(World Situation/Nuke Question) Help me out here OK? Why do I CARE if

[night driver]

DEmo's at camp are all over the map. WE have farm kids from rural schools, we have virtually ALL of the Worthington middle schools at one time or another. WE apparently get kids in the spring from a wider array of areas than just Columbus schools.

Transportation DOES get interesting in a low gas environment. I can go down and back on one tank of gas, but in "interesting times" I'd go down and not come home for several weeks, assuming that the schools continued to come out.

RELIC has already gotten the bike, though we'll need it tuned up this spring (or before I go back) and her trip to the Hospital is either straight down the main street here or down a single bus line.

Alternative location discussions DO have to be renewed, though I'm carrying some new skills now that, while they might not be in demand at one or two potential sites might be more in demand at others.

RELIC's current job is, relatively, recession resistant, given who it is with and their clientele.


Summerthyme, as far as the parrents being concerned, unfortunately, the parents of our kids, for the most part are pathological sheeple, if they are capable of that level of coherent thought. Yes, some of the kids DO show that their parents are capable of the level of thought that would produce concern, but regrettable it is a VERY small percentage of the whole.



well I recognize that I ain't as set as I oughta be. Thanks folks for the SMALL answers. They're what I needed.


c

 

[night driver]

TAz,

you CAN imagine the stress. Look back to 9/15-16/01.

YOUR words were (near as I can get) "I don't know if I can keep on worrying about which city is going to be gone when I wake up"....

multiply that a couple times...


c

 

[SSTemplar]

I have not read all the post. Chuck. I think that useing a nuclear weapon is like eating one lays potato chip. You cant eat just one. If we decide that it is ok to use nuclear weapons it will be the same as telling Russia and China that they can solve there little problems the same way.

 

[Chartreuse]

several folks pop off a few MT of nukes in the ME??

REALISTICALLY, it isn't like that is going to change the CA rate for me, or i8f it does it'll just BARELY get the change out of the noise ranges.


So, what ELSE is there I should be worried about, if it stays confined to the ME???


I know this is gonna mark me as a Polly of the first water but, I was trying to come up with some tangible effects on ME, here in Flyover Country, if they get to exchanging neutrons in the MidEast, making a very smooth couple parking lots that don't need lighting, that sort of thing, and I really couldn't come up with too many TANGIBLE effects. Oh sure gas goes to $5-$10 a gallon and heating fuel and Nat gas go thru the roof, prices in the grocery store go up exponentially, but beyond that, what do I get to worry about...

TANGIBLE effects, now...




C

Here's a TANGIBLE effect for you - millions of human beings will die. I personally find that very worrying.

But hey, as long as its not you or yours that are affected, why should you care?

 

[shane]

I can't imagine the pure terrorizing stress. And the less one knows (Joe Sixpak) the more terrorizing its going to be. The less one is prepared (preps) the more terrorizing its going to be. Keep your mouths shut about preps....your neighbors can turn on you in a NY second if they think you have what they need..

You bring up a good point here, Taz, an often overlooked 'wildcard'.

Most everybody looks to the past, like the Great Depression, for how people struggled and managed through it then for an indication of how the population will react next time.

This time, though, will be very different. Both for the wider extent of the disruptions of all that we take for granted today (reversal of 80/20 rural/city ratio) AND especially because a much, much smaller % of people today are equipped with the level of self-reliant and moral-restraint qualities so common of our grandparents generation.

The entitlement mentality is pervasive throughout our culture today and we can not assume any normal moral restraints from them violently taking whatever they can, true unleashed survival of the fittest and meanest. If they can take it, then they feel they had already proven their right to. The coming waves of panicked, cold, hungry, sick, and scared masses could be fatal to you and yours to ever assume otherwise.

- Shane

 

[A.T.Hagan]

Some of you are reading more into Chuck's question than he is actually asking while others are answering a question he hasn't asked. This only serves to cause much confusion.

