DrDNA Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 CWho, Can you clarify what it is you are getting at? I'm lost...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr.CWho Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 http://groups.msn.com/RaisingIndiana21stCenturySurvivalDiscussions The area quoted in magenta is from post #174. (I'm not such an avid "surfer" that I have that PHP function under control yet... ) The group above is a better place to discuss political issues and conspiracy theories. The question about the nukes will greet you with a picture of our own backpack nukes. The so-called "suitcase" nukes are more like a fat guitar case and pack a 5 Kton whollup. The backpacks range from 10Kton to 15 Kton. More than Heroshima and Nagasaki combined (Little Boy & Fat Man) I personally don't believe the "sooth saying" that the Biblical prophecies are something akin to a nursery rhyme. I've only begun the site above, so it's open to suggestion a bit. I probably won't elaborate on any conspiracy theories here... Dr. CWho Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr.CWho Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 I imagine it all resides in what one chooses to believe for the individual, nonetheless there is an absolute truth. I haven't seen any answers to my earlier question regarding deja vu's. There is still a discussion awaited concerning the nukes. That's serious business and I've provided a link to discuss exactly that. It turns into a WTC discussion and it has been mentioned this is not the place for it, still I'd like to think we'll all be around to have truly scientific discussions in the not-too-distant-future... or at least those of us who do more than sit in an armchair and talk with no focus on solutions... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 still I'd like to think we'll all be around to have truly scientific discussions in the not-too-distant-future... or at least those of us who do more than sit in an armchair and talk with no focus on solutions... Your axe seems to be getting sharper by the minute, Doc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 Wow, 90 nukes could cause TEOTWAWKI. Not the end of the planet us such, but The End Of The World As We Know It. I think you gravely overestimate the damage, especially taking the scenario given in the OP into consideration. The scale of the planet is far beyond the destructive power of a trifling 90 nuclear weapons; for example there are 61 cities in England and Scotland alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edtharan Posted January 20, 2008 Share Posted January 20, 2008 1. 90 nukes would probably escalate into a full on war. Imagine a co-ordinated terrorist group letting off 90 nukes! Imagine it! What are the geopolitics of such an event? What would China or India or Pakistan or Israel or America make of it? Would they push their buttons in the panic? There might be a knee jerk reaction, but I doubt that an all out retalitory strike would be ordered straight away. First off, how would they know which country was the one that launched the attack? There are enough missile tracking systems (both ground based and orbital) that they would likely pick up an incoming missiles. Secondly, not many countries have a missile system in place that would be able to launch long ranged strikes anyway. So, they could not just launch a retalitory strike becuase they would have absolutly (until whoever did it owned up or intelligence was able to determin who) no idea who launched the attack. Untill they know this, how could they order a strike at the perpetrators? 2. Now imagine they choose their targets to include maximum damage. Large dams, infrastructure, major transport hubs and food distribution centres. Imagine they also use a little plastic explosives to take out oil refineries along with the more major attack. Yes, it would have a massive impact on a single country, but we live in a big world. Let's just say they took out to top 90 major cities in the world. Well, for one, most of the major cities are larger than the destructive radius of these weapons, so they wouldn't take out the city entiery. But they could do enough damage (and from fall out) that the cities would have to be abandoned. A lot of people would have to be evacuated. Yes, it would ahve a really big impact if the top 90 cities of a single country were obliterated like this, it would (almost definitly) ruin the country. But, if only 2 or 3 cities were attacked like this, then the logistical problem would only be as bad as 2 or 3 Hurrican Katrinas. Most countries could survive that. Sure, there would be a lot of disruption and the tradgedy of all those lives lost, but it would not be an "End of the World" scenario. 3. What good are the flow-on cities that don't produce their own food or water? We can't eat money. There would be mass migration from these locations. Governments would have to step in, maybe martial law, etc. It would be a logistics nightmare, but it could be handeled (but at a high cost). Remember, we are talking about and "End of the World" scenario here, so in light of that, loosing a few cities in a single country is not that big a problem in the grand scheme of things. 