Posted on 12/23/2015 9:11:31 AM PST by mrbinga
As we reduce our nuclear weapons counts, I think about the things you mention here.
I also consider missile shields, and don’t like the idea we’re reducing our warheads to the point that it could become problematic.
What’s your take on that?
“Can we have a new year’s resolution to stop writing the word “chilling†in every other headline?”
Very true. It’s become as over-used in the MSM as the word “RINO” is here on Free Republic.
“The second and third will be over top of Mecca. Then Medina.”
Then Teheran. Then Riyadh. Then Beirut. Then Cairo, etc. etc. etc.
If the Israelis feel like they’re going down, they’re gonna take as many with them as they can.
Major Kong’s plane’s primary target is an ICBM complex at Laputa. In Jonathan Swift’s 1726 novel ‘Gulliver’s Travels’, Laputa is a place inhabited by caricatures of scientific researchers. It’s also a play on words: “la puta” is Spanish slang for “prostitute.”
From IMDB
The exact opposite actually.
Yes, there would have been tens of millions killed immediately by the first-second-third-fourth blast of A-bombs over cities and other targets. Tens of millions more later from outside-the-blast-fire and blast effects. Tens of millions after that from hunger, thirst, sickness, and “conventional” death by disasters and problems.
But many dozens of millions NOT in immediate nor long term danger from the blasts. Even in Siberia last year, most injuries would have been prevented by a simple duck-and-cover (stay away from windows after a sudden white flash!) A-bomb blast training.
Bomb shelters, distance, and simple civil defense preparations were being thrown away by disdain by the liberal-socialist-communist media and academia elites then (and still are now!) BECAUSE they are effective.
:-)
Forgot to add a key point.
The “unilateral disarmament” nonsense was created and fomented by the Soviets. Western Leftists were just the useful idiots that promoted it.
The reason the Sovs invested so heavily in it was they knew that even a slight reduction in the Western arsenal would improve their own survivability enormously.
The Pershings and GLCMs scared the hell out of them, because they meant we could first-strike their command and control faster than they could put out their own launch orders. Throw on SDI/Star Wars and we’d have the ability to intercept any of there missiles that were launched. Which wouldn’t be enough to overwhelm SDI because the Sovs (not trusting their own people) had much tighter/less permissive launch controls than we did,
Just saw your post on missile defense, I think I may have answered it in my last?
Bomb/fallout shelters for airbursts, even in the multi-megaton range, weren’t a bad idea. They wouldn’t have provided 100% survivability, but would have increased chances significantly.
It’s close-in groundbursts that made bomb shelters ineffective.
I disagree. This isn't just about detestable actions from the Cold-War. It is about further reductions in our current nuclear forces. This has been a long term goal of the left and continues.
Regards,
TS
If you are referring to the situation right now, I think MAD doctrine is seriously compromised. I also doubt that the Jarrett puppet in the White Hut would ever push the button, unless it was to defend Mecca or Tehran against Joos.
The Cold Was was won at the close of the Reagan presidency. However I think one could argue that that victory has been squandered away by every administration since then.
The Israelis are perfectly capable of providing their own, in house, nuclear deterrant.
And I’m guessing that, given their strategic situation, they lean a lot more towards counter-value in their planning.
Thanks. Interesting points...
Okay, thank you.
“We can only hope so, but with The Messiah holding the nuclear football, never would happen.”
The second and third would have nothing to do with USA launch codes. Not all of Israeli counter measures are in Israel, but are always on standby.
I agree with that also.
I agree with that.
“Can we have a new year’s resolution to stop writing the word “chilling†in every other headline?”
Understand your sentiment. On this end, one of two things has to happen; either crime ceases or the phrase “shots rang out” has to be banned from the news. “Shots” has become wearisome.
Yes, a brilliant idea....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.