Nuclear Survivor or Casualty

Einstein

Temporal Engineer
Joined
Dec 24, 2004
Messages
3,470
LOL

Nuclear Winter was a liberal myth. We detonated thousands of nuclear bombs during the Cold War all over the planet. No nuclear winter.

In a way, the Cold War really was a nuclear war.



There is no such thing as a nuclear winter.
You are wrong. At no time in man's history did we detonate those thousands on nuclear bombs within minutes of each other. The atmosphere had time to heal between detonations. You have now labeled yourself as a liar.
 

Kairos

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2018
Messages
1,048
You are wrong. At no time in man's history did we detonate those thousands on nuclear bombs within minutes of each other. The atmosphere had time to heal between detonations. You have now labeled yourself as a liar.
Nuclear winter is a made-up story invented by liberals to demoralize the American people in the face of communist aggression. That's all it is. There exists no evidence to support such a silly notion. Nuclear weapons are just bombs like most others. We are not talking about some science fiction doomsday device.
 

Kairos

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2018
Messages
1,048
The Oak Ridge Lab scientist who wrote Nuclear War Survival Skills wrote:

Myth: Unsurvivable "nuclear winter" surely will follow a nuclear war. The world will be frozen if only 100 megatons (less than one percent of all nuclear weapons) are used to ignite cities. World-enveloping smoke from fires and the dust from surface bursts will prevent almost all sunlight and solar heat from reaching the earth's surface. Universal darkness for weeks! Sub-zero temperatures, even in summertime! Frozen crops, even in the jungles of South America! Worldwide famine! Whole species of animals and plants exterminated! The survival of mankind in doubt!


° Facts:
Unsurvivable "nuclear winter" is a discredited theory that, since its conception in 1982, has been used to frighten additional millions into believing that trying to survive a nuclear war is a waste of effort and resources, and that only by ridding the world of almost all nuclear weapons do we have a chance of surviving.


Non-propagandizing scientists recently have calculated that the climatic and other environmental effects of even an all-out nuclear war would be much less severe than the catastrophic effects repeatedly publicized by popular astronomer Carl Sagan and his fellow activist scientists, and by all the involved Soviet scientists. Conclusions reached from these recent, realistic calculations are summarized in an article, "Nuclear Winter Reappraised", featured in the 1986 summer issue of Foreign Affairs, the prestigious quarterly of the Council on Foreign Relations. The authors, Starley L. Thompson and Stephen H. Schneider, are atmospheric scientists with the National Center for Atmospheric Research. They showed " that on scientific grounds the global apocalyptic conclusions of the initial nuclear winter hypothesis can now be relegated to a vanishing low level of probability."

Their models indicate that in July (when the greatest temperature reductions would result) the average temperature in the United States would be reduced for a few days from about 70 degrees Fahrenheit to approximately 50 degrees. (In contrast, under the same conditions Carl Sagan, his associates, and the Russian scientists predicted a resulting average temperature of about 10 degrees below zero Fahrenheit, lasting for many weeks!)


Persons who want to learn more about possible post-attack climatic effects also should read the Fall 1986 issue of Foreign Affairs. This issue contains a long letter from Thompson and Schneider which further demolishes the theory of catastrophic "nuclear winter." Continuing studies indicate there will be even smaller reductions in temperature than those calculated by Thompson and Schneider.


Soviet propagandists promptly exploited belief in unsurvivable "nuclear winter" to increase fear of nuclear weapons and war, and to demoralize their enemies. Because raging city firestorms are needed to inject huge amounts of smoke into the stratosphere and thus, according to one discredited theory, prevent almost all solar heat from reaching the ground, the Soviets changed their descriptions of how a modern city will burn if blasted by a nuclear explosion.


Figure 1.6 pictures how Russian scientists and civil defense officials realistically described - before the invention of "nuclear winter" - the burning of a city hit by a nuclear weapon. Buildings in the blasted area for miles around ground zero will be reduced to scattered rubble - mostly of concrete, steel, and other nonflammable materials - that will not burn in blazing fires. Thus in the Oak Ridge National Laboratory translation (ORNL-TR-2793) of Civil Defense. Second Edition (500,000 copies), Moscow, 1970, by Egorov, Shlyakhov, and Alabin, we read: "Fires do not occur in zones of complete destruction . . . that are characterized by an overpressure exceeding 0.5 kg/cm2 [- 7 psi]., because rubble is scattered and covers the burning structures. As a result the rubble only smolders, and fires as such do not occur."