90 Nukes are enough to bring down a country (or two), but 90 Nukes are not enough to trigger an "End of the World" scenario. Have you ever known someone who has described a deja vu that there was no way the person could have had the knowledge of a certain image till some twenty years in their future? Deja vus occure because of a glitch in the brain. We actually "see" the world about 1/3rd of a second after it occures. However, in an emergency (like nearly getting run over by a car, or chased by lions), the brain has a "short cut" circuit that dumps the information from our senses straight into the processing of the brain. This information is, in terms of cameras, like a CCTV image. It is not very clear (esentially we haven't done any processing on it that allows us to specifically identify objects and such, just edges and basic geometry). Our brains can act on this emergency information and take actions to save ourselves. However, sometimes this circuit glitches and we get this "Emergency Information" (even when ther eis no emergency) along with the processed information that we normally get. So we end up with two coppies of the same event with one ariving unclear and earlier than the other. Because the first one is unclear and we have a memory of it (which might not even be a concious memory) we think we have encountered that situation before (and in a way we have, it was just delivered by a fast and dirty route). As we can't place the unconcious memory of the event (from the emergency information path) at a specific time, we assume that it came from a time long in our past (20 years?). Our memory is also not like a computer memory, it does not store it like a video of an event, but it is fluid and changeable. Imagine it like a move, but each time you view the movie it has to be rerecoreded as you watch it. The very act of remembering an event re-encodes it into our memory. It is possible to use this to crate a completly false memory. A study I heard of put the memory of hugging Bugs Bunny on a visit to Disney Land. This would have been impossible as Bugs Bunny is not Intelectual Property of Disney Land (it's Warner Bros.) . When you try to remember when you initially had the "vision" of the deja vu, you go back through your memories which causes them to be re-encoded and the "Memory" of the event gets put into it. Deja Vus have been completly demystified due to Functional Megnetic Reasonance Imaging of the Human brain. Sorr, Deja Vu is not prophecy, it is simply a glitch in the brain that hijacks our emergency response circuits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bombus Posted January 21, 2008 Share Posted January 21, 2008 Try this folks, it's great. Apologies if it's already been posted. http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 21, 2008 Share Posted January 21, 2008 The thing is about tactical nukes, they won't take out any of the cities on that list. They don't have the right yield or deployability options. If you were really clever, you could possibly "fake" an attack on one nuclear power and make it look like one or more other powers had launched it, but with modern tracking systems and intelligence (both on the ground and comms intercepts) the chances of fooling a nation into a misguided retaliation are pretty slim. Panic launches shouldn't happen due to the way that launch protocols are organised (I put "shouldn't" rather than "can't" because of the simple fact that sometimes everyone loses their head at the same time). Don't get me wrong POM, I am sure 90 tactical detonations alone would cause untold misery and devastation, and any kind of subsequent interchange definitely would (even a limited one). But I sincerely doubt it would be anything on the scale or even on the order of the end of the world as we know it. Although I do concede of course it somewhat depends on who one includes in that "we" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted January 21, 2008 Share Posted January 21, 2008 What about fallout? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted January 21, 2008 Share Posted January 21, 2008 combined fallout would likely be less than the chernobyl incident. while it may cause areas of the earth to be uninhabitable and have increased incidences of cancer it will not cause most places to be abandoned. many areas of the earth would remain unaffected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edtharan Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 Don't get me wrong POM, I am sure 90 tactical detonations alone would cause untold misery and devastation, and any kind of subsequent interchange definitely would (even a limited one). But I sincerely doubt it would be anything on the scale or even on the order of the end of the world as we know it. Yes, we are not denying that such an act would not be devistaing, we are saying that it would not be an End of the World scenario. It might (likely) cause a major econimic depression, but it would not destroy society. We would rebuild (I estimatre around 5 to 10 years). