Yellowstone Doom

[Amputate Your Head]

The fucking roads are melting in Yellowstone, geysers going off like crazy, animals are GONE....
and ABC news, Weather Channel, etc... have the audacity to tell us it's because of the weather.

"Unusually warm weather for Yellowstone ? with high temperatures in the mid-80s ? has contributed to turning the road into a hot, sticky mess."
http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/wireSto...losed-24520326

See this chart: http://www.isthisthingon.org/Yellows...2014071000.gif

And then there's this...

[_Richard_]

over the next four years.

it's funny all of this is almost a carbon copy from that movie

[MiamiBoyz]

Can't happen soon enough I say! Looking forward to it!

[2MuchMark]

Originally Posted by Amputate Your Head

The fucking roads are melting in Yellowstone, geysers going off like crazy, animals are GONE....
and ABC news, Weather Channel, etc... have the audacity to tell us it's because of the weather.

"Unusually warm weather for Yellowstone ? with high temperatures in the mid-80s ? has contributed to turning the road into a hot, sticky mess."
http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/wireSto...losed-24520326

See this chart: http://www.isthisthingon.org/Yellows...2014071000.gif

And then there's this...

There's nothing audacious about it. Hot sun makes roads soft.

Yellowstone is very active, geographically. "Old Faithful" is proof of that, and there are always earthquakes and tremors.

Any nukes being "moved out" are more likely being decommissioned and dismantled. If Yellowstone was to erupt, the explosion would be far bigger than any nuke anyway.

While Yellowstone is a fascinating place and the threat of eruption is very real, it is not likely to happen for at least another 100,000 years.

[Amputate Your Head]

Originally Posted by **********

There's nothing audacious about it. Hot sun makes roads soft.

80 degree weather does not melt roads, no matter how you try to spin this.

[seeandsee]

It can start anytime, but i don't think it will start just now

But what really is melting roads, i don't know...

[Bladewire]

Originally Posted by Amputate Your Head

80 degree weather does not melt roads, no matter how you try to spin this.

Originally Posted by seeandsee

It can start anytime, but i don't think it will start just now

But what really is melting roads, i don't know...

Luckily for you guys, after extensive research, I've found the answer to why the roads at Yellowstone melted:

"The ever-changing thermal geology of Yellowstone National Park has created a hot spot that melted an asphalt road and closed access to popular geysers and other attractions at the height of tourist season, officials said Thursday." source

@ Amputate Your Head - I can't believe those cooks @ ABC news trying to convince us it had something to do with 80 degree weather, what a crock!

[suesheboy]

I thought it was already overdue...

[arock10]

Originally Posted by Amputate Your Head

The fucking roads are melting in Yellowstone, geysers going off like crazy, animals are GONE....
and ABC news, Weather Channel, etc... have the audacity to tell us it's because of the weather.

"Unusually warm weather for Yellowstone ? with high temperatures in the mid-80s ? has contributed to turning the road into a hot, sticky mess."
http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/wireSto...losed-24520326

See this chart: http://www.isthisthingon.org/Yellows...2014071000.gif

And then there's this...

are you the right wing conspiracy version of dvtimes?

[Deej]

My question isnt about the heat nor roads.

What I want to know is why in the fuck are there 50 nuclear missiles in or around yellowstone.

That being a national park. Can you imagine how many nuclear warheads are right in our back yard?

[NaughtyRob]

For civilazation to end? That's what will happen if it blows.

Originally Posted by MiamiBoyz

Can't happen soon enough I say! Looking forward to it!

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by Squirtit

Luckily for you guys, after extensive research, I've found the answer to why the roads at Yellowstone melted:

"The ever-changing thermal geology of Yellowstone National Park has created a hot spot that melted an asphalt road and closed access to popular geysers and other attractions at the height of tourist season, officials said Thursday." source

@ Amputate Your Head - I can't believe those cooks @ ABC news trying to convince us it had something to do with 80 degree weather, what a crock!

from the very article! thank god someone had the strength to point that out

[Amputate Your Head]

Originally Posted by arock10

are you the right wing conspiracy version of dvtimes?

You think the roads melting in Yellowstone is a conspiracy?

[Amputate Your Head]

Originally Posted by Deej

why in the fuck are there 50 nuclear missiles in or around yellowstone.

^^^ This.

[arock10]

Originally Posted by Amputate Your Head

You think the roads melting in Yellowstone is a conspiracy?

You are portraying it that way. Hyping up the fear

This stuff happens all the time there nothing new

[Amputate Your Head]

Originally Posted by arock10

You are portraying it that way. Hyping up the fear

This stuff happens all the time there nothing new

Really? The roads melt all the time?
The gov moves 50 nukes out of a national park all the time?

[_Richard_]

well, dude, maybe it's time to make a break for it to live in the woods. that way you'll know your safe

[Amputate Your Head]

Originally Posted by _Richard_

well, dude, maybe it's time to make a break for it to live in the woods. that way you'll know your safe

There's no escape if Yellowstone decides to blow. It's an ELE.