Firestorms destroyed the centers of Hamburg, Dresden, and Tokyo. The old-fashioned buildings of those cities contained large amounts of flammable materials, were ignited by many thousands of small incendiaries, and burned quickly as standing structures well supplied with air. No firestorm has ever injected smoke into the stratosphere, or caused appreciable cooling below its smoke cloud.


The theory that smoke from burning cities and forests and dust from nuclear explosions would cause worldwide freezing temperatures was conceived in 1982 by the German atmospheric chemist and environmentalist Paul Crutzen, and continues to be promoted by a worldwide propaganda campaign. This well funded campaign began in 1983 with televised scientific-political meetings in Cambridge and Washington featuring American and Russian scientists. A barrage of newspaper and magazine articles followed, including a scaremongering article by Carl Sagan in the October 30, 1983 issue of Parade, the Sunday tabloid read by millions. The most influential article was featured in the December 23,1983 issue of Science (the weekly magazine of the American Association for the Advancement of Science): "Nuclear winter, global consequences of multiple nuclear explosions," by five scientists, R. P. Turco, O. B. Toon, T. P. Ackerman, J. B. Pollack, and C. Sagan. Significantly, these activists listed their names to spell TTAPS, pronounced "taps," the bugle call proclaiming "lights out" or the end of a military funeral.


Until 1985, non-propagandizing scientists did not begin to effectively refute the numerous errors, unrealistic assumptions, and computer modeling weakness' of the TTAPS and related "nuclear winter" hypotheses. A principal reason is that government organizations, private corporations, and most scientists generally avoid getting involved in political controversies, or making statements likely to enable antinuclear activists to accuse them of minimizing nuclear war dangers, thus undermining hopes for peace. Stephen Schneider has been called a fascist by some disarmament supporters for having written "Nuclear Winter Reappraised," according to the Rocky Mountain News of July 6, 1986. Three days later, this paper, that until recently featured accounts of unsurvivable "nuclear winter," criticized Carl Sagan and defended Thompson and Schneider in its lead editorial, "In Study of Nuclear Winter, Let Scientists Be Scientists." In a free country, truth will out - although sometimes too late to effectively counter fast-hittingpropaganda.


Effective refutation of "nuclear winter" also was delayed by the prestige of politicians and of politically motivated scientists and scientific organizations endorsing the TTAPS forecast of worldwide doom. Furthermore, the weakness' in the TTAPS hypothesis could not be effectively explored until adequate Government funding was made available to cover costs of lengthy, expensive studies, including improved computer modeling of interrelated, poorly understood meteorological phenomena.


Serious climatic effects from a Soviet-U.S. nuclear war cannot be completely ruled out. However, possible deaths from uncertain climatic effects are a small danger compared to the incalculable millions in many countries likely to die from starvation caused by disastrous shortages of essentials of modern agriculture sure to result from a Soviet-American nuclear war, and by the cessation of most international food shipments.
Ch. 1: The Dangers from Nuclear Weapons: Myths and Facts - Nuclear War Survival Skills
 

Einstein

Temporal Engineer
Joined
Dec 24, 2004
Messages
3,470
Nuclear winter is a made-up story invented by liberals to demoralize the American people in the face of communist aggression. That's all it is. There exists no evidence to support such a silly notion. Nuclear weapons are just bombs like most others. We are not talking about some science fiction doomsday device.
Your statements are pure fiction.
 

Kairos

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2018
Messages
1,048
My statement is backed by actual science. Please read the above quote.
 

Einstein

Temporal Engineer
Joined
Dec 24, 2004
Messages
3,470
My statement is backed by actual science. Please read the above quote.
I did read it. No mention of the mini ice age the earth experienced after Krakatoa blew its stack. We have historical geology records that do show what happens when the atmosphere is filled with dust clouds. A lot of our science today doesn't use facts anymore for the basis of their statements.
 

Kairos

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2018
Messages
1,048
I did read it. No mention of the mini ice age the earth experienced after Krakatoa blew its stack. We have historical geology records that do show what happens when the atmosphere is filled with dust clouds. A lot of our science today doesn't use facts anymore for the basis of their statements.
You are equating a nuclear exchange with Krakatoa? LMFAO
 

Kairos

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2018
Messages
1,048
Yes I am.
Krakatoa released many millions of tons of pulverized rock and debris into the atmosphere, and probably more CO2 than humans ever released cumulatively since the industrial revolution. This was five cubic miles of pulverized rock injected directly into the upper atmosphere.

