Jump to content


Photo

Nuclear war - anyone ever thought about preparing for it?

war survival technology

  • Please log in to reply
33 replies to this topic

#21 chrisg

chrisg

    Immortal

  • Super Hero
  • 35,027 posts
  • Location:Perth

Posted 18 May 2018 - 07:03 AM

 

... Putin does bother me, so does Trump, that's a fiery combination.


Putin is an evil prick, but he is very definitely not stupid or crazy. Trump, however, wants to be the first of those (no, really: go through the 'dictator' check list - the only thing he's missing so far is killing or imprisoning people), but is both of the latter.

 

I really begin to wonder if Trump will even survive his first term, the High Court is after him on several counts with impeachment a real possibility. The U.S. legal system is far from perfect but it has well defined and understood rules on what is acceptable of a President and what is not.

 

The U.S. nuclear triad has so many checks and balances built into it that in reality a President can't just order a nuclear strike, those who control the weapons have to agree that such an order is actually legal.

 

I fully agree about Putin but he knows he could not win in a nuclear war, no one can but again reality says he hasn't really given any reason to be attacked by the U.S.

 

This is a long but worthwhile read on the subject:

 

https://thebulletin....clock-statement

 

The reality is that the clock has been at or close to the "two minutes to midnight" point for most of my life, it won't changer by much until or if we get rid of the damned things, but it sounds more dramatic than it actually is, the truth is that the clock is predicated upon the quantity of nukes in existence and whilst North Korea is alarming Kim does not have a deliverable weapon, or a realistic delivery system and now appears to be backing away from ever having either.

 

As a small nation NK has nowhere to hide and could be overwhelmed by conventional means in short order. Doubtless a very bloody war but not likely to go nuclear.

 

Cheers


"Specialisation is for Insects" RAH

#22 @~thehung

@~thehung

    Guru

  • Hero
  • 8,790 posts

Posted 18 May 2018 - 12:16 PM

The U.S. nuclear triad has so many checks and balances built into it that in reality a President can't just order a nuclear strike, those who control the weapons have to agree that such an order is actually legal.


yes, and no. and mostly no.

https://edition.cnn....tton/index.html
"The president has supreme authority to decide whether to use America's nuclear weapons. Period. Full stop," said the Arms Control Association's Kingston Reif. A president could only be stopped by mutiny, he said, and more than one person would have to disobey the president's orders.

the 'checks and balances' fall to the real-time judgment of a handful of generals who *might* choose to disobey the order if they have reason to presume it is illegal.
there was actually a congressional hearing held on this topic late last year,'the first hearing to overtly address this issue in more than four decades'.

https://www.vox.com/...ear-weapons-war
"He requires other people to carry out an order, so he can't just lean on a button and automatically the missiles fly. But he has the legal and political authority on his own to give an order that would cause other people to take steps which would result in a nuclear strike. That’s the system we currently have." -Peter Feaver, a political science professor at Duke University and a former special adviser on the National Security Council.


no pung intended

#23 chrisg

chrisg

    Immortal

  • Super Hero
  • 35,027 posts
  • Location:Perth

Posted 18 May 2018 - 02:47 PM

 

The U.S. nuclear triad has so many checks and balances built into it that in reality a President can't just order a nuclear strike, those who control the weapons have to agree that such an order is actually legal.


yes, and no. and mostly no.

https://edition.cnn....tton/index.html
"The president has supreme authority to decide whether to use America's nuclear weapons. Period. Full stop," said the Arms Control Association's Kingston Reif. A president could only be stopped by mutiny, he said, and more than one person would have to disobey the president's orders.

the 'checks and balances' fall to the real-time judgment of a handful of generals who *might* choose to disobey the order if they have reason to presume it is illegal.
there was actually a congressional hearing held on this topic late last year,'the first hearing to overtly address this issue in more than four decades'.

https://www.vox.com/...ear-weapons-war
"He requires other people to carry out an order, so he can't just lean on a button and automatically the missiles fly. But he has the legal and political authority on his own to give an order that would cause other people to take steps which would result in a nuclear strike. That’s the system we currently have." -Peter Feaver, a political science professor at Duke University and a former special adviser on the National Security Council.

 

:)

 

That's what it says, it is not what it is.

 

I used to work at the Pentagon, imagine, you are a General or group of Generals working there and you are told to launch a nuclear strike, particularly by a President you do not trust, and believe me most of the Pentagon do not trust Trump. You are working there, a few miles out of Washington, your family probably live nearby, your friends are in the building or a lot of them are in the city. You know if you launch you are all dead because the first return salvo will definitely include Washington.

 

The President might be semi-safe on Air Force One somewhere, you aren't, would you launch ?

