Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Your thought on nuclear weapons?

POST REPLY
Soviet cogitations: 163
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 23 Jan 2009, 15:02
Pioneer
Post 08 Feb 2009, 07:02
I was refering to the SSBN typhoon Nato codename, Akula soviet code name.
Soviet cogitations: 163
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 23 Jan 2009, 15:02
Pioneer
Post 08 Feb 2009, 07:35
The TU-95 is a warrior, im not trying to steal its thunder, but the TU-22 backfire/blinder, and TU-160 are sleeker sexier planes. kinda like the b-52 and B1, b2. I think it was in Tom Clancys book Red Storm rising that the TU-95 played a promenate role in attacking america. The Tu-95 regularly flys in close proximity to american carriers, or peeks its ugly nose into Nato training evolutions.


The all time cold war bomber was the B-58 hustler!
Soviet cogitations: 163
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 23 Jan 2009, 15:02
Pioneer
Post 21 Feb 2009, 18:31
Check out this website they have many interesting reports on here. http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-is ... /index.htm
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 26
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 25 Jan 2009, 15:17
Pioneer
Post 19 Mar 2009, 02:20
Nuclear weapon.

Key word is "weapon."

Some of you are so fatalistic. Of course, the mass media has drummed the fact that life on Earth will end if there is a nuclear war into your head non-stop your entire life so I can't blame you. Let me put you at ease.

Battlefield use of nuclear weapons isn't going to wipe us all out. Human life will survive, life on Earth will survive.

If you need proof, remember that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were rebuilt, and the US alone has detonated almost 1000 nuclear weapons in the atmosphere, most of them over the Continental US. We probably do have increased cancer deaths, but it'll never catch up to heart disease.

Some of you worry too much.
Soviet Music Fan
Soviet cogitations: 163
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 23 Jan 2009, 15:02
Pioneer
Post 20 Mar 2009, 05:21
IT all depends on the use of nuclear weapons. If they are used in a strategic way, life most likely wil end, however in the tactical sense life will carry on. Strategic nuclear basically means mutally assured destruction, where as tactical would check the opponent until convential forces could regain the upper hand.
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 26
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 25 Jan 2009, 15:17
Pioneer
Post 21 Mar 2009, 01:02
Strategic exchange would have meant Mutually Assured Destruction of many populated areas in the US and USSR, certainly. After which Brazil and South Africa could have fought the Chinese for global dominion
Soviet Music Fan
Soviet cogitations: 18
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 22 May 2012, 00:35
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 10 Jul 2012, 21:49
Why not continue on antimatter studies? Antimatter is the most volatile substance ever created- And provided you can keep it completely seperate from matter until you want it to go off, it can produce 20 kilotons of pure energy in a globule the size of an airsoft pellet- Without radiation and forcing people out for fear of lasting contamination. It also screws up radiocommunications and will blind and set on fire any soldiers exposed to it if in the open. It is so powerful that the entire Vatican City can be destroyed by a quarter gram of the stuff. Why permenantly ruin our lives with uranium and plutonium?
Soviet cogitations: 22
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 04 Oct 2012, 06:32
Pioneer
Post 23 Mar 2013, 17:03
Nuclear weapons can't destroy the world 10x over. They won't even come close to destroying it once over. To come to that figure, they assumed that kiloton for kiloton, if every weapon in our stockpile went off it would kill as many people as died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This obviously won't happen because a 100 MT weapon won't do a 100X the damage of a 1 MT weapon. A 100 MT weapon would probably do less than 10X the damage of the 1 MT weapon. Also, very few places have a population density of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, and these two places had perfect conditions to cause a large amount of deaths from these weapons compared to other places due to the type of construction and layout of the city. If an all out nuclear war happened with 1980's weapons levels, at most, 200-300 million people would die as a result of nuclear weapons. Most people also don't know much about the effects of radiation. The fallout from a nuclear war is very survivable. Basically, as long as you are sheltered from radiation during the first moments of the blast, you have a higher chance of surviving the radiation exposure than dying.
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 23 Mar 2013, 21:14
Yeah, and then and you remember you have to eat after a few months in the basement and realize that all plants are dead because of the nuclear winter
Soviet cogitations: 22
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 04 Oct 2012, 06:32
Pioneer
Post 24 Mar 2013, 08:08
The effects of nuclear winter are overstated by these pop scientists. Some of these same scientists said the Kuwait oil fields would cause a severe nuclear winter when they were set on fire. At worst, temperatures would drop a few degrees for a few weeks in a major nuclear war.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 981
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Aug 2011, 22:59
Ideology: Other Leftist
Komsomol
Post 24 Mar 2013, 15:13
oldjar07 wrote:
The effects of nuclear winter are overstated by these pop scientists. Some of these same scientists said the Kuwait oil fields would cause a severe nuclear winter when they were set on fire. At worst, temperatures would drop a few degrees for a few weeks in a major nuclear war.

Comrade, you are very wrong.
Image
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.