Trump Preparing for Nuclear War

How could there be nuclear war? I thought the Iranians gave up their nuke program because of John Kerry's negotiating skills.

 

I suspect the idea is the US playing with them against non nuclear people.

 

Geesh. Iranian gays are thrown off buildings, female adulteress are stoned to death, children are taught to hate Israel and America, while being trained to use weapons to kill infidels; and yet, America is the evil one! Go figure.

Hell, we just ought to ban driving, ban women, ban hotdogs, ban bikinis, ban dissent, ban Rock & Roll, get on our hands and knees, surrender to Iran, and beg for her forgiveness for daring to believe we were born free, and know better than Allah how to live our own lives.

Or??? Maybe?? Nuke the btch?

 

The U.S. will never use nuclear weapons against a non nuclear nation. That isn't even worth considering.

 

Yes. Maybe if the U.S. started tossing gays off tall buildings and stoning adulterers the left would like us as much as Iran.

 

This is NOT something to worry about, unless domestic American politics gets much worse than it is now.
At the moment, most of these who voted for Trump and would vote for him again, are perfectly aware of his flaws.
He's not a classical charismatic leader. Nor does he have the support of the 'deep state' -- of that part which really
counts, the men with the guns. Nor does the current Left really threaten the rest of us -- although they're moving in that
direction.

If you look at the situations in which democracies became dictatorships, the dictator usually had fervent mass support -- maybe
not a majority, but close to it. There was often a history of outright civil war (Greece), or violent provocations by the Left (Argentina)
or the credible threat of social/economic collapse hastened by a Leftist government without a mandate (Chile).

Here are some of the circumstances which could prepare the US for some sort of drastic change -- dictatorship, or civil war leading
to dissolution of the Union:

(1) Some sort of humiliating defeat against a foreign power -- this wouldn't have to be surrender and occupation of
the US, just something like losing part of the Seventh Fleet without the means to retaliate. (Such situations will become more common, particularly
when Iran gets nuclear weapons and the ability to deliver them to the US -- the US can at the moment threaten to do things to Iran that it would not
dream of doing were Iran a nuclear power, or closely allied to a nuclear power. Don't think the Iranians don't know this.) Remember that prior to WWI, the Germans were a powerful nation, on the way up economically, having won all their wars for the last century. Then they were, as they saw it, 'stabbed in the back' -- forced to accept defeat while their armies were still on French soil.

(2) A big world depression, which hits the US hard. This is what tipped the Germans into mass support for fascism: in 1928, the Nazis had 3% of the vote --
their share increased by a factor of 10 after the Great Crash of 1929.

(3) The emergence of a credible Hard Right leader. This person would, 'ideally' be a military veteran. They would have the 'correct' opinions on racial and sexual equality, made with reference to their experience in the military, even if they didn't believe them and only paid tepid lip service to them. (The ideal of equal rights is now deeply-ingrained in the American psyche. The idiot Left think that Trump supporters are like white Mississippi Klansmen in the 1930s. It comforts them to believe this, but it's not true.) This leader would obviously be intelligent, and not impulsive. He would embrace a mildly leftwing social program, and might even believe it. The tricky thing for him would be to appear to be upholding old-fashioned racial equality, while in fact mobilizing white resentment. (He would need to do this because a large fraction of the American state -- the only part that counts, the men with guns -- is non-white.) By the way, almost all modern racial/tribal demagogues pay lipservice to equal rights.

(4) The continued fracturing of the US on racial lines, now the favored tactic of the Hard Left. More illegal immigration, more sanctuary cities, more shaming of whites for being white, more racial discrimination to take resources from white taxpayers and give them to the Left's favored victim-groups.

(5) The emergence of seriously-violent groups on the Left, who begin to undertake assassinations and bombings. The people most responsible for the coming to power of the murderous Argentine junta were the Monteneros, a left-Peronist terrorist organization that killed dozens of policemen in bombings. When a conservative Chilean politician was assassinated under Allende, with young Chilean radicals accumulating arms and openly bragging about how they would establish a New Havana in Santiago ... the writing was on the wall. The problem the Hard Left have here is that a large part of urban police forces, and the American military, is non-white. They'll have to find a way to murder only white policemen and soldiers. Tricky.

(6) Some big change in the Supreme Court, with new Justices holding Leftish view replacing the current lot. Largely peaceful evangelical Christians who see the prospect of having under force of law to conduct gay weddings in their churches and teach gay sexual technique in their religious schools would be radicalized.