Depending on the weather at the particular time and number of detonations we would eventually see a fair amount of radioactive iodine reach the United States, but as the jet streams blow west to east (if I recall correctly) the iodine would have to go the long way around the world to reach us. The stuff has a fairly short half-life so what we would actually see here in the U.S., on the East Coast anyway, may not be as much as one would think. You can bet that I'd still be giving my family some KI though as a precaution. None of us are allergic to shellfish, have any known iodine sensitivity, so the risk of adverse reaction would be very low compared to the benefit we might gain from. Judging by past behavior of people in crisis situations though I'd say it's pretty much guaranteed that hospitals across the nation would see a small sprinkling of people who panicked and took toxic amounts of various iodine compounds.

All of this said one of the changes we would see in the world is a changing of the way we define what is and is not an acceptable amount of radiation in our lives. The pros think that any amount of ionizing radition is too much which is OK in an ideal world, but the real world may decide otherwise. In a war zone, which is what much or even all of the world could become out of a scenario such as this, we take risks that we wouldn't even consider in a time of peace. Not because we would want to, but because we had no other choice.

It's very difficult to say what would come of the use of nuclear weapons in the Middle East simply because except for the one single time in history that we used them when no one else on the planet had them they've never been used openly in warfare before. There are only three nations on this planet with any significant amount of deliverable nuclear warheads and another six to eight with smaller amounts. No one is going to want to get into a slugging match with the Big Three, most especially not the Big Three themselves because there won't be any winners, only survivors and the dead. The lesser nations won't openly cross the big three because they can't take the punishment. Israel may nuke Iran, Iran may nuke Israel, or some other combination of lesser states, but short of taking significant open military losses I don't think the Big Three are going to be any too eager to start throwing their nukes around.

No one really knows what will happen and that's a fact. Maybe some nation will decide they're obligated to come to their brother nations aid or maybe they'll decide they're not going to trade Islamabad for Jerusalem or some other two cities. I truly expect some people here - some on this very board - to go into irrational hysterics. Others will simply button up. We'll see again what we saw on December 7th, 1941 and September 11th, 2001 but much magnified.

It's the immediate, short-term implications is what Chuck is asking about. The longer-term economic and military consequences would be sure to come and they'd be horrific, but that's not what he's asking about.

.....Alan.

 

[Bill P]

I still dont see that an Iran v Israel conflict can be confined to the MidEast.

How many Muslims are in the USA?

How many of them are radicalized or in a sleeper cell?

In any nuclear conflict involving Islam, how many of the Muslims already here wont be moved to take action against Jews? against the US .gov? against US civilains?

Here in Cincy the mosques seem to sprouting like, like mushrooms - sorry pun intended.

 

[RC]

Shane wrote:

If nukes are ever used by any of the warring participants over there, we could soon be in deep trouble over here, too

But isn't "deep trouble" an exageration? (Ignoring, as I assume the question asked, non-physical effects, which would obviously be very great). The map you showed shows a closer detonation in 1956, and the fallout over North America.

If I knew such a cloud was coming, I'd absolutely get out the KI. But realistically, how many Americans died as a result of the 1956 detonation in your map, or any other detonation in the 1950's. Cocededly, it might have been in the hundreds (in the form of additional cancer deaths years later).

So wouldn't you agree that we'd be in some trouble, but not deep trouble?

Again, the effects upon what other people will do after the detonation, such as not send us oil, shoot back, etc., probably would constitute "deep trouble." But in the scheme of things, I think trans-Pacific fallout amounts to a few days or years worth of highway casualties. Since we endure those and survive as a nation, I don't think trans-Pacific fallout would be vastly different.

Of course, I do wear my seatbelt, and I would take my KI.

 

[shane]

So wouldn't you agree that we'd be in some trouble, but not deep trouble?

RC, One small nuke like that Chinese test of 300 kt, yes, I'd tend to agree with you, but what Kearny was talking about was a future much bigger exchange of 300-400 megatons that would also put into doubt all above ground crops, livestock, milk cow production, etc.

