Vijyes Yechury
BANNED
![](/styles/default/xenforo/ranks/2ndLieutenant.jpg)
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2017
- Messages
- 375
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
I am not brainwashed by liberal and cowardly media who spread lies to avoid war by causing psychological fear
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I am not brainwashed by liberal and cowardly media who spread lies to avoid war by causing psychological fear
lies what lies @Vijyes YechuryI am not brainwashed by liberal and cowardly media who spread lies to avoid war by causing psychological fear
There is ample evidence of Little Boy and Fat Man ruining/destroying numerous concrete structures in Hiroshima and Nagasaki respectively. A small number of concrete structures looked intact from the outside but they were internally ruined and/or inhabitable. Watch this video and learn:Firstly, in India, the wooden houses are almost 0 and most houses are masonry based. Even poor people live in brick houses with sheet roof. So, the destruction level of Nagasaki will be limited.
Really?The ability to wipe out entire cities by just few nukes is just fantasy. Nuclear bomb, whatever power it may have, is still far less powerful than things like volcanic explosion, cyclones etc. The nukes cause more damage than other bombs but are not all destroyer
US have achieved the desired capability with its nuclear weapons however.The bunker buster nukes exist but they need precision strike. Simple drop bombs or ballistic missiles will not work. So, nukes are not used for bunker busters in general due to difficulty in getting precision strike.
I am not into exaggerating this stuff at personal capacity [I do not think that a nuclear exchange between Pakistan and India will be catastrophic for the world at large] but I find your views problematic as well. You assume that a place filled with concrete structures will experience less damage, and my counter is that you should not generalize about this matter due to evolution in the design [and resultant effectiveness] of nuclear weapons. You also underestimate the potential of 2 (or more) nukes to devastate a large city by virtue of multiple explosions and resultant firestorms. You are also fixated on the physical aspects of devastation and overlook the psychological implications of nuclear strike(s). You foolishly dismiss the possibility of multiple nuclear strikes [in short order] to create an environmental hazard over the affected region in spite of heaps of published material which suggest otherwise. You need to do some homework.Nuclear bombs are very powerful compared to all other bombs, but the effects must not be exaggerated.
They tested a 15 MT thermonuclear weapon (among the most powerful ever produced) in the Bikini Atoll sector of the Marshall Islands, and its effects are well-documented. FYI: https://www.ctbto.org/specials/testing-times/1-march-1954-castle-bravoThe radiation contamination of 11000 sqkm is a myth and that is exactly why people begin to distrust these news.
Any solid argument for this or I have to take your word for it?One must not exaggerate things beyond a point. Atmospheric poisoning is nonsense and does not exist in real life.
FYI:The radioactivity is also very limited and generally associated with the immediate bast wave. Even 10-15 minutes after blast wave, the radioactivity will be very low and sustainable levels.
You should learn to respect informed opinion of people in general, and use of citations in arguments (scientific publications in particular) in order to substantiate/reinforce them.PS: Never give opinions, analysis of experts etc as data. They are the opinions and fantasasies of people, not actual evidence. No matter what the credentials of the writer, actual statistics is very important and is not substitutable by opinions
There is one more, however since that hasnt been released to public yet, I will leave it at that. Thanks. Btw, that site is different from the two you've mentioned above.
Now imagine 100 [Little Boy type] nuclear weapons striking different parts of India. So many nuclear explosions - occurring in short order - will produce a new effect besides the usual stuff: atmospheric poisoning.
Explore, enjoy and learn: http://www.nucleardarkness.org/warconsequences/fivemilliontonsofsmoke/No it won't.
You have two choices if you want to destroy cities. Surface or air burst. Air burst kills people with reduced fallout. Surface burst throws more fallout, but kills less people. A combination of the two can be used on large cities like Delhi.
In either case, the nukes we have are so small that any nuclear effects will be highly localised, and it won't affect the entire city, just a few kilometres in radii along the different ground zeroes. You need hundreds of nukes with more than 1MT to create some atmospheric disturbance, but even that is quite negligible.
This is for surface burst:
![]()
You need to be able to shoot up a massive amount into the stratosphere for major effects, and even those have been exaggerated. Due to the design of cities, even firestorms are quiet muted to the point where it won't reach the stratosphere.
All this talk of poisoning air or water with nukes is a figment of the imagination. Even if the US and Russia have a big nuke war, normalcy in terms of climate and weather will be achieved in less than 6 months. Which means, even if every inch of Delhi is nuked with multiple attacks, the people in the satellite cities of Noida, Gurugram, Faisalabad and Ghaziabad will still live normal lives in less than a week, minus supply and refugee problems.
Explore, enjoy and learn: http://www.nucleardarkness.org/warconsequences/fivemilliontonsofsmoke/
This is the source of information: http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/RobockNW2006JD008235.pdfWritten by peace clowns. It's not reinforced in hard science.
Nuclear tests are conducted in geographically remote locations, and with gaps. US and Russia weren't exploding hundreds of nukes at a time, and striking population centers on top.The world has seen many times more nuclear explosions than India and Pakistan have nukes combined. And none of our nukes will reach the stratosphere anyway.
From people who have worked with nukes.
https://www.oism.org/nwss/s73p912.htm
This is the source of information: http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/RobockNW2006JD008235.pdf
Jumping to conclusions?
Nuclear tests are conducted in geographically remote locations, and with gaps. US and Russia weren't exploding hundreds of nukes at a time, and striking population centers on top.
There is massive difference between a full-scale nuclear war [with the intent to kill and destroy on mass scale] and calculated nuclear testing practices [safety factors]. Atmospheric implications significantly vary accordingly.
They done nuke test on the remote areas where is no populations centers care fully analysed climates that the fallout don't drifted on population centers by winds @randomradioThat study just assumes there's already that much smoke emitted, which is not true.