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reaper Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 90 nukes?! You would need more like 500 or so, and each about ~15 megaton yields, to really do serious damage. While the use of tactical nukes may not actually destroy large cities, their use could easily prompt nations and armies to use their more deadly arsenals. War games have been played that revolved the around the possible use of tactical nukes and they found it very difficult to refrain from actually resorting to using their 20 megaton warheads, no matter which side you are on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr.CWho Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 iNOW, Actually I do have a sharp axe that's great for chopping roots around "this old house." The kind of axe I prefer is a Strat hooked to a good Marshall or Peavy How many of you people really think that two 8-18 chrome-moly steel wing struts 196 feet in span are going to win against 63, 1050 structural steel, columns and some slabs of concrete 70 feet deep? This is the major question: Why would someone want to kill perhaps 100 million Americans? What would they gain? Supporting question: Is anyone familiar with the network of underground rivers in North America especially? I've been trying to see if there are any that connect Helmsdel N.J. to anywhere else and mostly if any of those river tubes travel beneath the bedrock of the Atlantic coast. What would global warming, should it go rapidly beyond the point of no return, do to these river tubes? It seems that if we lost a few hundred feet of the coast line they would begin to fill again, some of them being nearly dry after 70 million years of depletion. As of now it is actually possible to set up a complex in some of them. If global warming escalates, that would all go down the tubes... (pun not really intended...) 90 tactical nukes could destroy enough of the population in America to take a major bite out of greenhouse gas production. America is the worst offender with its love of the automobile and hamburgers... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 combined fallout would likely be less than the chernobyl incident. while it may cause areas of the earth to be uninhabitable and have increased incidences of cancer it will not cause most places to be abandoned. many areas of the earth would remain unaffected. And indeed, there are still people living in the exclusion zone around Chernobyl. Some stayed, some moved in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 actually, the shorter life cycle would make them more prone to genetic damage and horrible mutations as said mutations wouldn't show up till the offspring were produced. the fact that small short generation animals thrived is a testament to how resilient life is and that even a good deal of radiation can be tolerated. you also seem to think radiation is a cumulative poison. its not. the body is remarkable good at repairing the damageprovided the rate of damage is not too high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 90 tactical nukes could destroy enough of the population in America to take a major bite out of greenhouse gas production. America is the worst offender with its love of the automobile and hamburgers... Hamburgers???? can you cite any reliable sources that Show "Hamburgers" are a major contributor to green house gases? ok, Granted some of them don`t smell very nice, but that`s Not the same thing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr.CWho Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 Any reliable sources? How's about 60 minutes? Perhaps you aren't aware that hamburgers are from cow (cow patties? ) It's been public knowledge for many years that methane is a chief contributor to global warming and every cow belches and otherwise passes about 400 cubic feet of methane every day. Pigs are just as bad. If you have any question about that, just visit a hog confinement barn or a slaughterhouse. Hmmm... I was about to post a pic of an underground river in Moscow, but learned we need to list the url here... maybe next time. I've been giving all this some thought, concerning the nukes, and remembered a fellow who once told me that the easiest way to destroy a town is to hi-jack a gasoline tanker and pump all the gas into a sewer inlet, with a detonator attached that goes off if the hose is removed or the flow of gas stops... This was a Purdue professor and we were talking in a local gyro hangout. This was also about the time a major bombing attempt had been made on Lafayette's courthouse. That bothered me enough to leave that town and never return. What kept coming up in my mind was the biblical story of Sodom and Gomorah. Raining burning sulfur or brimstone sounds like a comet impact. Maybe we need to be seeing if there are actually 10 good people in every town... A bunch of nukes... 