Also, with the wide spread ignorance of radiation effects here in the USA amongst the general population, fueled by the eco-nuts and media, the chaos and panic, soon as word got out that it was coming, would probably kill a whole bunch of folks before it even ever arrived. Combine that with the justifiable fear that it could possibly expand into a wider shooting war, perhaps even WWIII, and you'd likely have a dangerous panic well beyond the Cuban Missile Crisis.

- Shane

 

[Taz]

and I wonder how long it would take before our gov't started rounding up Muslims? Probably for their own protection as Johnny Redneck would be out hunting them. And I for one am very ambivalent on this subject.

Taz

 

[Worrier King]

and I wonder how long it would take before our gov't started rounding up Muslims? Probably for their own protection as Johnny Redneck would be out hunting them. And I for one am very ambivalent on this subject.

Taz

I suspect the same approach we use with illegal Mexican nationals would be utilized.... ZERO.

 

[okie medicvet]

worrier king, I really don't think that would be the case.

As far as immediate effects, I see panic and possibly night arrests, and some rioting in cities. Whether it would be widespread or sporadic rioting I couldn't say, but there will be some. People will be hysterical with fear, many driving to leave the city thinking the worst is yet to come.

Only time would tell if they are right or not too...

 

[cannoncocker]

Yet another example of tb2k nitwittery that is so often shown by posters. I think after today I have reached my limitof tb2k gibberish. It has been many moons since I read aything of value here....

 

[The Flying Dutchman]

Yet another example of tb2k nitwittery that is so often shown by posters. I think after today I have reached my limitof tb2k gibberish. It has been many moons since I read aything of value here....

<center>

Then, feeling that way Cannon Cocker.
May I be the first to say "Good by and good Luck"</center>

[edited to add]

<center>

And don't let the door
in you in the @! On
your way out</center>

 

[Safecastle]

In the event a nuke is used anywhere by anyone today ... the whole world becomes virtually unrecognizable from what it is today. Many have said that 9/11 changed the world for good. That was nothing compared to the total pall that would overtake the world after any nuclear-coming-out party.

The U.S. fully understands this. We will not be the ones to initiate a nuclear strike ... preventive saber rattling and rhetoric aside. (Yes, you carry the big stick and show it off when you need to ... it doesn't mean you just decide to start cracking heads with it.)

If the nuclear genie is unleashed by someone out there, ALL bets are off around the globe. It would have to be someone with a miniscule viewpoint on life and the future. In fact, if they have any brains at all, they would likely recognize that the nuclear blast itself would be secondary to the geopolitical firestorm that would rage for years afterward. And in fact, that would have to be their motivation.

There's a very real and substantive equilibrium maintained among superpowers with the understanding that nuclear weapons today are all about deterrence. Period. For someone to break that compact, is to shatter the level and spirit of international trust and cooperation that would take many many years to rebuild. In the meantime, rebuilding trust may very well take a backseat to an escalation in the use of nukes ... slowly or rapidly.

Regardless of the actual second act in the play, it will all be different than what living generations have known to date. This much I would expect: fear will become a currency that will be traded by politicians, militaries, law enforcement, media, corporations, and of course by the little guy wherever he lives. Freedoms will be lost and mostly not even grieved. A handful of international factions will take shape and hostilities will blow hot and cold so that no one will feel secure for years and probably decades.

You can imagine many follow-on repercussions from there.

 

[ocd]

(this'll teach me to read all the comments before posting )

Again, nightdriver, it depends on whether the fallout "gets" to you, or not. I haven't heard of the implied numbers you note of survivers of the Nevada Test Site experiments so I'm curious, is there written literature of these survivors, since, say, the late 80's or early 90's? We set up the seismic and UNE experiments database for the Center for Seismic Studies in Rosslyn, VA, and our research didn't include survivor statistics, that I recall, so I'd be interested to know of any recent data on the NTS survivors alive today.