 

i'd say not, There's a reason personal firearms are left at the door at the big house but you are talking about men and women who have seen a deal of combat. some would blindly follow the order, most would not, there would be blood in the corridors.

 

Contrary to popular belief the U.S. military is not stupid, they understand MAD, those with authority over the nukes in particular, they would question the order and probably ask for confirmation and apply reasoning especially if it were an order for a preemptive strike, a retaliatory strike might be different but the same reasoning applies in the other nuclear armed nations as well - ultimately if you obey you are signing the death warrants of yourself and everyone you care about.

 

Much simpler to just assassinate the President and believe me many of them, including those on Air Force One, would probably find that the better option.

 

It has been a problem ever since this enormous amount of power was put in the hands of one person, a serious flaw in the U.S Constitution but also a sign of serious nuclear madness that we have been living with ever since the Manhattan Project.

 

The SALT talks made a valid attempt to begin getting rid of the things, but we seem to be back into escalation, at least by the U.S. again.

 

However it takes years for those projects to actually come to fruition, I doubt Trump will be around by then and hopefully someone more sensible will be in the Oval Office.

 

I've not understood, for a long time, what the hell the angst is about, the initial political disagreement, Democracy versus Communism, whilst hysterical was a product of the times but Russia is not the dark Satan it was once seen as, if anything the U.S. is more extremist these days.

 

But was Russia ever going to attack America ? no, it could only lose in that fight and they know it. So we had surrogate wars, in which mostly third parties died.

 

We are ruled by lunatics in the main, in my opinion we have one here just now, but I don't really think even Trump is so stupid as to start a war that would kill him and everyone of his family and friends in the end. That is the reality of any nuclear exchange and both sides and the other nuclear armed nations know it.

 

Which begs the question why do the things exist in the first place ?

 

Because in the end the human race is still a bunch of children in a playground daring each other to a fight.

 

it's time we grew up and away from that mentality.

 

Cheers


"Specialisation is for Insects" RAH

#24 Jeruselem

Jeruselem

    Guru

  • Atomican
  • 14,996 posts
  • Location:Not Trump-Land

Posted 18 May 2018 - 03:00 PM

Humm,

 

Most anything north of the equator doesn't make it down here, little thing called the equatorial divide, but the problem Australia has is the tests done here, places like Maralinga, islands off the W.A. coast and what the French did in the South Pacific. We do have a fallout problem, it  probably is a factor in our increasing cancer rate, but likely not the only one.

 

At least we are not a nuclear nation but our territory has been used, a lot, for "testing."

 

Cheers

 

The UK didn't have land to test nukes on so Australia become their laboratory. The French has to resort to blowing up the homes of pacific islanders.


“We’re not going to stop the wheel. I’m going to break the wheel.” - Daenerys Targaryen

 

"We have some of the most beautiful hookers in the world" - Putin to Trump


#25 chrisg

chrisg

    Immortal

  • Super Hero
  • 35,027 posts
  • Location:Perth

Posted 18 May 2018 - 04:06 PM

 

Humm,

 

Most anything north of the equator doesn't make it down here, little thing called the equatorial divide, but the problem Australia has is the tests done here, places like Maralinga, islands off the W.A. coast and what the French did in the South Pacific. We do have a fallout problem, it  probably is a factor in our increasing cancer rate, but likely not the only one.

 

At least we are not a nuclear nation but our territory has been used, a lot, for "testing."

 

Cheers

 

The UK didn't have land to test nukes on so Australia become their laboratory. The French has to resort to blowing up the homes of pacific islanders.

 

Heh,

 

That doesn't make it right.

 

The U.S. actually offered their underground test site in Nevada to the Brits but they declined because someone thought the U.S "might learn something."

 

Given how long the U.S had already had nukes that seemed rather unlikely and the U.S. had been hosting U.K. nuke scientists for quite a while but politicians tend to the clueless end of the spectrum.

 

The whole testing thing somewhat bemuses me. Russia has basically blown Novoya Zemlya in half with their dick-waving tests yet people still live there. I can say with a high degree of certainty that Israel has nukes but denies it if pushed because they keep them disassembled. They've never done a test that can be confirmed although the mysterious blast off South Africa, with whom Israel has/had good relations, may have been an Israeli trial. Remember, most nuclear scientists during the early days of nukes were Jewish and not a few emigrated to Israel.

 

Cheers


Edited by chrisg, 18 May 2018 - 04:08 PM.

"Specialisation is for Insects" RAH

#26 Jeruselem

Jeruselem

    Guru

  • Atomican
  • 14,996 posts
  • Location:Not Trump-Land

Posted 19 May 2018 - 09:27 AM

 

 

Humm,

 

Most anything north of the equator doesn't make it down here, little thing called the equatorial divide, but the problem Australia has is the tests done here, places like Maralinga, islands off the W.A. coast and what the French did in the South Pacific. We do have a fallout problem, it  probably is a factor in our increasing cancer rate, but likely not the only one.