2012... I've heard others saying they think the "Jericho" scenario is less than 5 years away. I've always thought about ten, but who am I? I'm not certain how much I'll be here anymore. I came with the idea of discussing new ideas, but I've found a real lack of imagination in quite a few of the so-called "authorities." One guy up there was saying how he hates life. I felt as though I should ask if he's okay and if he wants to talk about that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 so why the HELL didn`t you Just say "Cows" instead of "Hamburgers"??? and I think you`ll find there are Other countries that are more than equal as "offenders" in that dept too! but go on, answer WHY you said Burgers instead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 A bunch of nukes... 2012... I've heard others saying they think the "Jericho" scenario is less than 5 years away. I've always thought about ten, but who am I?[/u] Why would it be any more likely in 5 or 10 years than it is now? Or for that matter, than it was at the height of the Cold War? but go on, answer WHY you said Burgers instead? Isn't that basically just a remarkably trivial criticism? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 no, not at all, I really want to know Why. whether it has some as yet Undisclosed backing, or just a cheap Jab at americans using less than flattering stereotypes for for some Other yet undisclosed reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDNA Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 How many of you people really think that two 8-18 chrome-moly steel wing struts 196 feet in span are going to win against 63, 1050 structural steel, columns and some slabs of concrete 70 feet deep? I do. They win in a similar manner that a soft, low melting, brass nozzel hooked up to oxygen and acetylene wins against thick steel all the time, everyday and/or how an oxygen lance wins against thick, reinforced concrete all the time, everyday. Those chrome-moly steel struts were simply delivery vehicles for the fuel, which did the real damage, much like a brass torch is just a delivery vehicle for oxy/acetylene. One thing is for certain, no matter what it is or how thick or massive it is, get it hot enough and it WILL fail. So what part about getting materials hot enough to melt and/or fail needs a conspiracy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr.CWho Posted January 26, 2008 Share Posted January 26, 2008 DrDNA, Your addressing a man who does more than just think up ideas and dream of inventions. If you looked at some other posts I've made, you'll find I'm totally capable of building machines from just about anything, i.e. a Blanchard grinder... I weld. Not the best, but I can do a nice vertical as long as I'm not experiencing vertigo... There's a time factor involved... also, your strawman is built around a factor I didn't include: pre-heating. Burgers, as in HAM-burgers, don't equate to cows? Well... you do claim to be an insane-alien Every cigarette uncontained is a nail in all our coffins. I do agree that the nukes are just as likely to fly in a week or two... of course the nukers won't nuke a mind they desperately need. I love this to a degree, but the purturbations are sometimes not amusing... There are of course certain issues I'm not at liberty to discuss. 2012... seems like a few events should be happening before that... maybe they already have and those of us who find some difficulties remembering the 60's didn't realize when those bowls of wrath were happening. Helter Skelter... One thing that's getting old is having to log in a second time whenever I post... Hassles make a forum suck... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted January 26, 2008 Share Posted January 26, 2008 look up your History fella, Hamburger originates from the place HAMBURG (Germany!). not Ham as in Pork fool! and say Hello to Oberon when ya log off and go back home Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDNA Posted January 26, 2008 Share Posted January 26, 2008 DrDNA,Your addressing a man who does more than just think up ideas and dream of inventions. If you looked at some other posts I've made, you'll find I'm totally capable of building machines from just about anything, i.e. a Blanchard grinder... I weld. Not the best, but I can do a nice vertical as long as I'm not experiencing vertigo... Great! Take a load off, set a spell, take your shoes off and please accept an invitiation to join my exclusive bubba-scientist club, which you will recieve just as soon as you learn an extremely critical input variable in cutting torchology, welding, building demolition and destruction (among other really cool things)...... ..........................which is........... There's a time factor involved... also, your strawman is built around a factor I didn't include: pre-heating. Well, why not?!?! There is no heating involved when a large passenger jet that is loaded with jet fuel slams into a building at 350 or greater mph ?? Ouch...hot! EDIT PS: What strawman? I am stating fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted January 27, 2008 Share Posted January 27, 2008 Burgers, as in HAM-burgers, don't equate to cows? Well... you do claim to be an insane-alien i made no comment on that. but since your dragging me into this, since when did ham come from cows? i always thought it was our porker pals that provided us with ham. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts