Nuclear war

[GrumpySmurf 0]

I'd be more concerned about the secondary impact of a nuke war there - Wall Street would go nuts, and not in a good way. Not to mention the humanitarian crisis this will cause in the region and destabilizing effect it will have on other nearby nations as well. Would not be a happy day for anyone.

[billvon 3,114]

>Those were basically single instances spread over time. I don't normally play
> what if, but what if 20 total warheads are used. The fall out, while probably not a
> direct threat to the US, would adversly effect that regions ecosystem, which
> could eventually effect the US's climate. Same for Europe.
I doubt it. 20 large warheads equates to something like 6000 pounds of fissile material, compared to 360,000 pounds of fissile materials at Chernobyl. Even today, the "red forest", or area that got most of the reactor core fallout within a few miles of the plant, is one of the healthiest ecosystems around. Sadly, this is due not to the radiation (which is severe) but to the fact that there are no people there, and plants and animals adapt much more easily to high radiation levels than to roads, farms and shopping centers.
If anything, I think we will see the same (relatively minor) effect that we saw during the gulf war - a lot of soot and smoke in the upper atmosphere, but little cumulative effect far from the event itself.
I know the red forest stuff is hard to believe, so here's a link - http://www.nsrl.ttu.edu/chernobyl/wildlifepreserve.htm. A quote:
"However, the sum effect for the flora and fauna in the highly radioactive, restricted zone has been overwhelmingly positive in favor of biodiversity and abundance of individuals"
-bill von

[quade 4]

bill --
Nuclear fallout isn't exactly my specialty, but isn't there a vast difference between 360,000 pounds pretty much just sitting there glowing and steaming and 6000 pounds that has been exploded into the atmosphere?
quade
http://futurecam.com

[AggieDave 6]

Lets hope for 2 things, 1) it doesn't happen, and 2) if it does, you're right Bill.
How does the upperlevel winds of the India/Pakastan region compare to those where the Soviets blew up their reactor?
Aerials
So up high
When you free your lives (the) eternal prize

[AggieDave 6]

The Soviet reactor didn't just sit there and glow, it did actually explode, although, not to the extreme of a warhead.
Ever hear why that happened? Sort of funny in a Cold War laugh at the Soviets sort of way...
Aerials
So up high
When you free your lives (the) eternal prize

[quade 4]

My understand was (and I might be way off on this -- it has been known to happen from time-to-time) is that the actual explosion was comparable to a steam generation plant exploding, so the explosion was by nuclear standards pretty minor. Most of the radiation that got released was from the gasses and steam. Most of the heavy radioactive material still sits to this day in the reactors.
On the other hand, if you detonate a weapon, even a crappy one, you get all sorts of heavy radioactive particles spread into the atmosphere which are much more dangerous.
quade
http://futurecam.com

[quade 4]

My understanding was (and I might be way off on this -- it has been known to happen from time-to-time) that the actual explosion was comparable to a steam generation plant exploding, so the explosion was by nuclear standards pretty minor. Most of the radiation that got released was from the gasses and steam. Most of the heavy radioactive material still sits to this day in the reactors.
On the other hand, if you detonate a weapon, even a crappy one, you get all sorts of heavy radioactive particles spread into the atmosphere which are much more dangerous.
quade
http://futurecam.com

[AggieDave 6]

I think the explosion was larger then that, but yes, most of the material is still there, incased in a large sarcofocus (sp?) of concrete and lead. IMHO it still didn't rival what a serious nuclear conflict could produce, even with less nuclear material involved then in the reactor explosion.
Aerials
So up high
When you free your lives (the) eternal prize

[billvon 3,114]

>My understand was (and I might be way off on this -- it has been known to
> happen from time-to-time) is that the actual explosion was comparable to a
> steam generation plant exploding, so the explosion was by nuclear standards
> pretty minor.
It was a supercritical explosion caused by a runaway chain reaction in a reactor with a positive void coefficient, which basically means that the reaction went faster the more steam was generated. Once the bubbles reached a critical size, the reaction was no longer controlled. It's about as close as you can get to a reactor that goes off like a bomb. The energy that caused the fuel to explode did not come from steam, as the pellets disintegrated from the center out due to thermal pressures and vaporization of the fuel. Most of the energy that disintegrated the core came from the steam pressure, and the resulting ignition of gases and moderator once the reactor vessel ruptured.
>Most of the radiation that got released was from the gasses and steam. Most of
> the heavy radioactive material still sits to this day in the reactors.
The amount is hard to quantify, but most authorities believe that around 16,000 pounds or so of the fuel (along with lots of moderator) was ejected and ended up either in the air or in the Red Forest. That's around 50 large nuclear weapons worth of material.
>On the other hand, if you detonate a weapon, even a crappy one, you get all
> sorts of heavy radioactive particles spread into the atmosphere which are much
> more dangerous.
Well, no more dangerous than the stuff in the core. A bomb does give you a better dispersal, though, since disintegration is more complete and happens at a higher altitude (usually.)
-bill von