Those guys are in their early seventies at best. How do I know this?? My FIL was 500-1300 yards in a trench for several blasts. One blast was almost 350kt He said just a big flash, powerful wind and allot of noise. He just got back from the Caribbean. Looks good to me. He claims (although I have never bugged his phone) that several of his buddies are ok. The USA and Soviets both have exploded Atmospheric tests close to 50MT

 

[RC]

RC, One small nuke like that Chinese test of 300 kt, yes, I'd tend to agree with you, but what Kearny was talking about was a future much bigger exchange of 300-400 megatons that would also put into doubt all above ground crops, livestock, milk cow production, etc.

Also, with the wide spread ignorance of radiation effects here in the USA amongst the general population, fueled by the eco-nuts and media, the chaos and panic, soon as word got out that it was coming, would probably kill a whole bunch of folks before it even ever arrived. Combine that with the justifiable fear that it could possibly expand into a wider shooting war, perhaps even WWIII, and you'd likely have a dangerous panic well beyond the Cuban Missile Crisis.

- Shane

Thanks. I definitely agree with you on the second paragraph, although (unless I was reading it wrong), I thought the original question asked us to ignore those effects.

And thanks for the clarification in the first paragraph. I have read that chapter in Kearny, although I thought the original poster was talking about a smaller exchange.

Either way, I'll get the KIO3 out and have it ready when the cloud approaches.

 

[A.T.Hagan]

Those guys are in their early seventies at best. How do I know this?? My FIL was 500-1300 yards in a trench for several blasts. One blast was almost 350kt He said just a big flash, powerful wind and allot of noise. He just got back from the Caribbean. Looks good to me. He claims (although I have never bugged his phone) that several of his buddies are ok. The USA and Soviets both have exploded Atmospheric tests close to 50MT

I don't think the U.S. ever detonated anything so large but the Soviets did blow a 50 megaton nuke up north of the Arctic Circle way back when.

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Russia/TsarBomba.html

We blew a LOT of nukes above ground way back when:

http://www.cddc.vt.edu/host/atomic/atmosphr/

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/tests/wrjp205a.html

number of known above-ground tests

U.S.A. - 213 tests totaling 154 mt
U.S.R./Russia - 219 tests totaling 282 mt
U.K. - 21 test totaling 10.8 mt
France - 50 tests totaling 11.4 mt
China - 23 tests totaling 21.5 mt

Total worldwide yield from 1945 to 1980: <strong>479 megatons</strong> of above ground testing.

There may have been a number of tests relating to "peaceful applications" that were above ground, but I haven't found that out yet for sure.

You boomers from the late forties, fifties, and sixties (this includes me) were exposed to a lot of fallout.

.....Alan.

 

[dragonslayer2001]

What are the current

estimates for cancer? I think I've read that "3 out of 4" people will get cancer.

Those rates are massive compared to 100 years ago.

Ummm, now what could be the cause?

 

[RC]

Back in the good old days, they had something that prevented most cancers. It was called premature death.

 

[Safecastle]

You boomers from the late forties, fifties, and sixties (this includes me) were exposed to a lot of fallout.

.....Alan.

Babies who were not breast fed back then, especially in the '50s, were especially hard hit by milk products that carried trace radiation. It is evidenced by thyroid problems today ... which many of our generation have (yep I do).

Fallout across the US would settle on pastures, dairy cows would graze, the milk would carry it into the population. Infants were most susceptible; our very small thyroids built up radioactive iodine concentrations to the tune of up to hundreds or even thousands of times the normal level. It wasn't until 1960 that it was understood that this was happening and at that time, atmospheric testing had already halted ... Until the Soviets resumed such testing again in '62 (I think) and when radioactivity and this effect on dairy and food around the world again were affected.

 

[A.T.Hagan]

Babies who were not breast fed back then, especially in the '50s, were especially hard hit by milk products that carried trace radiation. It is evidenced by thyroid problems today ... which many of our generation have (yep I do).