 

At least we are not a nuclear nation but our territory has been used, a lot, for "testing."

 

Cheers

 

The UK didn't have land to test nukes on so Australia become their laboratory. The French has to resort to blowing up the homes of pacific islanders.

 

Heh,

 

That doesn't make it right.

 

The U.S. actually offered their underground test site in Nevada to the Brits but they declined because someone thought the U.S "might learn something."

 

Given how long the U.S had already had nukes that seemed rather unlikely and the U.S. had been hosting U.K. nuke scientists for quite a while but politicians tend to the clueless end of the spectrum.

 

The whole testing thing somewhat bemuses me. Russia has basically blown Novoya Zemlya in half with their dick-waving tests yet people still live there. I can say with a high degree of certainty that Israel has nukes but denies it if pushed because they keep them disassembled. They've never done a test that can be confirmed although the mysterious blast off South Africa, with whom Israel has/had good relations, may have been an Israeli trial. Remember, most nuclear scientists during the early days of nukes were Jewish and not a few emigrated to Israel.

 

Cheers

 

 

Yes, Australia got the wrong end of the stick with those tests. We got sharp bit.


“We’re not going to stop the wheel. I’m going to break the wheel.” - Daenerys Targaryen

 

"We have some of the most beautiful hookers in the world" - Putin to Trump


#27 smadge1

smadge1

    Titan

  • Atomican
  • 25,797 posts

Posted 21 May 2018 - 08:14 AM

Didn't someone come out and say that the US nuke passwords were set at "1234" for a long period of time, because no-one had the authority to change them from the default?

 

Ok, so the codes on the Minutemen silos were set to 00000000, for about 20years, in contradiction of an order from JFK.

https://www.gizmodo....s-was-00000000/


Edited by smadge1, 21 May 2018 - 08:22 AM.

Put your monkey where your mouth is. These are the voyages of the starship Lucy Liu. What's On My Mind? http://twitter.com/smadge1 http://smadge1.tumblr.com/

#28 littlejacket92

littlejacket92

    Learner

  • Quark
  • 47 posts
  • Location:Trump Land

Posted 30 May 2018 - 02:24 PM

Some country develop nuclear weapon and they don't hear anyone, just negotiate with big countries, and the world is too soft, i think they need to think hard. ( my country, vietnam, is too soft treat to China, then we lost two island to them.and now, our government try to keep that attitude, and i think we can lost country to china in the near future :D) . So I support strict talking or using violence to solve for country that still develop their nuclear weapon).



#29 Master_Scythe

Master_Scythe

    Titan

  • Hero
  • 20,571 posts
  • Location:QLD

Posted 30 May 2018 - 02:46 PM

Some country develop nuclear weapon and they don't hear anyone, just negotiate with big countries, and the world is too soft, i think they need to think hard. ( my country, vietnam, is too soft treat to China, then we lost two island to them.and now, our government try to keep that attitude, and i think we can lost country to china in the near future :D) . So I support strict talking or using violence to solve for country that still develop their nuclear weapon).

 

Yeah it only makes sense.

 

I think one of the biggest issues we have at the moment (and it'll be because it's impossible to Police) is that we shouldn't ban Nuclear Programs, as a whole, and lump it into the bundle Nuclear Weapons.

People should be able to explore fission\fusion without being assumed it's for weapons.


Wherever you go in life, watch out for Scythe, the tackling IT support guy.

"I don't care what race you are, not one f*cking bit, if you want to be seen as a good people, you go in there and you f*ck up the people who (unofficially) represent you in a negative light!"


#30 littlejacket92

littlejacket92

    Learner

  • Quark
  • 47 posts
  • Location:Trump Land

Posted 30 May 2018 - 05:17 PM

 

Some country develop nuclear weapon and they don't hear anyone, just negotiate with big countries, and the world is too soft, i think they need to think hard. ( my country, vietnam, is too soft treat to China, then we lost two island to them.and now, our government try to keep that attitude, and i think we can lost country to china in the near future :D) . So I support strict talking or using violence to solve for country that still develop their nuclear weapon).

 

Yeah it only makes sense.

 

I think one of the biggest issues we have at the moment (and it'll be because it's impossible to Police) is that we shouldn't ban Nuclear Programs, as a whole, and lump it into the bundle Nuclear Weapons.

People should be able to explore fission\fusion without being assumed it's for weapons.

