on one day.

 

Most people on Earth (and for that matter in the U.S.) would survive even a major nuclear war.