Skip to comments.
Doomsday warning It would only take 100 nuclear weapons to wreak global devastation
FOX NEWS ^
| June 14, 2018
| James Rogers
Posted on 06/14/2018 12:16:01 PM PDT by wmileo
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-54 next last
I noticed there was no mention of the different sizes and types of nuclear weapons as if all nuclear weapons, like hand made snowballs are equal. That in itself makes me very suspicious of the motives and intent of this study.
1
posted on
06/14/2018 12:16:01 PM PDT
by
wmileo
To: wmileo
...and civilization would end if all women were dead.
One is about as likely as the other.
2
posted on
06/14/2018 12:17:54 PM PDT
by
DoughtyOne
(01/26/18 DJIA 30 stocks $26,616.71 48.794% > open 11/07/16 215.71 from 50% increase 1.2183 yrs..)
To: wmileo
Just drop em in Kilauea. Nobody will know.
3
posted on
06/14/2018 12:18:07 PM PDT
by
rktman
(Enlisted in the Navy in '67 to protect folks rights to strip my rights. WTH?)
To: wmileo
Astounding. The “scientists” who wrote this gibberish must be the same or related to the climate “scientists” we all know and love.
4
posted on
06/14/2018 12:20:24 PM PDT
by
map
To: wmileo
This report is sophomoric, poorly conceived and will be laughed at by the professionals.
5
posted on
06/14/2018 12:21:41 PM PDT
by
DarthVader
("The biggest misconception on Free Republic is that the Deep State is invulnerable")
To: rktman
How many nuclear explosions were conducted in the atmosphere prior to the test ban treaty. I suspect it was more than 100. Some were as high as about 50MTs too, far larger than anything available today. Lastly, there is a great deal of difference between ground explosions and air bursts in the amount of debris tossed into the atmosphere.
While I would not wish to anywhere near any of these things going off, I don’t think 100 would end man kind. BTW, I sleep comfortably within 15 miles of one of our two trident bases.
6
posted on
06/14/2018 12:22:07 PM PDT
by
Mouton
(We have met the enemy and it is us if we believe what we hear.)
To: wmileo
This is news? We have know a version of this for decades.
Stupid waste of money and time.
7
posted on
06/14/2018 12:24:15 PM PDT
by
Sequoyah101
(It feels like we have exchanged our dreams for survival. We just have a few days that don't suck.)
To: Mouton
🚣🏼🚀
8
posted on
06/14/2018 12:24:32 PM PDT
by
rktman
(Enlisted in the Navy in '67 to protect folks rights to strip my rights. WTH?)
To: wmileo
This is stupid.
It only takes one bullet.
9
posted on
06/14/2018 12:25:08 PM PDT
by
right way right
(May we remain sober over mere men, for God really is our only true hope.)
To: wmileo
The purpose of this study is to disarm America's nuclear arsenal and nothing more.
To: wmileo
11
posted on
06/14/2018 12:29:33 PM PDT
by
DannyTN
Comment #12 Removed by Moderator
To: wmileo
The obvious solution is to have one government for the entire world. Imagine. No borders. No national pride. No flags (except the rainbow flag, of course). And if we stubborn stubborn clingers would just give up our Judeo-Christian God and our guns, nothing to argue about. And no more war.
I’m sure the Muslims and others around the globe would willingly go along with this. If not, there are ways.
/s
13
posted on
06/14/2018 12:32:29 PM PDT
by
Jim Robinson
(Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God!)
To: wmileo
I think one thing the atmospheric testing missed was what would happen if you detonated a real weapon over a built-up city? The various tests done at the Nevada Test Site never included a perfect simulation of a suburban town (wood-frame houses, trees, small concrete structures all located closely together). I'm surprised the Russians at their Semipalatinsk Test Site didn't actually do something similar.
A lot of the assumptions of nuclear winter came from the if we had a nuclear exchange in the middle 1980's, the cities in the Northern Hemisphere would burn non-stop for essentially weeks since all firefighting efforts would effectively cease to exist.
14
posted on
06/14/2018 12:33:52 PM PDT
by
RayChuang88
(FairTax: America's Economic Cure)
To: wmileo
They didn’t say this when bammy gave iran the ability to make nuclear weapons. They waited until Trump got rocket man to get rid of his weapons.
15
posted on
06/14/2018 12:34:06 PM PDT
by
I want the USA back
(The media is acting full-on as the Democratic Party's press agency now: Robert Spencer)
To: wmileo
Sounds just like the "No one needs 30-round magazines" mantra.
In fact, no one knows what we will need until we need it.
And if we have too few, because some busy body thought we had enough, we're screwed.
16
posted on
06/14/2018 12:36:06 PM PDT
by
BitWielder1
(I'd rather have Unequal Wealth than Equal Poverty.)
To: wmileo
Well, lets just knock it down to 99 per nation and call it a day.
17
posted on
06/14/2018 12:40:09 PM PDT
by
TADSLOS
(Alex Jones isnÂ’t quite the wing nut now, all things considered.)
To: wmileo
“Doomsday warning It would only take 100 nuclear weapons to wreak global devastation”
probably less if placed “correctly” ... we live in a world where we are EXTREMELY dependent on an EXTREMELY brittle infrastructure ... the complete loss of either the power grid or the Internet would end civilization as we know it ...
18
posted on
06/14/2018 12:40:36 PM PDT
by
catnipman
((Cat Nipman: Vote Republican in 2012 and only be called racist one more time!))
To: wmileo
Cool, clear the deck, start afresh!
19
posted on
06/14/2018 12:40:58 PM PDT
by
heights
To: map
The correct number of nuclear weapons to have is “enough to deter the other fellow”.
That way they don’t get used by either side.
20
posted on
06/14/2018 12:44:38 PM PDT
by
glorgau
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-54 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson