The Good News About Nuclear Destruction

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | August 24th, 2006 | Shane Connor

[musicman]

BTTT !!

[Twinkie]

Thanks.

[netmilsmom]

Thanks!
I'm going to your booklet now.

You will have probably saved my kids. Bless you.

[BunnySlippers]

BOOKMARK Thanks!

[Argus]

Pets, and what to do about them, is a tough call. Letting dogs run free is not a humane option, both for their potential to die a miserable death from radiation exposure outside and/or to be a danger to others, especially if they get diseased and/or run in the inevitable packs of multitudes of other abandoned pets. Caring for them is ideal, if truly realistic and not a drain on limited resources, while 'putting them down' might eventually become a painful, but necessary reality.

There's a lot of horses and cattle around where I live too. No way to protect them from fallout. I prefer prevention. Missile defense, border enforcement and a really rigorous terrorist profiling program at all points of entry. And, if necessary, torture captured terrorists to find out their plans. One nuclear detonation inside the US would be so much worse than anybody can imagine, stopping it is worth whatever it takes to get the job done.

[GeorgefromGeorgia]

This article ignores the EMP damage to everything electronic. Our cars (except those old 57 Chevys), TVs, Radios, telephones, computers, and more will be inoperable. Cars might be fixable, but what happens to commerce. What happens to all those banks with their servers and electronic data. Will records of savings and investments disappear?

[ansel12]

"This defeatist attitude was born as the disarmament movement ridiculed any alternatives to their agenda. The sound Civil Defense strategies of the '60s have been derided as being largely ineffective, or at worst a cruel joke. With the supposed end of the Cold War in the '80s, most Americans neither saw a need to prepare, nor believed that preparation would do any good."




I have a small collection of civil defense literature.

The 1960 material is written as from one adult to another, it is direct, efficient, and effective.

The 1980 material is simple, non informative gibberish that talks down to the reader and gives almost no practical information.

[VirginiaMom]

bookmark

[ndt]

"Caring for them is ideal, if truly realistic and not a drain on limited resources, while 'putting them down' might eventually become a painful, but necessary reality."

Maybe it's just me (and a few hundred million Asians) but in that situation, my dog might just be sacrificed for the sake of the family.

[PetroniusMaximus]

NEEDS MORE COWBELL!!!

[LittleBillyInfidel]

Unfortunately, there is a critical lack of education on such an event.

I've studied this topic ad naseum in the last six years. The number two problem, after casualties, will be the resultant panic which will ensue because of lack of education.

If anyone is interested in founding a national civilian education and civil defense leadership organization, please contact me to brainstorm some ideas. I have a few positive key ideas which can be put into practice both before and after the worst case scenario.

[RightWhale]

It's true. It would take a long time to recover, but the people would be able to if they want to.

[Prost1]

Gee, all that good news in one article.

I am simply overcome.

[netmilsmom]

Would that include my crank radio?

[MD_Willington_1976]

can you scan the 1960's material to .doc or .pdf?

[RightWhale]

I have an old army medical nuclear injury triage manual. That is the real deal. Basically, if you get sick quickly or immediately you are a goner. If you slowly get sick over three days you will recover.

[shanec]

Some suggestions on keeping your Livestock, Farm, Crops & Land Safe from Fallout are here...

http://www.radshelters4u.com/index3.htm#7

[EQAndyBuzz]

You mean we can survive? How comew the President didn't tell us?

It's all Bush's fault.

[BritExPatInFla]

This defeatist attitude was born as the disarmament movement ridiculed any alternatives to their agenda. The sound Civil Defense strategies of the '60s have been derided as being largely ineffective, or at worst a cruel joke. With the supposed end of the Cold War in the '80s, most Americans neither saw a need to prepare, nor believed that preparation would do any good. Today, with growing prospects of nuclear terrorism, we see emerging among the public either paralyzing fear or irrational denial. People can no longer envision effective preparations for surviving a nuclear attack.

Apples and oranges comparison. Your logic in saying that the "hype and fear" were unfounded in the 60's-80's is weak. The nuclear threat in the time between the 50's and 80's was one of massive, mutual detonations of warheads. THAT would have made survival chances very slim. Today, it's Abdul with a suitcase bomb, a couple hundred thousand might die. In the cold war scenario, a quick death would have been the preferred alternative. Today, it's simply a matter of hoping you're not in the vicinity or downwind of a suitcase nuke or dirty bomb.