The future is not predictable. But the US is objectively deeply divided along racial lines, and in many countries in the world, where there are two or more ethnic groups, each making up a sizable fraction of the population, there have been vicious civil wars. So long as the US is the top dog in the world, these tensions are moderated. But the inevitable rise of China and the displacement of the US from its accustomed position opens up a dangerous prospect.

But it won't be the buffoon Trump who leads us into the chasm of civil war (not commenting on old-fashioned international war though).

 

By the way, gays are not tossed off tall buildings in Iran. If they are executed, they're hung. (It's Sunni Islamists who enjoy throwing people off of tall buildings.) But only a couple of hundred have been hung. The usual punishment is lashing and prison, if you're male. Women get off a bit easier. More details here.
Usually, the people hanged are charged with rape -- as in the case of the young men in the photo -- and apparently, sometimes one member of a gay couple will confess to rape to save the other.


Interesting to see how Left and Right swap places when it comes to gay rights under Islam.

 

That’s exactly what my reasoning is - if you don’t die from physical blast, if you were a few miles from the explosion of an average warhead, chances are good that you will live to tell the story to your grandkids.
That’s what you can observe with survivors in Japan. Some were closer than a quarter of a mile and still managed to survive.

 

To the left, Muslims > gays. So they'll never criticize Muslims for treatment of gays.

The right doesn't like having traditional marriage trashed by the radical gay agenda in the U.S. But we are sickened by gays being hung or tossed off of tall buildings.

 

In that last sentence we are agreed

What leftists have ever expressed approval of Islamic based homophobia?

 

I've never heard the left approve of gays being hung or thrown off tall buildings in the Middle East. But I've also never heard the left disapprove of those things. They are silent.

 

EMPs are limited to within observeable horizon. That’s just a physical fact. Curvature of earth limits the radius. And basic metal casing is enough in most cases to shield a device from EMP. Think about it - cameras continued to work and we have footing of the tests.
Claiming that we will be without power and communications in case of nuclear war is extreme over exaggeration. Some areas will lose power and communications for sure, but not all.

Only items in the fireball are vaporized. An average nuke, 750kt, will destroy everything within about 1 mile radius. Another couple of miles will have shattered windows. That’s it.
Go to this website:
https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/
Pick Chicago, 750 kilotons and airburst.

Results are not that impressive.

Run the simulators and check it out yourself!
What you claim is simply not true!

Average Russian warhead is 750 kt.
Russians won’t be sending megatons in thousands because they don’t have them, at least not on ICBMs. Uranium and plutonium weigh a lot more than lead, with weight to yield ratio of around 5mt to metric ton, mounting a 20 mt nuke on a missile becomes a challenge. That’s why 750 kt nukes with MIRVs are preferred.

160 would hardly be enough to wipe out Chicago.

Nope, they have only about 1300.
And half of those are not even on ICBMs.

Castle Bravo was an unusual weapon that is not being practically used, just like Tsar Bomba. Contamination area was actually pretty narrow and followed the wind pattern. It didn’t spread as a circle, it spread like a long narrow band.
You can’t compare most weapons to Castle Bravoe because the yield in most weapons is significantly lower and most weapons don’t have that lithium in them.

As for new Russian developments - status 6 is pure fantasy, nuclear propulsion is mot realistic - it was abandoned by American scientists back in the 60s as impractical. The only real thing they have is Sarmat, but it’s a liquid propellant rocket - that means you can’t just keep in in a silo fueled, as the fuel would erode internal component. It’s a nice rocket, would be great for launching small satellites, but I don’t see it being practical for nuclear war because before the launch you need to spend several hours fueling it. And chances are great that when a rocket is being fueled by inexperienced staff instead of professional space agency workers, the rocket will simply blow up before it gets a chance to take off.
Remember SoaceX blew up during fueling? Yeah, those people had more experience than average Russian soldier in nuclear forces.

Do you know why Russians build a liquid propellant rocket? Because they don’t have expertise anymore to build icbms that are accurate and use solid fuel. Considering that Sarmat is going to be their main ICBM we can safely assume that in about 10 years from now we can safely nuke Russia for almost a whole day before Russia manages to fuel their ICBMs to defend itself, if it will have any left after being carpet bombed by Americans.

 

I would like to add something about nuclear missiles with multiple warheads (MIRVs). People like to say that a nuclear missile submarine with say 16 missiles, each carrying 8 warheads (those are possible examples) could "destroy" 128 cities (or other targets).

