Posted on 06/14/2018 12:16:01 PM PDT by wmileo
LOL, I love seeing all teh usual suspect references slid in!
I suppose launching 99 nukes would be okay for them./s
There is no “overkill.” There is only “open fire” and “reload.”
Questionable.
How many nuclear atmospheric tests were done (all sides since 40s thru 60s ?). They had negligable impact.
So 100 may be far too small a number.
It also doesnt account for failures and sabotage and eneny action nullifying actual use of many of them.
OK, thanks for the warning. Won’t plan on doing that.
And this is important why???
Captain Obvious alert
And no mention a big ass rock from space will do the same life has one meaning no one gets out alive.
I want enough to be absolutely sure we can make Earth unihabitable for the aliens. Just in case.
The size (yield) and placement of said weapons would make a huge difference.
One hundred small (10 kt) weapons randomly detonated at ground level would not have nearly the same effect as 100 big (1-5 mt) weapons set off at altitude above major cities. The big eggs at altitude would start firestorms that would devour the cities and most life therein and cover the globe with ash clouds. Detonate them a bit lower and you’d have a huge fallout problem, too.
Still, I don’t believe 100 nudets would spell the end of the world. Bad news for millions, no doubt, but civilization would continue. Humans are hardy.
Then why do the Democrat leaders want President Trump to fail?
When I was younger I used to think that if the Russians lobbed a nuke at San Francisco that I might survive it, as a young man living on the outskirts in South San Francisco. Until I learned that the USSR had dozens of nukes targeted at the SF Bay Area. Total destruction. That's what MAD is about. One nuclear bomb, you wipe out a few miles of real estate. Dozens of nuclear bombs, no possibility of survival for many miles around. 100 nukes is not enough for either country to target multiple enemy infrastructure.
We will stop at 99, then.
I would rather make the United States of America and all of its territories uninhabitable for illegal aliens.
“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.”
Yep. It’s nonsense.
First of all, air bursts don’t loft very much dust into the atmosphere, nor do they produce much fallout. Well over 500 weapons were detonated during above ground testing, and many were large ground bursts. Amazingly ;-) there was no “global devastation”.
Second of all, deterrence is based on mutually assured destruction. One hundred nuclear weapons don’t assure the destruction of Russia or China (for instance), much less both of them put together. What if Russia develops a reliable laser defense against incoming warheads? Then we’d need far more for deterrence.
It’s bad research, displaying much of the same ignorance as 0bama’s quest for a “world without nuclear weapons”.
Russia won’t go for it anyhow, it refused to drop its ready arsenal below 1,500 weapons when 0bama wanted more cuts.
More people should recognize that nuclear weapons are the most effective force for world peace in history.
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.