Fallout across the US would settle on pastures, dairy cows would graze, the milk would carry it into the population. Infants were most susceptible; our very small thyroids built up radioactive iodine concentrations to the tune of up to hundreds or even thousands of times the normal level. It wasn't until 1960 that it was understood that this was happening and at that time, atmospheric testing had already halted ... Until the Soviets resumed such testing again in '62 (I think) and when radioactivity and this effect on dairy and food around the world again were affected.

Looks like 1962 was pretty much the end of the majority of atmospheric testing except for France and China. The U.S. stopped in November '62, Russia in December of that same year. Plenty of time for the fallout to move around the world to Virginia and Florida where the born just that April Alan Hagan lived. Fortunately not as much as you real boomers received earlier in the fifties though.

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/tests/wrjp205a.html
<strong>last atmospheric test date and yield</strong>
United States - Tightrope - 4 Nov 1962 - ~6 kt
Soviet Union/Russia - Test (221) - 25 Dec 1962 - 8.5 kt
U.K. - Burgee 2 - 23 Sep 1958 - ~35 kt
France - Verseau - 15 Sep 1974 - 332 kt
China - 16 Oct 1980 - ~450 kt?

So from 1945 till 1962 (roughly 17 years) there was some 478(+-) <strong>megatons</strong> of above ground nuclear weapons testing plus an unknown amount of "peaceful application" testing some of which may have also been above ground. Yet these were the boom years of the American nation. There was a detectable increase in cancers, but life for the nation as a whole was great so far as health was concerned. Of course a nuclear war in the Middle East (assuming it stays confined there) would trash the global economy with all that such implies but it probably would not be the literal end of the world for those of us who live in the Western Hemisphere.

Now if the nukes start detonating here all bets are off.

.....Alan.

 

[Caplock50]

JC Refuge:

"In the event a nuke is used anywhere by anyone today ... the whole world becomes virtually unrecognizable from what it is today. Many have said that 9/11 changed the world for good. That was nothing compared to the total pall that would overtake the world after any nuclear-coming-out party.

The U.S. fully understands this. We will not be the ones to initiate a nuclear strike ... preventive saber rattling and rhetoric aside. (Yes, you carry the big stick and show it off when you need to ... it doesn't mean you just decide to start cracking heads with it.)

If the nuclear genie is unleashed by someone out there, ALL bets are off around the globe. It would have to be someone with a miniscule viewpoint on life and the future."

JC Refuge, think about this...what religion says that killing a bunch of 'infidels' will get you a mess of virgins in the hereafter? Wouldn't starting a nuke war be right down their alley? Especially if they think they can, more or less, keep it between the superpowers? Remember, they 'embrace death; glorify in it'. To die a martyr's death is the most motivating thing ever for them. Yes, the superpowers understand the ramifications, but may not be able to stop the 'train' once it gets to rolling.

 

[shane]

Babies who were not breast fed back then, especially in the '50s, were especially hard hit by milk products that carried trace radiation. It is evidenced by thyroid problems today ... which many of our generation have (yep I do).

Fallout across the US would settle on pastures, dairy cows would graze, the milk would carry it into the population. Infants were most susceptible; our very small thyroids built up radioactive iodine concentrations to the tune of up to hundreds or even thousands of times the normal level.

JC, quite true.

Excerpt from my site www.ki4u.com ...

The wind, of course, doesn't respect state boundaries either as our own Nevada atomic bomb testing program in the 1950s and early 1960s made it possible that "...everyone living in the contiguous 48 states was exposed to low levels of 131Iodine (radioiodine) for several months following each nuclear bomb test." (Radiation Exposure and Thyroid Cancer - Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center) Even more importantly; "The report also estimates that children aged three to five years probably received doses of radiation three to seven times higher than average during the 90 nuclear tests that were carried out."

Remember, it's always the children who are at the highest risk of injury from radioactive iodine and eventually developing thyroid cancer from that exposure. Each year, more than 12,000 Americans find out they have thyroid cancer, though from various causes. About 1000 here in the U.S. die from it yearly.

