Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 4 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
World War 3 question
26 January 2012, 22:46,
#11
RE: World War 3 question
Six small ones will take up all major cities and kill 90% of the population. Russia has 18000 warheads and you can bet more than six are pointed at us.
Skean Dhude
-------------------------------
It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change. - Charles Darwin
Reply
26 January 2012, 22:50,
#12
RE: World War 3 question
bloody hell the 10% that does make it will have sweet FA left think i will go out side and look at the mushrooms
just read alas Babylon ,so im going to get more salt!!!!
Reply
26 January 2012, 23:02,
#13
RE: World War 3 question
Aah fond memories of the good old days sitting in a field on the greater German plain discussing the nuclear threat to the UK, Poor officers trying to tell us in all severity that cities would be wiped out by multiple re entry multi megaton warheads. It baffled the poor buggers when we started cheering as they read out targets like London, Leicester, Birmingham, Bradford, Leeds, Sheffield etc.

Then the silly arses told us to make a list of where the RNs Polaris missiles should ideally be aimed, and they were still baffled when the list contained places like Chelsea, Westminster, Bath, Surbiton, Sandhurst and " any place were silly fookers hant on horses"

Reply
26 January 2012, 23:30,
#14
RE: World War 3 question
The days of massive mega tonne warheads mostly died with the end of the cold war. All the modern warheads are smaller. This is because they don't need 3 massive missiles to target one city because back then they were so inaccurate by up to 10 miles. In modern times they can hit a rat through a barn door. So targeted strikes are now the Western style military doctrine, so as not to completely destroy the country being warr'd with. That is for invasion purposes and control of a vanquished foes resources. A complete wasteland is not much use to anyone. Of course they could just send much more than necessary or to negate ones that are shot down. Anyway, ouside the cities, survival was much more possible. 2 weeks after the initial blast, local conditions pending, it would be possible to leave a shelter for short periods. This quickly extends in time as the weeks roll by. The biggest killer in our modern constructed environment would initially be firestorms in urban areas and later starvation for the majority of survivors countrywide. You could call it a "Double Dip" Cessation. lol. The data is all there from 2ndWW blitz and Jap atomic studies.
The note I really wanted to post is that for Scythe13's query about Iran not being in our news. Try watching RT news or looking up the RT website and you will get daily info on Iran & Syria + more.
Reply
27 January 2012, 00:54,
#15
RE: World War 3 question
Thats the bit that makes me laugh about how stupid we are.

We, white hats, develop technology that enables us to get a warhead within a foot of the target. We then reduce warhead yield because we can position the warheads better. We then target military structures that the black hats keep away from major civilian populations. So we reduce casualties

The black hats don't bother with the targeting technology, they put more spices in the warhead to cover the distance off target. They then target our infrastructure which are right next to our cities because we have bases in cities.

Result, they are back in the stone age. We are floating molecules. What a bunch of dickheads we are.
Skean Dhude
-------------------------------
It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change. - Charles Darwin
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)