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

This is a new propaganda. I have listened to a couple of people espouse this. They are wrong. I think I will trust the scientists on this one. Everywhere there is a military base in the US will be hit with many nukes. I live 10 miles from one. Many people live close to them. Secondary targets are already targeted as well.

Ever hear of nuclear winter? It is a fact with an all out exchange. This comes from scientist putting a pencil to it.

Don't believe what this website tells you. There is a push to make americans think we can win a nuclear exchange. COG, ever hear of it, will go underground, inside of mountains, and during 911 we had a line of limos taking elites to these safe spaces, backed up. If there is no mass end of life our gov't would not be going into underground cities.

A nuclear exchange might not end all human life on earth. But it would blow us back to the stone age. The people living in the jungles in parts of the world would be the survivors. You would not stand a chance in hell of surviving it, or anyone within a high tech society.

It would be the end of the white race. Which might be rather fitting, when you think about it. Only white people would ever think we could survive a nuclear exchange with russia. The same race that created these damned things.

 

What would be the impct of a dozen airbursts over los angeles? New york? Chicago?

If you happen to live in (and die in) any largish city, you might not feel comforted by your observations

 

It’s not subjective. The US only has about 1400 deployed warheads. Russia has a similar number. There is no way a nuclear war can involve 10,000 nuclear detonations.

There isn’t even any way it would involve 2800 nuclear detonations because a significant percentage of those warheads will fail on launch, fail to detonate, or be attritted.

The human race and civilization most definitely can survive nuclear war, especially those who live in the Southern Hemisphere.

 

Even Carl Sagan who pioneered the nuclear winter concept admitted he didn't have evidence to support it. Read one of his biographies where he flat out admits it.

 

I’m not trying to comfort anyone. I’m giving an accurate assessment.

 

The numbers of Democrats/Liberals/Progressives in the United States would be reduced by about 5-8 million.

 

Those that scream loudest in fear are usually the most ignorant of the subject.

 

Just ****ing bizarre

 

There's something seriously wrong with you

 

One 'hot particle' is likely to kill you, especially if modern medicine is unavailable.

Ill cede that not EVERYONE will die; that would require a planet-busting asteroid, the explosion of the sun, or something on that order. But what exactly is the point of saying 'nukes cant kill us all' when they could very easily kill the vast majority of us indirectly?

Is that really a relevant distinction?

 

IOW.... you could not refute his post, so you decided to insult him.

 

Actually they wouldn't even kill the "vast majority" of humans on Earth. Worst case Earth would still have BILLIONS of people. Including (again worst case) probably at least 200 million in the United States.

 

Ohhh?

As of September 2015, the United States has a total of 4,571 warheads in its nuclear weapons stockpile, according to a State Department official. The United States has retired thousands of nuclear warheads that are removed from their delivery platform that are not included in this total, the official said, noting those warheads are not functional and are in a queue for dismantlement.

Just stop

 

I do not doubt that for you would have to have an actual exchange in order to verify it. But it is theory, and has been for a long time. I don't want to see that theory tested. I do not want to roll the dice with the lives of my kids, grand kids and great grand kids. How bout you?

We cannot survive the damned EMPs, and only some military installations are hardened. You got a return for that too? I don't think you have personally thought this out, but are taking the word of some mad men on some site as gospel. It would end human civiilization and kill who knows how many people, if not from the blasts then from the radiation. Radiation is some evil stuff my friend.

I think you are indulging in madness. We used to have better sense as a nation.

 

.. which not the same as "deployed".
Do you need the difference explained to you?

 

There have been thousands of atmospheric nuclear tests since 1945. Why haven’t there been mass dieoffs from the “hot particles” from those?

 

Who would be facing cold with no power, hunger with no food, disease with no medicine, and an increasingly radioactive environment with no means to slow it down or clean it up.

 

Are you saying the information I presented at the website is not accurate. Note, a weapon "in storage" is not a usable weapon. Any more than a handgun locked in a safe deposit box is a useable weapon.

 

But even the idea that "only" a thousand nukes being exchanged wouldn't be a disaster of Biblical proportions is absurd.

The real number is probably 10 times that in just the US and Russia alone...add China and India and Pakistan and Britain and France and Israel into the mix and can add another thousand or two...and they'd likely all go off.

Each one many times more powerful than the ones dropped in WWII

Please just ****ing stop

 

LOL. Believe that rubbish if you want. I just hope the powers that be never believe it. Taking out our grid will kill that other 200 million, or most of them. Our transformers are made...in china. Try to get enough to rebuild the grid before people die of various things. It would take at least a decade if we could get them from china to get power back up. The chaos in distribution systems which depend upon high tech would never come back up for decades. You just do not understand the complexity involved.

 

Yes.

READ what you quoted. Those are not "in storage"

 

This isn't the issue at hand. Read more carefully.

 

Do you have actual evidence that there are "probably 10 times that in just the U.S. and Russia alone"?

I thought not. And you do know that there are many nuclear weapons actually SMALLER than the ones used in World War Two as well.

 

Apparnelty you -do- need 'deployed' and 'stockpiled' explained to you.
Hint: one is ready to use, the other is not.

 

sick how you guys are trying to downplay the disaster that nuclear war would bring