Above map from National Cancer Institute Study Estimating Thyroid Doses of I-131 Received by Americans From Nevada Atmospheric Nuclear Bomb Tests

The NCI's 'worst case' estimate is that fallout from nuclear weapons testing likely generated from 10,000 to 75,000 cases of thyroid cancer!

- Shane

 

[FREEBIRD]

"I believe we would immediately see from Washington, D.C. a formal Declaration of War."

I doubt it. I don't think even the specter of imminent destruction would make those guys grow spines.

 

[Safecastle]

JC Refuge:

JC Refuge, think about this...what religion says that killing a bunch of 'infidels' will get you a mess of virgins in the hereafter? Wouldn't starting a nuke war be right down their alley? Especially if they think they can, more or less, keep it between the superpowers? Remember, they 'embrace death; glorify in it'. To die a martyr's death is the most motivating thing ever for them. Yes, the superpowers understand the ramifications, but may not be able to stop the 'train' once it gets to rolling.

Agreed, Cap. The likeliest culprit in any nuke detonation in the near term would be Islamists. Hence, the urgency with which the world is approaching Iran's efforts to gain the bomb.

But folks here are somehow assuming that to stop them, the US and/or Israel will need to resort to using our nukes in a first strike. Yes, we're letting the bad guys think about our option for doing so, but our superiority in conventional warfare and hands-down advantage in technology keep that nuclear usage clearly off the table.

The greatest conundrum is the political aspect of going in and dismantling the so-called democratically elected theocracy. But it seems there is really no other good option. Fortunately, most of the world is looking like it will be onboard for what needs to be done. Unfortunately, the Russkies and Chinese may not be easily convinced.

 

[A.T.Hagan]

Well, if we militarily attack them in an attempt to force their government from power I'd say they'd sure have reason to use whatever they have to resist, virgins in paradise or no.

.....Alan.

 

[Safecastle]

Well, if we militarily attack them in an attempt to force their government from power I'd say they'd sure have reason to use whatever they have to resist, virgins in paradise or no.

.....Alan.

Whatever they have, Alan, they may or may not use in the face of overwhelming force. Remember the cakewalk Iraq tuned out to be in the invasion stage. Will their troops buy into the imminent eternal glory thing when faced with the quick butt-whipping they'll see coming? Not many, I suspect. I had a young business partner from Iran back in the early '80s. He would be more representative of the population, I'm sure, than the jihadists now in power.

Even those islamists themselves ... they talk a mean game but few of their ilk manage to do anything of substance against the infidels when it comes down to it. Given enough time and the means by which to produce numerous nukes, that would likely change.

We (western civilization/infidels/good guys) have to go in and put a stop to the extremely dangerous developments there. Diplomacy has been given a shot. Now it's time to get serious and prevent the future apocolypse they're trying to brew up there.

 

[A.T.Hagan]

No, we the Western Powers do not need to go in and attack Iran. This will merely sink us deeper into the tar pit our leaders have already gotten us into. Israel is a nuclear power in herself, almost certainly resulting from us giving them the designs, and can take care of herself. Any use of nuclear weapons by Iran against any other nuclear power would result in a like kind response. If we're so worried about Islamists holding nuclear weapons we should have taken them away from Pakistan by now.

I do, in fact, remember the cake walk that Iraq turned out to be, the complete nonexistence of any weapons of mass destruction in spite of our seizing the entire nation, it's government, and all of their scientists, who we are now releasing for lack of evidence. I also recall we're still up to our waist in Iraq and Afghanistan with no idea of when we'll be able to pull out and so short of manpower the Air Force is having to run supply convoys for the Army. So now he wants to dig us still deeper in a hole in Iran.

.....Alan.

 

[ocd]

I don't think the U.S. ever detonated anything so large but the Soviets did blow a 50 megaton nuke up north of the Arctic Circle way back when.

