09-10-2014, 01:07 PM
|
|
Videochat Solutions
Industry Role:
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 49,054
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dyna mo
again, hollywood movie film science.
Nuclear weapons have been designed to have minimal fallout effect, radioactive fallout is not desired in the design of these weapons, it's not the goal.
That's why there are no longer nukes arsenal with >1mt. The blast does not go high enough to get into prevailing tradewinds, etc, and the half-life of a 1mt bomb means that by the time the radioactive contaminants come back to earth, they've died.
again, it's all documented, the prediction map I supplied earlier is a great example of the facts behind this.
localized/regional damage is the end goal, thus there will be many places that are not radioactive.
Also, many of you seem to think a nuke war means a strategy of mutually assured destruction, and while that is a realistic strategy, it is not THE strategy and it certainly is not the primary, go-to strategy.
There will be many places on this planet free from radioactivity from a nuke war. You might not be lucky enough to be at one or near one, and who knows ahead of time where they may be, but they will exist. the goal in a war is to defeat the enemy, not destroy every place to live on the planet.
|
Ok phew! For a minute there I thought we had something to worry about. Please tell me where I can sign up for your head-in-the-sand blog. I'm fascinated.
__________________
Custom Coding | Videochat Solutions | Age Verification | IT Help & Support
www.2Much.net
|
|
|