[Sly]

Originally Posted by _Richard_

well, dude, maybe it's time to make a break for it to live in the woods. that way you'll know your safe

I can only hope that he returns every five days with a diary like update.

Sport!

[sarettah]

Originally Posted by Amputate Your Head

The gov moves 50 nukes out of a national park all the time?

Watched the video, even paused it so I could actually read the article. There is nothing in there that says the missiles are in Yellowstone. It mentions the 3 states that have the missile silos in them but it is a long stretch (imho) to state that missiles are in Yellowstone (or are being moved out of there).

The article is also NOT about the Yellowstone super volcano as the video states. Yellowstone is not mentioned, nor is a volcano.

just my

Edited in to save people the trouble of pausing the video and all that:

http://archive.sltrib.com/article.ph...&itype=storyID

U.S. to remove 50 nuclear missiles from launch silos
By Robert Burns The Associated Press
Published April 9, 2014 7:08 am

Washington • The U.S. will keep its current force of 450 land-based nuclear missiles but remove 50 from their launch silos as part of a plan to bring the U.S. into compliance with a 2011 U.S.-Russia arms control treaty, the Pentagon said Tuesday.

The resulting launch-ready total of 400 Minuteman 3 intercontinental ballistic missiles would be the lowest deployed ICBM total since the early 1960s.

The decisions come after a strong push by members of Congress from the states that host missile bases — North Dakota, Wyoming and Montana — to not eliminate any of the silos from which the missiles would be launched. Fifty silos will be kept in "warm" status — empty of missiles but capable of returning to active use.

Sen. John Tester, a Montana Democrat, called the Pentagon's announcement "a big win for our nation's security and for Malmstrom Air Force Base," home of the 341st Missile Wing with 150 Minuteman 3 missiles.

"ICBMs are the most cost-effective nuclear deterrent, and keeping silos warm is a smart decision and the kind of common sense Montanans expect from their leaders," Tester said.

The decision to put 50 missiles in storage but not eliminate any of their launch silos is a departure from the practice followed throughout the 50-plus year history of intercontinental ballistic missiles. A senior defense official who briefed reporters on the plan and its rationale said the Pentagon had never before structured its ICBM force with a substantial number of missiles in standby status. The official spoke under Pentagon ground rules that did not permit her name to be used.

Hans Kristensen, an arms control expert at the Federation of American Scientists, called the administration's announcement disappointing as an apparent shift away from ICBM force reductions.

"This decision appears to have more to do with the administration surrendering to the ICBM caucus (in Congress) than with strategic considerations about national security," he said in an email exchange.

The Pentagon said it will cost $19.3 million over five years to keep the 50 launch silos and missiles in standby status. The 50 missiles will be stored at their base or, in some cases, sent to a depot for repairs or maintenance.

Keeping all 450 silos meant the Pentagon had to make steeper reductions in the Navy's sea-based nuclear force in order to comply with the New START, or Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, by 2018. The Navy will reduce the number of deployed and non-deployed submarine-launched ballistic nuclear missiles to 280 from the current 336.

The Navy has 14 Ohio-class submarines armed with missiles but only 12 will count as deployed because two will be undergoing long-term maintenance at a given time during the 10-year life of the New START treaty. The Navy is embarking on a multibillion-dollar program to build a replacement for the current fleet.

The other "leg" of the U.S. nuclear force, the Air Force strategic bombers, will be trimmed from the current deployed total of 93 to 60, with an additional six available in a non-deployed status. The 60 will comprise 19 B-2 stealth bombers and 41 B-52H Stratofortress heavy bombers.

Thus the administration will remain within the New START limit of 700 deployed strategic nuclear weapons with 400 ICBMs, 240 sub-launched missiles and 60 bombers. Russia already is well below the 700-deployed weapon limit; at the most recent reporting period, last October, Russia had 473; the U.S. had 809.

The 400 deployed ICBMs would be the lowest total since 1962, according to a history of the force written by Kristensen of the Federation of American Scientists. He says the U.S. had 203 deployed ICBMs in 1962, with the force expanding rapidly to 597 the following year and topping 1,000 in 1966. It has been between 550 and 450 since 1991.

The Obama administration spent months figuring out how to apportion the reductions required to comply with the New START treaty. In the meantime, the ICBM force came under heavy scrutiny for a variety of problems, including low morale, leadership failures and investigations over exam-cheating and drug use among launch officers.

Some question the value of retaining ICBMs, although President Barack Obama has committed to keeping them as part of the nuclear "triad" of forces that can be launched from land, sea and air. In addition to the 450 ICBM silos currently in use, the Air Force has four at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., used only for test launches. They will remain.

The Pentagon said Tuesday it probably will cost about $300 million to implement all the announced changes required to comply with New START by 2018. About two-thirds of the cost will be for altering some of the missile tubes aboard Navy submarines so they can no longer launch ballistic missiles.