 

Yeah, like people use gun for protect themselves. If each countries has own nuclear weapon, then i think other country will consider be carefully before going to nuclear war. And, your opinion is right, thought. like drug, beside causing addictive, they also help for health. ( losing hurt, maybe). 

(correct me if i'm wrong, thanks)



#31 chrisg

chrisg

    Immortal

  • Super Hero
  • 35,027 posts
  • Location:Perth

Posted 31 May 2018 - 01:11 PM

 

 

Some country develop nuclear weapon and they don't hear anyone, just negotiate with big countries, and the world is too soft, i think they need to think hard. ( my country, vietnam, is too soft treat to China, then we lost two island to them.and now, our government try to keep that attitude, and i think we can lost country to china in the near future :D) . So I support strict talking or using violence to solve for country that still develop their nuclear weapon).

 

Yeah it only makes sense.

 

I think one of the biggest issues we have at the moment (and it'll be because it's impossible to Police) is that we shouldn't ban Nuclear Programs, as a whole, and lump it into the bundle Nuclear Weapons.

People should be able to explore fission\fusion without being assumed it's for weapons.

 

Yeah, like people use gun for protect themselves. If each countries has own nuclear weapon, then i think other country will consider be carefully before going to nuclear war. And, your opinion is right, thought. like drug, beside causing addictive, they also help for health. ( losing hurt, maybe). 

(correct me if i'm wrong, thanks)

 

Good Lord, you are actually in favor of nuclear proliferation !?!

 

That almost guarantees an eventual nuclear spasm, it is far more sensible to reduce and eventually get rid of the things before we exterminate ourselves.

 

I have no idea who you are or where you are but your thinking is dangerously warped.

 

Cheers


"Specialisation is for Insects" RAH

#32 Master_Scythe

Master_Scythe

    Titan

  • Hero
  • 20,571 posts
  • Location:QLD

Posted 31 May 2018 - 01:19 PM

 

 

 

Some country develop nuclear weapon and they don't hear anyone, just negotiate with big countries, and the world is too soft, i think they need to think hard. ( my country, vietnam, is too soft treat to China, then we lost two island to them.and now, our government try to keep that attitude, and i think we can lost country to china in the near future :D) . So I support strict talking or using violence to solve for country that still develop their nuclear weapon).

 

Yeah it only makes sense.

 

I think one of the biggest issues we have at the moment (and it'll be because it's impossible to Police) is that we shouldn't ban Nuclear Programs, as a whole, and lump it into the bundle Nuclear Weapons.

People should be able to explore fission\fusion without being assumed it's for weapons.

 

Yeah, like people use gun for protect themselves. If each countries has own nuclear weapon, then i think other country will consider be carefully before going to nuclear war. And, your opinion is right, thought. like drug, beside causing addictive, they also help for health. ( losing hurt, maybe). 

(correct me if i'm wrong, thanks)

 

Good Lord, you are actually in favor of nuclear proliferation !?!

 

That almost guarantees an eventual nuclear spasm, it is far more sensible to reduce and eventually get rid of the things before we exterminate ourselves.

 

I have no idea who you are or where you are but your thinking is dangerously warped.

 

Cheers

 

 

I think there's a bit lost in translation.

 

He was agreeing wth me, where I was saying;

weapons = no

research = ok

 

And the issue I raised, being externally, how on earth do you tell what this is used for?

 

EDIT: re reading, no you're right. He says if each country had it's own... Yeah, nope, can't agree to that!


Edited by Master_Scythe, 31 May 2018 - 01:22 PM.

Wherever you go in life, watch out for Scythe, the tackling IT support guy.

"I don't care what race you are, not one f*cking bit, if you want to be seen as a good people, you go in there and you f*ck up the people who (unofficially) represent you in a negative light!"


#33 Kothos

Kothos

    Titan

  • Atomican
  • 17,049 posts

Posted 06 July 2018 - 09:01 PM

It helps to have a shelter just in case you happen to be in a radiation zone that is outside the blast zone. If you're in the blast zone you're dead no matter what.

As long as you have a basement or double brick house or better you can survive the 2 weeks or so of dangerous radiation outside until it dissipates. Having enough food and water is the kicker but we finally have our own house and enough stores to last a month (emergency advice tends to be for 3-6 days).

If I really tried I could fit enough stores in here to last 6 months or a year.

Australia is unlikely to be a target anyway. We have few high value locations, and our military is too small for us to be a useful terror target. We're mostly insignificant.

Edited by Kothos, 06 July 2018 - 09:02 PM.

"To love another you have to undertake some fragment of their destiny." - Quentin Crisp

#34 RenascentMisanthropy

RenascentMisanthropy

    Guru

  • Atomican
  • 9,734 posts
  • Location:Australia

Posted 07 July 2018 - 08:57 PM

No.


Hail Satan.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users