 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Odd
|
|
São Paulo Brazil
Apr 2002
time: 02:27
|
|
People have a wrong idea about neutron bombs. That stuff about killing people and leaving buidings intact is crap, in a nuclear war civilian buidings are no more important than civilian people. Although small, it's still a nuclear blast, and it can indeed damage civilian buidings. As far as I know they were developed as a method to kill the soldiers inside the tanks, that aren't much affected by the heat and blastwave of the conventional nuke. A tank's armor is fairly resistant to heat and pressure damage, but can be penetrated by neutron particles. So it has more of a combat role than the regular nukes.
Although it's tempting to blame the USA for not banning nukes I think it's not likely that they'll use it, simply because they don't have to. I can't think of a scenario that they'll be forced to use nukes other than a nuclear attack by Russia (the world would be already screwed by then). Ok, maybe if France declares war on the USA they'll nuke them just for fun, but the whole idea is just too absurd.
I strongly disagree that NK would nuke someone because it has nothing to lose. NK is Kim, and Kim has a much better life than Saddam has these days. I don't know to which extent the man is crazy (the way he acts towards the usa sound as wise as to kick a sleeping angry dog), but although there are plenty of rational reasons for him to have nukes, there's no rational reason to use one (well, that applies to any country, doesn't it?).
If a terrorist nuclear blast in Israel would kill a lot of palestinians, a nuclear blast in any of Israel's enemies could bring radiation to Israel as well. With the difference that in deep trouble Israel can just pass the coordinates to the USA to dig a hole with conv. weapons. Terrorists can't do that. And don´t forget that all terrorist attacks blows away at least one arab.
So what frigtens me the most is the fact that nuclear technology is 60 years old, and it's each day more accesible to madmans. I dunno how hard will be to produce a nuke withing another 60 years.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001
time: 00:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Azazel
quote:
Actually, nuking some city in the center of Israel, like Tel Aviv, would kill very few Arabs at all. Nukes are not that powerful people, don't exagerate their power.
|
A good nuke has around 40 km in complete killing radius. and another 40 with 50% fatalities, IIRC. this would kill tens of thousands of Arabs in Jaffa and Lud, and will kill lots of Palestinians as well. |
Grossly exagerating those blast radius figures. To get that kind of damage, you'd need around a 50 megaton bomb. Most MIRVed (ie:what you'd find on an ICBM)warheads have yields in the hundreds of kilotons range, far less than one megaton.
To get an idea, check out this site: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/bomb/s...e/blastmap.html
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
panag
|
 |
MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Oct 2000
time: 07:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GP
In comparison the other nuclear powers:
US: only 1 and 2 (save the trolls, tired Horsie)
UK: half of 1 and 2
France: half of 1 and 2
China: half of 1 and 2, all of 3 and 4
India: 3 and 4 only
Pakistan: Do they have them? Can't remember if that test was verified? In any case, only 3 and 4.
Israel: Do they have them? If so, probably doesn't match any of the numbers. |
hi ,
what , we , no , we dont have any nukes , ... 
have a nice day
keep guessing , keep guessing , .....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lord Merciless
|
|
Russia,
Pakistan,
NK
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lord Merciless
|
|
Serb, your attitude is the best indication that Russia is unstable and dangerous.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27.
Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
28-04-2003 02:30
Attachment: 
|