[Muenkel 0]

Once again, another thread has put me to sleep.[yawn]
If you're not confused, you're not paying attention.
Chris

[billvon 3,114]

>Once again, another thread has put me to sleep.
I do have a tendency to do that. If you want, we could get Val to kick your ass to keep you awake . . .
-bill von

[Muenkel 0]

Quote

I do have a tendency to do that. If you want, we could get Val to kick your ass to keep you awake . . .

Now that's an offer!
If you're not confused, you're not paying attention.
Chris

[quade 4]

Interesting -- thanks.
I didn't realize so much material had been ejected.
quade
http://futurecam.com

[skreamer 1]

Bill, out of every skydiver I know (both here and in the real world) I think you are possibly the only one who would survive a fall from his ego to his IQ!!!
Now that is the nicest compliment I have EVER given anybody... "Look before you jump, don't die until you're dead"

[MarkF 0]

(another step closer to not being the longest time newbie..:-) )
You oughta come to Oz. Plenty of coverage here. Have a look at www.theage.com.au and www.abc.net.au (nat. broadcaster)...:-)
I tend to think that the "Axis of Evil" speech by GWB has put a bit of a spanner in the US works. Let me explain, if I can.
In the mid east we have Palestinian fundamentalists allegedly making mayhem in Israel with guns and bombs 'n stuff. The Palestinians are HEAVILY censured by everyone. Palestine is widely considered to be dispensible.
In India (near the Pak. border) there are allegedly Pakastani fundamentalists making a pretty equal amount of mayhem using pretty much the same methods. Pakistan CANNOT be as heavily censured.
Since the Axis of Evil speech, the US _needs_ Pakistan on side for what I call "The War of Mirrors" or the war against terrorism. The US / UK have said that the co-operation of Pakistan is vital to their anti-terrorist ends. For the US to censure Pakistan as much as Palestine would make nonsense and would alienate Pakistan which would most certainly NOT help the war against terrorism.
Of course I have problems with the War of Mirrors too. I recognise that it's real easy for me, safe and pretty secure in Oz. but hasn't the boot got on the wrong foot here ? I wonder if anyone actually stops to think just WHY terrorists exist. I suspect not. If the targets of terrorism were to take note of the criticisms being made, and of the reasons being put forward for the violence, and made an effort in changing their behaviour to be less belligerant, there'd be less reason for bombs 'n stuff.
As for the nuclear weapons in the area; remember that they are DECADES old. Pak. has done some testing over the last couple of days that are widely reported to be tests to determine if the missiles still work. No-one knows for sure whether or not these missiles would be capable of placing a warhead where it's wanted. Equally no-one can be certain that a warhead will actually go bang.
Just my 2 bobs worth.
Ooroo
Mark F...

[kmcguffee 0]

From what I have been hearing on the news it looks like Al Quaeda might be involved in this conflict. If you think about it a war between Pakistan and India would help them in several ways. It would pit Muslim against Hindu and possibly unite the rest of the Middle East (which is one thing Bin Laden has been trying to do). The Middle East has less financial ties with India than with the US and would be more likely to support a war against them. It would get Pakistan's attention off of his assets in Pakistan and allow them to operate completely free again. It could escalate to involve Western countries and then turn into a battle between Muslims and the West which is most likely Bin Laden's ultimate goal.
One big difference between Chernobyl and a nuclear warhead is that the Chernobyl blast occurred on the ground. A nuclear warhead is usually set to explode high above the ground in order to create the largest blast area. This height is based on the type of target they are attacking but it will spread the radiation a lot further than a ground burst. I don't really think we have anything to worry about though. I also think it is very unlikely they will actually use nuclear weapons. A conventional war is more likely and, in the long run, probably just as dangerous because of the destabilizing effect it will have on the Middle East.
"Some cause happiness wherever they go; others, whenever they go."