No they couldn't. Unless those cities or other targets are all VERY close together. The targets for MIRVs (Multiple Independently Targeted Reentry Vehicles) must be within a certain radius of each other. The can't be thousands of miles apart. Even people who should know better have made this mistake. President Jimmy Carter who had spent years on Admiral Rickover's nuclear submarine development team thought that a single U.S. SSBN carrying 16 Poseidon missiles (8 warheads each) could "destroy every city in the U.S.S.R."

He even based his plans for a drastic scaling back of the U.S. strategic nuclear arsenal on this supposed "fact".

 

You have to ask the communists. It makes no sense to me at all.

 

Of course they don't express approval. They turn down their disapproval, almost to off.

Here's a thought experiment for you: suppose one of the very Christian, conservative East European states -- like Hungary -- implemented Irans' laws on gays.
How would the Left respond?

And suppose a President Hillary ( it could have happened!) imposed sanctions on Hungary. Would the Left disapprove? Hell, they'd be calling on her to drop the 82nd Airborne on Budapest.

Don't assume your own political views, which are Left of center but reasonable, are those of the Hard Left, who, unfortunately, tend to set the terms of discourse on the Left, especially among the young, and including in academia.

I vividly recall when the Shah of Iran was in the process of being overthrown by the Islamists -- the Left cheered this to the echo. A tiny tiny fraction of them pointed out that these Islamists were more reactionary than the Shah on social issues (the Shah had begun to promote women's rights, just as Saddam Hussein had been doing -- in a gingerly fashion in both cases, and no doubt not for reasons of sincere personal belief, but as part of modernizing their countries).

But the Left only cared about the fact that the Islamists hated America. So they whitewashed Khomeini and his supporters. Some of them still do to this day: have a look at the grotesquely-misnamed Veterans Today, for example.

 

You seriously do not think the US is intending nuclear war against Russia. The US will only try nukes against people who they know cannot harm them. That is how the US works. It generally harms people who cannot harm them. Now it is wanting to destroy Iran it is in with a problem because it cannot achieve what it wants just with a few air strikes and those against Iran's very good air defenses. The US would need to put its people in and to start conscription again and they would be going home massively in body bags. It would be Vietnam again.The US public does not like dead American's - that is why in the Russian program they began to question whether they way out the US would choose would be to nuke Iran which they also said would be 'the end'. Given that we are hearing the US is now thinking of using nukes in war, Iran would seem the most obvious first choice - and be aware that Russia has promised if you try that the United States will feel it too. You cannot just continue to destroy the world as you are doing and not expect to get it back big.

 

US nuclear strategy is criminally insane and has been for some time now.

 

Not sure why you are getting into Status 6 ? I only was talking about things that actually exist. You talk over almost the entirety of my post and make a number of either false or misleading claims.

A 750KT nuclear bomb is massive -as is the fallout from such a blast if done at ground. That is 50X the yield of Hiroshima. The Russians did not dismantle thousands nukes (including the larger variety) to weaken themselves. The did it because they are simply not needed.

This is like the debate between two nations "we can destroy you 10 times over - .. well we can destroy you 11". That is how stupid things got.

The Castle bravo test contaminated 7000 square miles. It matters not that it is not a circle .. a square mile is a square mile for those of us that are not mathematically challenged. Nor is the square mileage of radioactive contamination area linear with yield = a 10 MT bomb does not contaminate 10 X the area of a 1 MT bomb - which is why a number of smaller blasts is more efficient than one large one.

For example - as per this simulator. https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/ for a 7500 KT (7.5 MT) Airblast - the (5psi) blast radius is 13.8 km. The radius for a 10 x smaller blast (750 KT) is 6.39 km. 9 mile diameter circle of destruction.

Your windows shattered over a couple miles - "and that's it" is once again completely false. "At 5 psi overpressure, most residential buildings collapse, injuries are universal, fatalities are widespread"

A 9 mile diameter circle of 5 psi overpressure is a whole lot more than a couple miles and a collapsed building, universal injuries and widespread fatality is a whole lot more damage than a windows shattered.

I have run the simulators - and have said nothing that is untrue. Name one thing ? When I accuse you of a falsehood - I state what that falsehood is and then prove it to be a falsehood. Running around in a circle crying "falsehood" is not an argument for anything.

Your EMP comment on the horizon is correct - this is why an EMP blast is done at a high altitude. Your "few miles" claim is completely false and this was proven to you. What is your problem ?