Comparing that to a nuclear warhead detonating a thousand feet above the surface is silly.

The closest you can get to that kind of shit is a surface blast, but it's not going to release millions of tons of dust into the atmosphere, and most warheads are for aerial blasts. Surface blasts would hit the missile fields in the upper Midwest, NORAD, etc. A surface blast would come from a warhead no larger than 20 megatons. Probably half that. And Krakatoa was at least 200 megatons.

Humans cannot presently build weapons that come anywhere near Krakatoa's power. We'd have to haul a giant space rock into orbit and drop it on Saudi Arabia or something to match this.
 

Einstein

Temporal Engineer
Joined
Dec 24, 2004
Messages
3,470
Want numbers? Todays nuclear bombs or should I say H-bombs, are typically in the 100 megaton range. A lot bigger than the 30 kiloton bombs that took out Hiroshima and Nagasaki. So say we choose the mutual destruction option. !0,000 nuclear bombs are detonated. Each with a blast radius of 60 miles. All in the course of say 20 minutes. We have no rules in warfare. Bombs will surely be detonated at surface level.

By the way, Krakatoa was only estimated at around 200 megatons.
 

Kairos

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2018
Messages
1,048
They are not 100 megatons. Stop bullshitting everybody. They range from about 200 kilotons to 5 megatons. Just because you can make larger yields does not make that a strategically viable choice.
 

Einstein

Temporal Engineer
Joined
Dec 24, 2004
Messages
3,470
The Russians tested this one in the atmosphere. Tsar Bomba - Wikipedia

Of course you don't have to believe it I suppose. Or that we haven't kept up in the nuclear arms race either.
 

Kairos

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2018
Messages
1,048
Uh.. yeah.. they tested one experimental warhead. The actual warheads in our two arsenals are nothing like that. They range from a few kilotons to about 10 megatons. We don't have 100 megaton bombs in active service. Neither of us do.

List of All U.S. Nuclear Weapons
 

TnWatchdog

Senior Member
Joined
May 24, 2012
Messages
7,099
Nuclear winter or not, I got an idea, lets shoot off all the known and unknown nuclear bombs and see what happens.
pUeXcg80cO8I8.gif
***How many nuclear bombs are there today?
Nuclear arsenals. Nine countries together possess around 15,000 nuclear weapons. The United States and Russia maintain roughly 1,800 of their nuclear weapons on high-alert status – ready to be launched within minutes of a warning. Most are many times more powerful than the atomic bombs dropped on Japan in 1945.***
Place your bets. I'll spend...I mean hold your bets until doomsday.
 

titorite

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2011
Messages
1,914
Am I alone in studying modern thermonuclear warfare?

As i read through this it looks like everyone is half right and or half wrong but then again maybe im the one full of it. IDK.

BUT

From what i understand , we have mrivs for a reason. Geometric distribution of lower yield nukes has proven to be just as or potentially even more destructive than the larger yield nukes with less fall out so thats what all the big boys moved too. But that is only for the places designated for "broken windows" .

Before any cities get vaporized in the exchange the very first nukes will be high altitude detonations for that Emp effect. I think ive read it estimated that the whole of north america could go lights out with just one or two well placed high altitude detonations.

We wont get the warning in time to do anything about it. Once the high atmosphere nukes go off your radios, tvs, cars ,all of it anything not in a hardened location will fry. Then after that the MIRVs will drop on all the big cities and hardened locations....

And yeah the big governments have made aftermath plans. Not for governments survival but rather humanities survival. Thats why population centers of only a couple thousand people arent targeted. Their wont be any kind of counter resistence and we wouldnt be repelling an invasion. Everything would go full swing into finding and maintaining clean water and having healthy babies and restarting our civilization.

Its one of the reasons i always like living near a river. Fresh water that can be distilled, wild game, a potential source of power via water wheels, a place to keep your beer and milk cold till that happens, if youre planning on riding out the nuclear apocalypse theirs no better place than next to a river.

And when to roaming hordes of bandits come you can give em a shovel and tell em get to work cause aint nobody gonna of time for stupid shit in a post nuclear apocalypse world.


But thats me and my thoughts.. i could be wrong about everything and maybe the nukes are fake and what not... but i dont believe that.
 

Kairos

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2018
Messages
1,048
Cities are not Russia's target. While you are studying nuclear war strategy, look up what is meant by primary, secondary, and tertiary targets.
 
Top