first of all, calm the f down. do you always get so mad when someone makes a comment against your position?
Who said I was Angry? Oh wait.. You did. Guess it must be true then.
NOPE.
I was laughing at how inane your position was. You don't have a clue what the hell you are talking about.
i don't agree with you, ok? i don't have to.
OK OK... enjoy your right to remain ignorant. You have that right. I wore the uniform to defend your right to choose to be stupid.
Keep in mind this is not an opinion vs opinion argument.
this is a fact vs opinion argument. Not "my" facts... just facts... everyone's facts.
secondly, don't blindly believe government propaganda. of course the government is going to tell you that nuclear weapons aren't that dangerous, they are in the business of making the bombs and they want public opinion on their side. wake up, and smell the coffee, man!!!!
Oh here we goooo down the conspiracy lunatic train of thought. If it is the gubberment sayin so, it must be false crap.
FAS and
Security.org are NOT governmental agencies you dumbass.
I do NOT blindly swallow whatever the government says.. Especially not THIS current administration (Obama)
And nothing of what I wrote was "propaganda"
You cannot defend your position with facts because facts don't support it.
Therefore you go into attack the poster mode. You cant attack my position so you attack me. with your BS about me blindly believing everything the government says and needing to wake up.
remember in the early days of nuclear weapons testing, our own military tested them on US soldiers. that is a fact
Did I deny it?
In fact there is a very good movie about it starring Martin Sheen and Emilio Estevez both playing the same character, an older and younger version of the same guy. Look up the film "Night Breaker"
Not only your last post but even more so in this post you keep bringing up stuff that I have NOT claimed to be false. You cannot argue logically. You argue against points I have not made. You might want to look up "Strawman argument" it is a fallacious (that means false) argument. ergo.. you lose.
Lets move on to the next part... Your citation of
undergroundbombshelter.comReally I am shocked at how you can pick and chose and take OUT OF CONTEXT to fit what you WANT it to sound like to support your argument rather than what it really is.
Is that why you made the link unclickable? hoping that others reading this thread would be too lazy to copy paste and go check the link. rather you would just accept your word on it?
http://www.undergroundbombshelter.com/nuclear-bomb-facts.htmnotice the first thing in Big Bold type is:
Fact - You can survive a nuclear attackand a bit further down is:
Fact - Radioactive fallout loses lethality after a few daysSounds a bit like gubbermint propaganda there doesn't it?
but you cherry pick out of it what you want to hear.
this whole discussion was about people being incinerated instantly
The whole conversation is NOT about people being incinerated instantly, its about while some will die instantly, MOST (90% was there figure) will survive only to die later due to unpreparedness.
and yes, there would be people who would get incinerated instantly. speeds up to 2,000 mph along with intense heat will pretty much destroy anyone standing at ground zero. i still stand by that fact.
NEWSFLASH there for you Moron... SO DO I.
I never said that nobody would be incinerated. I fully agree that Many thousands would be instantly incinerated. Again, you FAIL to argue logically because you are using a strawman. What I was arguing was at what range, certain effects and levels of damage take place at. Not that they DON'T happen. My position is that people are uneducated about weapon effects and tend to over exaggerate them. And you are offering yourself up as absolute proof that my position is correct.
even if the initial blast isn't 100 miles wide, let's say for the sake of argument the blast is only 50 miles. do you think that it is an exact science? so if a nuclear bomb went off in some city (god forbid) and i stand exactly 51 miles away from the blast, i won't feel any effect whatsoever? is that what you are saying?
Again you are showing yourself to be unable to grasp the argument or to argue logically.
"even if it's not 100 miles wide"... Even Tsar Bomba was not a 100 mile wide circle of destruction and that was the biggest device ever detonated (FACT)
"let's say for the sake of argument the blast is only 50 miles."LMAO.. sure... OK. whatever... Just for the sake of argument.. lets go with your 50 mile radius of destruction.
do you think that it is an exact science? so if a nuclear bomb went off in some city (god forbid) and i stand exactly 51 miles away from the blast, i won't feel any effect whatsoever? is that what you are saying? That is NOT what I am saying at all. again, proof of your inability to grasp a logical argument. I have never said that complete destruction will reach out X amount of distance and then just stop. like some sort of solid wall. stand on one side you are safe, stand on the other side you are vaporized. That would be what YOU claim my position to be and it is not. again... Seriously.. Look up strawman argument.
sorry but you are full of it.Full of what? Facts? then you are correct.
BS? then you can only be referring to yourself.
Lets take blast wave for example.
The Blast wave does not travel out at full intensity to some exact range then stop. Past that range you don't even get your hair mussed. That IS bullsh!t.
As the blast wave spreads out it gets weaker and weaker, doing less and less damage as it gets further and further from ground zero.
The shockwave is measured in terms called Overpressure.
That is.. a sudden shark spike in pressure over the normal atmospheric pressure.
Scientists (not the government) can calculate at what overpressure that typical structures can withstand. not only do they calculate it but they confirm those calculations with empirical evidence (In otherwords, they go out and TEST it)
typical Overpressures used for damage calcuations are as follows:
15 psi
Complete destruction of reinforced concrete structures, such as skyscrapers, will occur within this ring. Between 7 psi and 15 psi, there will be severe to total damage to these types of structures.
7 psi
Severe damage to complete destruction of reinforced concrete structures, such as skyscrapers, will occur within this ring.
5 psi
Complete destruction of ordinary houses, and moderate to severe damage to reinforced concrete structures, will occur within this ring.
2 psi
Severe damage to ordinary houses, and light to moderate damage to reinforced concrete structures, will occur within this ring.
1 psi
Light damage to all structures, and light to moderate damage to ordinary houses, will occur within this ring.
