nuclear war

[bigpaul]

Britain is too small an island to survive an all out nuclear attack, it would not take many missiles to cover the whole of the UK.
there is a list online of the well known targets, and nuclear winter will finish off anyone who survives outside of those blast zones.

[Sekwo]

(20 July 2023, 14:27)Pete Grey Wrote:

(19 July 2023, 16:01)Straight Shooter Wrote: What ! We need qualifications to be a part of this forum now ?

Of course not, we just need to take notice of all the long established and PROVEN facts, from seventy years and not rubbish them if we don’t agree with them.

For the record I don’t believe the UK would survive a nuclear attack, I was just repeating some FACTS as there seemed to be some misunderstanding about fallout.

Does anyone know if the government publication “the effects of nuclear weapons” still available ?.

If they really were facts and you understood them, you would be able to make your case.

instead you insulted others and made no attempt to back up your argument except to cite the knowingly disreputable source of Wako paedo which is notorious for lying on most environmental articles.

Those who know the science, present the science. But, those who don't know the science, cite wako paedo, and when that doesn't work, they fall back on insults, because that is all they have.

[Pete Grey]

I give up , you cannot argue with a closed mind.

[Sekwo]

(20 July 2023, 15:29)Pete Grey Wrote: I give up , you cannot argue with a closed mind.

I'm not arguing, instead I'm explaining what you need to do to encourage other people to listen to you. No one will know what a nuclear war will be like until after it happens, so trying to say that there is only one opinion - which happens to be yours - which cannot be challenged is not going to wash with me.

[Mortblanc]

It is refreshing to see someone that disagrees with Galileo, Isaac Newton, Einstein, Openhimer and every other nuclear physicist and stands up for his "flat earth" philosophy to the bitter end.

Truly refreshing!

And then determining what you will and will not accept as fact as soon as you walk into our house, and attempting to set the boundaries of every discussion as "your facts" because no one else has been verified to your specs, not to the specs of the rest of the world.

Since you do not allow Google as a possible search engine then perhaps you will consider the use of the Oxford English Dictionary and look up the word;

narcissist

Then look in the mirror to see an example.

We are again dealing with our annual nut case.

[Sekwo]

(20 July 2023, 16:23)Mortblanc Wrote: It is refreshing to see someone that disagrees with Galileo, Isaac Newton, Einstein, Openhimer and every other nuclear physicist and stands up for his "flat earth" philosophy to the bitter end.

Truly refreshing!

And then determining what you will and will not accept as fact as soon as you walk into our house, and attempting to set the boundaries of every discussion as "your facts" because no one else has been verified to your specs, not to the specs of the rest of the world.

Since you do not allow Google as a possible search engine then perhaps you will consider the use of the Oxford English Dictionary and look up the word;

narcissist

Then look in the mirror to see an example.

We are again dealing with our annual nut case.

Scientists quote the facts, non-scientists make spurious claims and then call everyone else "flat earthers", for daring to ask them to support their arguments with facts and not jump to insults.

[Mortblanc]

Sekwo, you do not know me, my educational background, my career path or what I know and don't know. You have been here only a few days and came in like a bull in a china shop.

while you are looking up the word "narcissist", you might also look up the words "common knowledge".

There will be no further replies from me to anything you post. It will only appear as a blue banner on my screen and save me the trouble of viewing the insanity. So far I have not seen a valid comment from you.

You can call that closed minded, afraid of the truth, avoiding your reality, or any other insult you devise in your confused little world.

I only have a few years left and no time to waste on a fool like you.

[Sekwo]

(20 July 2023, 14:39)bigpaul Wrote: Britain is too small an island to survive an all out nuclear attack, it would not take many missiles to cover the whole of the UK.
there is a list online of the well known targets, and nuclear winter will finish off anyone who survives outside of those blast zones.

Personally, I've encountered the types of people who were talking about a nuclear winter in the 1970s, and they are now the same people who are talking about "unstoppable" global
warming. These claims are entirely contradictory, yet the same people have made both and have told us that neither can be denied ... and they now even deny they made the claims about "impending ice-age". Indeed, they also claim that "global warming is unstoppable" ... having also said "a nuclear winter is inevitable".