[kmcguffee 0]

Quote

If the targets of terrorism were to take note of the criticisms being made, and of the reasons being put forward for the violence, and made an effort in changing their behaviour to be less belligerant, there'd be less reason for bombs 'n stuff.

Do you really believe that would work or would they then realize that they can change a nation's policies with a few "bombs 'n stuff"? Then everytime they disagreed with a countries policy they would revert to what worked last time, terrorism. I think terrorism is more about power and making the statement that "we can make the big countries cower in fear and do what we want".
I don't disagree that we have to fix the root causes but we can't give the perception that we are cowering and bowing to their terrorism. I don't believe that the terrorist's mission is as morally just as they claim.
"Some cause happiness wherever they go; others, whenever they go."

[billvon 3,114]

>As for the nuclear weapons in the area; remember that they are DECADES
> old. Pak. has done some testing over the last couple of days that are widely
> reported to be tests to determine if the missiles still work.
Not sure what you mean there; the Ghauri ICBM was first tested only three years ago. Their nuclear weapons are newer than ours, yet we seem to assume that ours will work. In addition, they've tested them rather regularly - they both tested nukes in 1998. I would not want to bet on them not working 4 years later.
>I tend to think that the "Axis of Evil" speech by GWB has put a bit of a
>spanner in the US works.
As has his black-and-white, "you're either with us or against us" speech. Pakistan very quickly declared that they were with us; recent developments may put Bush in the uncomfortable position of having to see shades of gray. I don't think he does too well in those situations.
-bill von

[MarkF 0]

-----------------------------------------------
Not sure what you mean there; the Ghauri ICBM was first tested only three years ago. Their nuclear weapons are newer than ours, yet we seem to assume that ours will work. In addition, they've tested them rather regularly - they both tested nukes in 1998. I would not want to bet on them not working 4 years later.
----------------------------------------------
Pakistan reputedly has a missile programme that's to run from 2000 to 2010 which aims to replace all of the ancient Chinese MD-9 and Korean Dong-1 missiles that they have. At least one of the recent test firings was more likely than not to be an old MD-9 or a indigenous device from the current programme of similar capabilities.
From the stuff that I get to see the newest nuclear warheads available are only a couple of years old. BUT they aren't classed as "ready for use"[1] yet. The stuff that _is_ classed as "ready for use"[1] dates back to around 1994 or so. Give or take 2 years.
As for GWB, I think that most Aussies, me included, reckon that GWB is OK-ish, farm and steel policies aside. (These REALLY F*****G HURT). SO far he's demonstrated that he's far from stupid and that he's a bit of a ditherer who couldn't fly off the handle before some advisor gets to him and stops it. Imagine Ronny Reagan or LBJ in the hot seat ATM...:-( From an Oz perspective, of course.
Ooroo
Mark F...
[1] Whatever that bit of defence speak actually means. I work in an industry (defence) where nobody says what they mean and no-one means what they say.

[indyz 1]

Quote

Korean Dong-1 missiles

I'm sorry. I can't help myself. For some reason, at 1 AM, hopped up on caffeine, I find this terribly amusing.
--
Brian

[precision 0]

This is what you get when you cross Skydiving with Nuclear war.
Attached is a picture of Slim Pickens as Major Stanley "King" Kong riding atomic bomb to earth in Stanley Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb!

[jtval 0]

ok we all agree wars sucks. just think they could do with a single hit what Hitler tried to do for years.(PRETTY FUKN SICKENING) Hitler was a pussy. I like pussy. so I say lets get rid of nukes and bring Hitler back.
I can see the t-shirts already!
"HITLER WAS A PUSSY"
Life's a bitch, and I'm her Pimp!
JT
http://community.webshots.com/user/jtval100

[flyhi 24]

So we all agree that nuclear war would suck and kill a lot of people. Now comes the big question:
What will your response be if the US with British concurrence (which implies Canadian and Australian agreement. Did I miss anyone?), without overt provocation, sends a non-nuclear cruise missile into IRAQ and hits what they swear is a nuclear weapon construction/storage site? Do you trust them to do the right thing? Is it the right thing?

flyhi

[Nick 0]

"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." Douglas Adams
Nick

[rhino 0]

They have been at war 4 times since they got their independance from Britain..
Blue Skies .....