0.25 psi
Most glass surfaces, such as windows, will shatter within this ring, some with enough force to cause injury.
As the blast spreads out it will get weaker and weaker, passing through each of these values as it goes.
And just so you know. Nuclear bombs ARE an exact science.
A 1 Megaton bomb would have range values for the above overpressures at...
15 psi: 1.53 miles
7 psi: 2.3 miles
5 psi: 2.81 miles
2 psi: 4.92 miles
1 psi: 7.25 miles
0.25 psi: 18.6 miles
0.1 psi: 38.1 miles
.1 psi is what one feels at a major fireworks display when the really big bangs go off and you feel a thump in your chest.
now to address your "not an exact science".
the above ranges are what is called "idealized"; that is, no account is taken of terrain, urban density, ground type, weather conditions, and so on. They can be, but that is beyond the scope of my ability to do so and vary from specific point to specific point. Even the actual scientists need cray super computers to crunch all the detail numbers... but it CAN be done.
Also note that each of those factors not taken into account... if they WERE to be taken into account, would serve only to LESSEN, NOT increase the ranges.
you make it sound like nuclear bombs are an exact science, it just doesn't work that way. if the initial blast covers 50 miles (not the square mile crap),
Nuclear bombs are probably the most EXACT things ever built by man. And NOW it is square mile crap? After YOU screwed it up. the whole Square mile fiasco was YOUR failure, not mine. It was YOUR mistake that I simply pointed out. It was YOU who assumed that 6 square miles was anything akin to being six miles away from the blast, rather than somewhere inside of 1.38 miles.
But now that YOUR failure and mistake was exposed for all to see just what a dufus you were, NOW it is crap.
You must be a Liberal.
You sure as hell argue like one.
there is still the wind generated as well as flames carried with the wind. in the end it will still probably reach roughly, 100 miles in destruction.
Those ranges I quoted above was for the "winds" i.e. the blast radius of the shockwave. Take note that even at just over 17 miles from a 1 MEGAton blast, all it would do is break windows.
in the end it will still probably reach roughly, 100 miles in destruction..
probably?
roughly?
Not a chance in hell.
You are a moron. That's not mean or rude, just stating. you are proving it yourself.
You must be related to Wendi14501 and her 100knot submarine....
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0052151/board/nest/187831842Again, you are arguing your opinion. and your opinion is NOT based in any facts in evidence.
That opinion of yours does NOT hold true. though you have a right to believe in it all you want, don't argue with a man who DOES have FACTS on his side.
Then again, several elements of your argument does smack of conspiracy theory and liberals, neither group is known for letting little things like facts or reality get in their way.
so we are back to square (no pun intended) one: roughly 100 mile radius of destruction as well as spreading of radioactive material.
No, we are not. I have fully shown that your idea of 100 mile radius of destruction is utter and complete bullsh!t. Just because YOU refuse to acknowledge it does not make it so.
if people weren't incinerated instantly by the blast, the winds generated by the blast would rip them apart instantly.
The "Blast" is the winds you moron. The heat is the thermal pulse. And with larger bombs the Thermal pulse does travel further than the blast does damage, but again. it is not the sort to totally vaporize you at that range, rather it would give you a severe sunburn like effect. The area of total vaporization is entirely within the fireball itself.
And now that I have answered your post, you have gone and totally altered your post to something else even more bizzare. Good thing this happened while I was in the middle of responding.
Your original post I was responding to in it's entirety:
first of all, calm the f down. do you always get so mad when someone makes a comment against your position? i don't agree with you, ok? i don't have to.
secondly, don't blindly believe government propaganda. of course the government is going to tell you that nuclear weapons aren't that dangerous, they are in the business of making the bombs and they want public opinion on their side. wake up, and smell the coffee, man!!!!
remember in the early days of nuclear weapons testing, our own military tested them on US soldiers. that is a fact.
this is from http://www.undergroundbombshelter.com/nuclear-bomb-facts.htm
"A few moments later, the blast wind will plow through at speeds up to 2,000 mph. Many will die instantly. Those further away will fair better, but many will still die out of curiosity. After the detonation, thousands of people will succumb after just an hour from radioactive fallout. Within two days tens of thousands more will die from exposure from fallout.
Take a city like Charlotte, NC, where the metro population of 600,000 and a Mecklenburg County population of 750,000. If a 50 kiloton bomb explodes in downtown during a work day, 50,000 would be incinerated immediately. The radioactive mushroom cloud would reach 40,000 feet in less than 15 minutes. Leaving a 100-yard wide crater up to 130 feet deep, another 50,000 would probably perish from the blast wave and thermal burns. In general, everyone within a half-mile wide circle will perish within seconds."
this whole discussion was about people being incinerated instantly, and yes, there would be people who would get incinerated instantly. speeds up to 2,000 mph along with intense heat will pretty much destroy anyone standing at ground zero. i still stand by that fact.
even if the initial blast isn't 100 miles wide, let's say for the sake of argument the blast is only 50 miles. do you think that it is an exact science? so if a nuclear bomb went off in some city (god forbid) and i stand exactly 51 miles away from the blast, i won't feel any effect whatsoever? is that what you are saying? sorry but you are full of it.
you make it sound like nuclear bombs are an exact science, it just doesn't work that way. if the initial blast covers 50 miles (not the square mile crap), there is still the wind generated as well as flames carried with the wind. in the end it will still probably reach roughly, 100 miles in destruction. so we are back to square (no pun intended) one: roughly 100 mile radius of destruction as well as spreading of radioactive material.
if people weren't incinerated instantly by the blast, the winds generated by the blast would rip them apart instantly.
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!
reply
share