Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, move, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, protect, rollback, Administrators, template
292,436
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 16:
Line 16: + + + + + + +
→Effects of a Nuclear Blast
[[File:Strategic targets.PNG|right|300px|thumb|Prime U.S. targets for a nuclear strike.]]
[[File:Strategic targets.PNG|right|300px|thumb|Prime U.S. targets for a nuclear strike.]]
According to [[Forbes]], "The [[Russia]]ns are improving the survivability of their long-range missiles by deploying more of them on mobile launchers that can’t be targeted as easily as fixed silos. But you probably haven’t heard about that either, so let me tell you a bit about them. Most of the missiles will likely be equipped with four warheads that can be independently targeted. We don’t know what the explosive force of each warhead is, however a typical yield for the Russian strategic force is around 500 kilotons — equivalent to half a million tons of conventional high explosives. There’s nothing conventional about nuclear weapons, though. When a conventional munition is exploded, it heats the immediate vicinity by a few thousand degrees. The heat of a nuclear blast at its center is more akin to tens of millions of degrees. So if one of those 500-kiloton warheads is exploded a mile above Boston or Dallas, everything within a one-mile radius is destroyed, heavy damage extends to three miles, and fires will be widespread out to five miles. Not that it will matter to most of the people near ground zero — they will be killed immediately by blast effects or a wind-spread firestorm that expands faster than they can escape (initial wind speed: 700 miles per hour). People further away will linger longer before succumbing to the effects of prompt and delayed radiation. Electronic devices will be shut down for a hundred miles in every direction due to the [[electromagnetic pulse]] generated by the blast. And that’s just the effects from one nuclear warhead. Russia has over 2,000 nuclear warheads capable of reaching America, a fact that will not change materially if pending arms-control agreements are implemented. That’s actually a big improvement from where things stood at the end of the Cold War, when Russia had over 40,000 strategic and tactical nuclear weapons in its arsenal; the number has shrunk by 90% today if you don’t count the weapons awaiting disassembly."<ref>Thompson, Loren, "[https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2015/01/13/a-doomsday-plane-reminder-nuclear-weapons-havent-gone-away/ A Doomsday Plane Reminder: Nuclear Weapons Haven't Gone Away]". [[Forbes]], 1/13/2015, Accessed January 15, 2015</ref>
According to [[Forbes]], "The [[Russia]]ns are improving the survivability of their long-range missiles by deploying more of them on mobile launchers that can’t be targeted as easily as fixed silos. But you probably haven’t heard about that either, so let me tell you a bit about them. Most of the missiles will likely be equipped with four warheads that can be independently targeted. We don’t know what the explosive force of each warhead is, however a typical yield for the Russian strategic force is around 500 kilotons — equivalent to half a million tons of conventional high explosives. There’s nothing conventional about nuclear weapons, though. When a conventional munition is exploded, it heats the immediate vicinity by a few thousand degrees. The heat of a nuclear blast at its center is more akin to tens of millions of degrees. So if one of those 500-kiloton warheads is exploded a mile above Boston or Dallas, everything within a one-mile radius is destroyed, heavy damage extends to three miles, and fires will be widespread out to five miles. Not that it will matter to most of the people near ground zero — they will be killed immediately by blast effects or a wind-spread firestorm that expands faster than they can escape (initial wind speed: 700 miles per hour). People further away will linger longer before succumbing to the effects of prompt and delayed radiation. Electronic devices will be shut down for a hundred miles in every direction due to the [[electromagnetic pulse]] generated by the blast. And that’s just the effects from one nuclear warhead. Russia has over 2,000 nuclear warheads capable of reaching America, a fact that will not change materially if pending arms-control agreements are implemented. That’s actually a big improvement from where things stood at the end of the Cold War, when Russia had over 40,000 strategic and tactical nuclear weapons in its arsenal; the number has shrunk by 90% today if you don’t count the weapons awaiting disassembly."<ref>Thompson, Loren, "[https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2015/01/13/a-doomsday-plane-reminder-nuclear-weapons-havent-gone-away/ A Doomsday Plane Reminder: Nuclear Weapons Haven't Gone Away]". [[Forbes]], 1/13/2015, Accessed January 15, 2015</ref>
==US pursuit of nuclear primacy==
{{See also|Biden/Harris regime foreign policy}}
American [[military]] planners have quietly disposed of the Doctrine of [[Mutual Assured Destruction]] and now believe they can win a [[nuclear war]] with a nuclear first strike. The doctrine of America initiating, surviving, and "winning" nuclear war is known as the doctrine of "[[Nuclear Primacy]]".<ref>[https://archive.is/TR1qG America’s Secret Planned Conquest of Russia], December 29, 2016 by Eric Zuesse.</ref> American military planners believe they can knock out [[Moscow]]'s command and control center before Russian leadership has an opportunity to react. While in most scenarios military planners understand the [[North America]]n homeland and [[civilian]] [[population]] will take a hit, they believe portions of the [[US]] can ultimately survive and prevail.
Of course, destroying Russia with a thousand nuclear weapons would also destroy much of the world's [[food]] production, alter the [[climate]] and cause millions of refugees to flow out of Russia, but the United States would win the war.
==See also==
==See also==