Nukes..oh boy

[JPG]

The part that concerns me is the rocket boy having the naivete to think he would be successful.

[Hobbyman2]

Hope y'all country boys have stocked on a lifetime supply of shells, cartridges and gasoline.


We be poking fun, but a lot can be said for those lyrics.





I pity the city folk. The ones who do not know where food comes from initially(plant/animals).



Well I see this thread just went 'political'.

===================

I couldn't help thinking about that,,, a few things come to mind and they are all over the place,,,, one of the news anchors were saying they moved to NYC and sold their car when they moved,,, said they didn't have a need for it any longer,,that is what is sad ,they couldn't get away if they had to ,, they will want some one else to dive into those places if hit and save them.

As a transportation specialist moving goods and services around he country for quite a few years ,,,, I can add that ,,,,you need to realize 58.28% of the total U.S. population is east of the Mississippi river ,,might as well round off and call it 60%.

There are a lot of numbers out there to consider,,, wipe out 1/3 of them ,,,,the +- 60%,,,most live in big cities so many wil be rendered usless very fast ,,so we are left with +-40% ,,,if 20% of those are radiated you dont have much left ,,in the process major transportation arteries will be destroyed ,,, the only thing that will move will be from the air.

Sounds scary ?

Dont worry

its a no brain'r,,, ,,, NK wont nuke us because Chinas economy will fail ,China cant afford it ,, their people will retaliate against their government for not stopping it,,,,no its not a opinion it is a fact,,their people will starve ,, China will retaliate and destroy NK if they dont straighten up ,,, not to mention a whole lot of other nations will jump on board because of their economy depends so much on the US .

Another thing is if NK hits the US look how much food we ship abroad that will be destroyed,,, the world will be a very hungry place .

Yep its political , all the way to the bank .

This threat is not new, its been a reality for a long time,,,,, according to the news we are taking fall out from Japan right now over the Fukushima Daiichi plant,,,,,, and all this time many countries are building more nukes and lying to the world about it , NK just got caught ,,,, according to the news Iran is doing it , China did it, Russia wanted the u1 so they can do more of it ,the U1 went to Canada ,,,no one knows where it is now so some one is using it ,,,,,,,,,no one trust any one .

This is only my .02 reality is ,,,,what reality is .

[GoNavy]

I agree with most of what you said at the end concerning the economy, but 1/3 wiped out...really...US population is over 323 million folks, you really think over 100 million will dye...that is a lot of people. New York only has a pop of 8 million and it would take several bombs to cover that area, one ain't gonna do it, and like I said, we ain't gonna just sit on our ass and watch this unfold, we are gonna shoot them down, it is why NORAD was built. Every country out there knows they will be slapped back harder. Reminds me of that Kevin Cosner movie "Criminal" the line...You hurt me I hurt you back harder...lol...sounds childish but it is effective as a deterrent.

[JPG]

Sabre rattling is indeed a childish 'game'. Childish, but quite deadly when played by politicians.

I liked Teddy's attitude.

[reible]

WW1 8.2 Million Dead
WW2 52 Million Dead
WW"3" estimates 2 Billion..........

Even if the 2 Billion is high, say it is only 1 Billion that is still a lot of people and expecting life to continue as it is will not happen.

Keep in mind the fact that New York City proper would require 7 100 kiloton explosions and kill about 8 million, or the same as all of WW1..... And that can come from a single missile launch.

Ed

[dusty]

The part that concerns me is the rocket boy having the naivete to think he would be successful.

The part that concerns me is disarmament. Just how much retaliatory or defensive capability do we still have? While I was active duty (a long time ago) I knew some of those numbers; no more. What does the defensive missile shield look like these days? Do we have an airborne shield?

Up until the Obama era, I felt confident that we had the needed defensive forces. With all of the force reduction that has occurred, I no longer know and I am no longer blindly confident.

What I think I know is that the defensive drills that we did in the 60s will do us no good at all with today's nuclear weapons.

What I might hear on today's public media(especially Facebook and Twitter) I don't trust at all.

[GoNavy]

Up until the Obama era, I felt confident that we had the needed defensive forces. With all of the force reduction that has occurred, I no longer know and I am no longer blindly confident.

What I think I know is that the defensive drills that we did in the 60s will do us no good at all with today's nuclear weapons.

I've been out awhile to, retired 2005, but Obama era, not quit true. Reagan was able to start discussions on nuclear disarmament with Soviet Union. He changed the name "SALT" (Strategic Arms Limitation Talks) to "START" (Strategic Arms Reduction Talks) he finally got it signed in 91 which eventually would cause the draw down to 6000 nukes each from the USSR and us, with proof of destruction from each. We didn't make that number we got to 7000 then in 2009 it expired. Every President during that time adhered to the scheduled outlined in the treaty. The START I treaty expired 5 December 2009. On 8 April 2010, the replacement New START treaty was signed in Prague by Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. Following ratification by the U.S. Senate and the Federal Assembly of Russia, it went into force on 26 January 2011. This treaty aimed to get down to 3000 nukes each. To date... nothing has been done, by either side. Reagan wanted to get to zero nukes, don't know when the GOP decided this was a bad thing, probably when Obama thought it was good idea.

[dusty]

Up until the Obama era, I felt confident that we had the needed defensive forces. With all of the force reduction that has occurred, I no longer know and I am no longer blindly confident.

What I think I know is that the defensive drills that we did in the 60s will do us no good at all with today's nuclear weapons.

I've been out awhile to, retired 2005, but Obama era, not quit true. Reagan was able to start discussions on nuclear disarmament with Soviet Union. He changed the name "SALT" (Strategic Arms Limitation Talks) to "START" (Strategic Arms Reduction Talks) he finally got it signed in 91 which eventually would cause the draw down to 6000 nukes each from the USSR and us, with proof of destruction from each. We didn't make that number we got to 7000 then in 2009 it expired. Every President during that time adhered to the scheduled outlined in the treaty. The START I treaty expired 5 December 2009. On 8 April 2010, the replacement New START treaty was signed in Prague by Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. Following ratification by the U.S. Senate and the Federal Assembly of Russia, it went into force on 26 January 2011. This treaty aimed to get down to 3000 nukes each. To date... nothing has been done, by either side. Reagan wanted to get to zero nukes, don't know when the GOP decided this was a bad thing, probably when Obama thought it was good idea.

No argument at all.

I have simply lost confidence that our safety is being cared for as we once was.

[Hobbyman2]

We got out of transportation n 09 , during the time we were in business we tended to several military loads ,,lets just say it was sad what has happened to our military under the past 3 presidents.


especially when you see what other countries have built since

[skou]

"We blew up Bimini island..."

Not quite. It was Bikini island.

Bimini, in the Caribbean.

Bikini, south Pacific. After Mistake II,
my father was a "super cool guy" at those
islands. (Super cool guy, cryogenics tech.)

steve