The nuclear sub fleet is far more costly to operate than either the land-based missiles or the bombers, but its strategic advantage is the relative invulnerability of the submarines while at sea, and thus their ability to survive a first strike.

The New START treaty also requires both Russia and the U.S. to reduce to 1,550 the number of nuclear warheads associated with the deployed missiles and bombers. The Pentagon has not spelled out how it will do that, but analysts have said they believe the breakdown will be: 1,090 warheads aboard subs, 400 on land-based missiles and the 60 bombers counting as one warhead each.

Obama announced last summer that the U.S. would be ready to reduce its total warheads by another one-third, to about 1,100, in a new round of negotiations with Russia. But there is scant chance of that happening anytime soon, especially with the crisis over Russian intervention in Ukraine.

[bronco67]

Yellowstone has erupted 3 times in 2 million years. If you were betting person, with a good head for odds, would you put any amount of money on it erupting in your lifetime?

[MiamiBoyz]

Originally Posted by NaughtyRob

For civilazation to end? That's what will happen if it blows.

OF course - Looking forward to it!

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by Sly

I can only hope that he returns every five days with a diary like update.

Sport!

we already scared off two people into the woods

LETS MAKE IT THREE

[SilentKnight]

[Best-In-BC]

Originally Posted by Amputate Your Head

80 degree weather does not melt roads, no matter how you try to spin this.

Depends, black pavement will, its does up here in Canada.

[baddog]

Chicken Little

[SongRider]

Even the VERY liberal Huffington Post says its because of the natural thermal heat... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_5576514.html

Me thinks its just more "kicking the chickens" to get the barnyard in an uproar...

[Best-In-BC]

Nope, ITS OBAMA!

[crockett]

I'm waiting for the meltdown.. Not Yellowstone's but the OP's..

[Amputate Your Head]

Originally Posted by crockett

I'm waiting for the meltdown.. Not Yellowstone's but the OP's..

And what makes you think that's going to happen?

[Phoenix]

Yellowstone is a real possible game changer. It is very hard to predict when something like that will go off. IF it does, I read that about 25% of the states and some of Canada will be covered in so much dust and debris that people will suffocate by breathing in too much debris. I do not think it will end life though.

Rather we would all probably start having hydroponic gardens inside our homes. Nuclear power would become king for awhile. Like a decade or so. We would probably also develop industrial sized air scrubbers.{I picture mega fans just running non stop to catch debris and soot and other materials from the air. Like thousands of them in each town. This would be a full time industry in itself and create many jobs...The air scrubbers union...lol}

Anyway, end of life? Only for those in the immediate area...say 500 kms? I haven't looked up the numbers but i think that is a fair estimate.

Hydroponic gardens...development of air cleaning technology. i would imagine a bunch of other innovative processes.

Scary? yes. However, i wouldn't be shocked if it pushed us way further ahead.
Maybe we could finally get a colony living off world.

[CDSmith]

I hope Yogi and BooBoo are long gone before the Jellystone supervolcano decides to do more than just burp.

You guys need to quit arguing and mouthing off at Amp, he's 100% right on this one.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by Amputate Your Head

And what makes you think that's going to happen?

History, seems to repeat itself self.

[2MuchMark]

If you're REALLY interested, there's a movie made by PBS called "Super Volcano". It was pretty good for a TV movie and it looks like it cost quite a bit

[Amputate Your Head]

Originally Posted by crockett

History, seems to repeat itself self.

Kind of ironic how you embrace that phrase only when it's convenient for you.

[The Porn Nerd]

Adapt or die yo.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by Amputate Your Head

Kind of ironic how you embrace that phrase only when it's convenient for you.

I'm sorry but I don't have my cracker jacks secret decoder ring handy, so I'm at a loss of being about to translate your message.

[Amputate Your Head]

Originally Posted by crockett

I'm sorry but I don't have my cracker jacks secret decoder ring handy, so I'm at a loss of being about to translate your message.

That's too bad. You'll have to actually use your brain then, or ignore it and go back to sleep.

[just a punk]

It was a very stupid idea to put ICBM's in that area. Just sayin'...

[baddog]

Originally Posted by CyberSEO

It was a very stupid idea to put ICBM's in that area. Just sayin'...

In what area?

[just a punk]

Originally Posted by baddog

In what area?

Moon, of course. We are talking about Moon, right?

[just a punk]

Originally Posted by **********

Any nukes being "moved out" are more likely being decommissioned and dismantled. If Yellowstone was to erupt, the explosion would be far bigger than any nuke anyway.

Not quite correct. W/o nukes it will be just an eruption (ok, a very huge one). But if during that eruption all the enriched uranium from nuke warheads will be thrown into the atmosphere, the consequence will be much worse than Chernobyl. A usual nuclear blast is nothing comparing with a "dirty bomb" thrown into the atmosphere.