To put it simply, the people who make the claims about global warming or nuclear winter, are not the most credible people and I would take everything they say with an enormous pinch of salt. Climate has been infiltrated by politicised campaign groups, and so much of what they say is based on political expedience and not science. (And Russian has both funded CND to fund anti-nuclear and push the "nuclear winter" meme as well as funding the green groups who push the global warming "we must end our oil - and rely on Russian oil and gas" nonsense).

From a scientific viewpoint, atmospheric dust does have a profound impact on global temperatures (as also do aeroplane vapour-trails - but strangely the environ-mentalists flying off on their COP holidays every year, never mention the impact of vapour trails).

But, I think we can reasonably say, the effect of the Russian weapons won't be anywhere as bad as the CND doomsayers claimed it will be, if for no other reason, than the Russians have very good atmospheric physicists who will be advising their military to ensure that the Russians do not do themselves too much damage. Which is another reason to think the Russians, will go for a lot of smaller nukes taking out specific military targets rather than a "blunderbuss" approach.

On the other hands, the US "climate scientists" as they call themselves ... are barmy ... would be my honest assessment.

Survival is a matter of dealing with each of the many things that could kill us off, and reducing the risk so that the overall result means we have a good chance of survival. The first problem is getting through the first seconds and then hours, ensuring we are fit enough to have a good chance of surviving the post-nuclear horrors. I'm rather focussed on that today.

[bigpaul]

if anyone is inside the target area blast zone they are dead, pure and simple.
however how long the fall out stays around is open to debate, some say it will only last a month, other say it simple moves around the globe driven by the jet stream and stays around for years, certainly anything up to 5 years is the given.
as we have seen with Chernobyl radiation is the other problem, the ground will be infected with radiation and nothing will grow and any animals (Welsh Lamb were riddled with it and were unsellable for years)will be inedible.

[Sekwo]

(21 July 2023, 07:43)bigpaul Wrote: if anyone is inside the target area blast zone they are dead, pure and simple.
however how long the fall out stays around is open to debate, some say it will only last a month, other say it simple moves around the globe driven by the jet stream and stays around for years, certainly anything up to 5 years is the given.
as we have seen with Chernobyl radiation is the other problem, the ground will be infected with radiation and nothing will grow and any animals (Welsh Lamb were riddled with it and were unsellable for years)will be inedible.

It depends what you mean by the blast zone ... but there certainly is an area where if the blast doesn't kill you the radiation will, unless you have a very expensive bunker which is beyond the means of most people, and even if you had the money ... why would you stay in the blast zone?

I've done a lot of work looking at the fallout. In particular, I was trying to work out whether you could spend an extra say 10minutes, getting to a better shelter. The basic answer is no. You really have to get to the best shelter you can get to BEFORE the fallout arrives. For example, if the only shelter you have is a flimsy wooden building, with some single brick walls, and there's the best bunker in the world half an hour away ... you are still better to get in the flimsy wooden building for the first few hours, and only after the initial spike has died down, is it worth trying to get to the better bunker.

If however, you're in a really great shelter (cellar below ground) ... it's still worth moving if you can get somewhere without radiation quickly (driving!), but this time your optimum time is about 14 days (from memory)

These timings, are only what reduces your exposure ... and I'm not saying you're going to live if you follow this strategy, because if you are in a flimsy house in the middle of a fallout zone, you may reduce your exposure by doing what I suggest but only from twice the fatal dose to the fatal dose ... which still means you die. However, since most people will have no idea what dose they've had, they may as well act as if they could survive.

Longterm (>1month), the radiation hangs around. There will be radioactive poisons in the water. The atmosphere will have radioactive dust. Plants and animals in the area, and almost every where on the earth, will have some radioactive contamination. The only way to escape the radioactivity ... is to take a rocket ship ... but since there's also a high dose of radiation in space, you might not reduce your total intake if it took several years to get to your "escape".

Fortunately, the survivable limit for radioactivity is orders of magnitude greater than the threshold we currently put on radioactive exposure. However, it will mean those who are exposed are more likely to die earlier. But the only people who get to worry about that ... are the lucky ones who survive.