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Russia/TsarBomba.html

We blew a LOT of nukes above ground way back when:

http://www.cddc.vt.edu/host/atomic/atmosphr/

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/tests/wrjp205a.html

number of known above-ground tests

U.S.A. - 213 tests totaling 154 mt
U.S.R./Russia - 219 tests totaling 282 mt
U.K. - 21 test totaling 10.8 mt
France - 50 tests totaling 11.4 mt
China - 23 tests totaling 21.5 mt

Total worldwide yield from 1945 to 1980: <strong>479 megatons</strong> of above ground testing.

There may have been a number of tests relating to "peaceful applications" that were above ground, but I haven't found that out yet for sure.

You boomers from the late forties, fifties, and sixties (this includes me) were exposed to a lot of fallout.

.....Alan.

USA did a test called Castle, 6 shots totaling 48 mt in 1954. Soviets did it in 1 shot total 50 mt called Tsar. I thought Castle was one shot

Great links thank you

 

[Woolly]

Alan is right, we are stretched way too thin in Iraq.

The repeated call ups of Reserve and National Guard folks is, as expected, growing old. If we are not careful our reserve forces will soon be undermined for lack of enlistments, and who can blame the troops. You can't develop a career in civilian life if you are called up every two years, and are assigned to civil defense duties in other states during the time you are home.

It appears to me that our appetite/requirements for foreign military actions exceed our current, in place, capacity to carry out those actions. Something has to give, and soon I think.

What ever one's view of the Iran situation, the capacity to do anything about it question is now front and center. Not to pat myself on the back, but I predicted 40 years ago that our launch into welfarism would ultimatly undermine our ability to afford to defend ourselves and our interests. It appears that such a circumstance has come to pass.

I know what let's do, lets build a multi-million dollar bridge to nowhere, or another tropical rain forest in Iowa. Such projects always contribute to the nation's well being. Such are our priorities today.

IMO,

Woolly

 

[mcchrystal]

No one is going to want to get into a slugging match with the Big Three, most especially not the Big Three themselves because there won't be any winners, only survivors and the dead.

Fair enough, but Russian nuclear doctrine is premised on the idea that there *is*
such a thing as a winnable nuclear war, and they're cranking out the Topols, week
by week.

--Steve in Reno

 

[A.T.Hagan]

Sure, there is that claim they think there is a winnable nuclear war, but it's been about fifty years now since they developed their own nuclear weapons and they still haven't tried it. They're in a lot worse position this moment than they were before the collapse of the Soviet Union for trying to win such a war with us and they didn't try it then.

Natural resource sales and military industries are the only things Russia has keeping her alive economically. A nuclear war with us would eliminate her as an economic power altogether and China would simply absorb what they wanted of her. She's not going to launch on us any more than we're going to launch on her because neither nation is going to allow the situtation between them to go that far. The lesser powers may nuke each other into oblivion, but the Big Three are going to be very reluctant to start nuking each other.

.....Alan.

 

[Laurane]

Has anyone heard what happened....

to all the Iraqi military equipment which made its way to Syria when the Americans etal moved in ?

Was there really much of it - many planes, tanks, bombs etc? - or was that just propaganda?

Where is it now if it really existed? Was there really any nuclear stuff which Saddam shipped to Syria? Who knows?? Anybody??

 

[homepark]

What I see as the most likely scenario is a US and/or Israeli conventional strike on Iran's infrastructure. It is the response of Iran to that which would probably up the ante. I would expect simultaneous missives presented to Iran saying that we only wanted to take out their nuke program.

I am not sure that the mullahs would exercise much restraint in their response. I am guessing that they would try to use whatever they have, towards Israel and our troops/bases in the region.

However, if Iran went pre-emptive, it could be nukes all the way.

Yes, the big 3 have intertwined economic concerns. A 'benefit' of the global economy.

If Iran already has a nuke or two, I really don't think that is enough to deter a US/Israeli strike.