Your claim that Russians do not have thousands is also false. One nuclear sub has 16 missiles (10 MIRVs each) = 160 bombs. The US has 6500 nukes in its arsenal and Russia has 6800. https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Nuclearweaponswhohaswhat

This is more than enough to wipe each other off the map - numerous times.

You then spout a bunch of nonsense with respect to "carpet bombing" Russia. How exactly do you propose we would do that ? Russia is more than capable of taking out our carriers with conventional weapons - and if that is not working they would nuke them.

The one way we might be able to prevent Russia from firing all of its missiles is to do a massive first strike - of the nuclear variety. Russia would launch a counter attack with what they have ready to go - likely 1000 or so - but we may prevent them from launching some nukes that are not ready to fire.

Your claim that Russian nukes are not ready to go is complete - unadulterated - and absurd nonsense. Do you think the nukes on a Sub have to be fueled up for a day before they are fired ? Holy carp you come up with some mindless and unsubstantiated nonsense.

You then make this nonsense claim -

How are cell phones going to work without satellites ? How is power going to flow when power plants and the power grid is gone ? Sure there may be a few locations in sparsely inhabited places like Wyoming that might still have power running but the vast majority of the US power grid would be destroyed. Every large pipeline would be gone. The odds of a 1000 mile pipeline which at some point comes into a major hub surviving is beyond remote. You can disrupt nearly the the entire natural gas and oil supply with a few well placed strikes.

.http://factmyth.com/factoids/the-us-is-connected-by-one-power-grid/

That is just with EMP - never mind things being blown up by Nuclear weapons. Give me a break.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesc...ks-of-electromagnetic-pulse-emp/#c59d86d70cbf

Again- this is just from EMP. We are not talking about whole swaths - many square miles of infrastructure being wiped out by a nuclear explosion. Do you know what "interconnected" means ? The idea that the power grid would survive hundreds of nuclear explosions - never mind thousands - is absurd nonsense on steroids.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/...major-real-life-threats-to-the-electric-grid/

The "Baltimore" region scenario is only a small "local" EMP" attack - not a high altitude blast spreading out over hundreds of miles like would be the case in an actual nuclear war with Russia. What part of "Starfish prime" a 1.4 MT blast - knocked out power 900 miles away in Hawaii is not sinking in ? The closer you get to the source the bigger the damage - and it is not like Russia is going to do just one. They did not expect the blast to even effect things that far away.

https://thehill.com/opinion/technol...emp-attack-which-we-pioneered-nearly-60-years

It is almost silly to be talking about the damage from EMP when you have actual infrastructure getting vaporized by the fireball or destroyed by the blast - one is living in some nonsense fantasy world if they think an interconnected power grid and communication system is going to survive this.

Take take your CPU out of your computer and drill a hole in it and see how well your computer works afterwords if you want to do an experiment that will demonstrate what the term "Interconnected" means.

 

sorry wrong place.

 

The U.S. isn't intending to use nuclear weapons against anyone.

 

Most of those nuclear weapons are not available to use against the United States and could not easily be made available.

 

This thread is on them preparing for that. The paper was online for a week and then removed. There are also people on this thread arguing for it and why they can do it without any problems.

 

No it is not. This thread is simply about some minor policy changes aimed at keeping the U.S. prepared. Nothing more.

 

Your just wrote it yourself - a 750 kt blast has a radius of 6km, which is quite literally a few miles.
Second - no one mounts 7.5 MT warheads on missiles because it’s not practical. Russians heavily prefer a missile with like 10 warheads 500-700 kt each. Besides, you need a very large ICBM to be able to lift so much weight into space.

Also, for large fallouts you need explosions at ground level, which would minimize physical damage and the EMP would be minimal. In case of bombing, absolute majority of nukes would explode at an altitude of about a mile to maximize the damage, which is still not much for EMP and the destruction area is not that large with minimal fallout.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime

Read this.
A 1.4 MT device was detonated at 250 mile altitude, above observable horizon of Hawaii.

From wiki:
about 898 miles (1,445 km) away from the detonation point, knocking out about 300 streetlights,[6] setting off numerous burglar alarms and damaging a telephone company microwave link.[7] The EMP damage to the microwave link shut down telephone calls from Kauaito the other Hawaiian islands.[8]

^^^^

Wow, that’s was intense damage right there!

 

Sorry you are not correct. Try the OP. I heard about it somewhere else before seeing the thread.