Only 11 nuclear bombs to 'take out' Canada

The Ottawa Citizen ^ | 7 January 2002 | David Pugliese

[RicocheT]

Computer simulation aims to raise questions about huge stockpiles of nuclear warheads.

A new computer program developed for nuclear weapons researchers in the U.S. probably won't give Canadians much of a sense of security in these days of global tension and uncertainty. The software simulated the destruction of Canada with as few as 11 nuclear warheads.

Read the rest of the article here: Click Here

[RadioAstronomer]

The point is that everything of significant economic value in Canada is concentrated in 11 warhead's worth of coverage.

I am not qualified to comment on the economic viability after such an attack, however the landmass would still be there and usable.

[Straight Vermonter]

I guess that means we are all screwed here.

[zog]

--I though canada had more than eleven breweries????

[RadioAstronomer]

The radiation on the ground would be manageable after 14 weeks. Look at Japan. They have thriving metropolises at ground zero and those were much dirtier bombs that we use now.

[John H K]

So the Redcoats burned DC to the ground. So what? No big deal. It wasn't much of a war anyway. Just a misunderstanding. Remember New Orleans.

The burning of DC was in retaliation for the American burning to the ground of York (the old name for Toronto.)

And the US failed in its primary objective, to conquer Canada. The stuff about protesting impressment of US sailors was merely a convenient excuse; the maritime states of New England that had the sailors being taken were OPPOSED to the war, while Western states supported it. The majority of the members of congress who voted for the war voted for it for the primary reason of capturing Canada.

All that most people know about the war comes from high school history textbooks, which are pretty crappy and sanitized.

[invoman]

YES! Nobody asked the OBVIOUS!

Would those be 'A'-bombs or 'Eh'-bombs?

[xJones]

Where's Canada?

That sir/maam is on a need to know basis.

Stop trying to hide Canada. It's bigger than the U.S. and we know where it is. Any American public high school student can tell you that it has something to do with France, or Dudley Do-Right, or sumpin like dat, I forget.

[rwfromkansas]

Probably would take less than 11...lol. Of course, would not be great to get fallout here in America. On the other hand, we would gain lots more territory to drill for oil etc. :)

[okie01]

Eleven nukes, huh?

I'm trying to figure out who's #11. Do you suppose it would be Moose Jaw or Charlottetown???

[RobFromGa]

How many to take out South Dakota, Vermont and Delaware?

(just kidding).

[CrossCheck]

Make that original 6, not 7.

[Carry_Okie]

"Sure, they burned D.C. to the ground...but what have they done for us lately?"

LOL!

[LibKill]

I'm still thinking about it.

Is there anything we get from Canada that we actually want and can't get elsewhere?

[ChromeDome]

Some reasons why Canada shouldn't be nuked:
7. RUSH
(Aren't they supposed to be releasing a new album
in the near future?)

[rwfromkansas]

Actually, I remember all the stuff you said mentioned in my high school textbook. Of course, it is AP history....and the textbook is actually intended for college (not sure why, it isn't hard to understand).

[rockfish59]

nuke 'em, danno!
and toss one on beijing while you're at it!

[archy]

Remenber your rules of 7 when caclulating fallout. First 7 hours is the worst, then 2 days later 1/10th, two weeks after that, 1/10th and 14 weeks later, again 1/10th. So after 14 weeks a 6000 r/hr is only 6 r/hr. And these levels would only be near G-zero.

Assuming no second strikes or followup waves of targeting after an initial flight of ICBMs, then a discharge of submarine or other ocean-going vessels as they move within firing range, followed by last-ditch single or multiple aircraft raids on secondary or tertiary targets deserving of additional treatment.

And, of course, possible local contamination from fratricide of incoming missiles, or targeting of commercial nuclear reactor facilities.

-archy-/-

[Key]

hahahaha..... Would those be 'A'-bombs or 'Eh'-bombs?

Poor Canada, everyone picking on her!

[CrossCheck]

I think you may be on thin ice there, eh. Course if you'd mentioned Neil Young, I'd agree. I think he lives in CA now though. That's about the only reason I'd have for not nuking the Leftist Coast.

[PatrioticAmerican]

Two for the US: Washington DC and New York. It would cripple our government and our financial center.