Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Rods2]

In the last two weeks there have been two spectacular ammo dump explosions, one through unknown causes & the other by a lightning strike & the failure of a missile test with an explosion & radiation leak that killed 5 scientists & 2 military observers with rumours there it was a failure of its lightweight nuclear reactor where it is the nuclear powered cruise missile that Putin has been recently bragging about.

[Varche]

I read quite a bit about this last night.

They are having problems with some cutting edge tech but they still have some pretty impressive stuff. The nuclear powered under water drone for example.

Cruise missiles that travel at around 5000 miles an hour. So if I launched one from our house here in Spain on a target in Leicester it would take about fifteen minutes of which less than 3 would be in UK airspace. Do we have tech and more importantly a person with the authority to spot it 11 minutes in and destroy it 30 seconds later as it enters uk airspace ( over Ashford sorry Lizzie)?

The advances the Major super powers have made in the last 30 years is truly mind boggling.

[Lizzie Zoom]

I read quite a bit about this last night.

They are having problems with some cutting edge tech but they still have some pretty impressive stuff. The nuclear powered under water drone for example.

Cruise missiles that travel at around 5000 miles an hour. So if I launched one from our house here in Spain on a target in Leicester it would take about fifteen minutes of which less than 3 would be in UK airspace. Do we have tech and more importantly a person with the authority to spot it 11 minutes in and destroy it 30 seconds later as it enters uk airspace ( over Ashford sorry Lizzie)?

The advances the Major super powers have made in the last 30 years is truly mind boggling.

    The truth is that, as indeed during the Cold War but even more so now, if these missiles cannot be stopped in the air far away from British airspace, then it is best that we civilians know nothing about it apart from that final flash and disintegration of everything we know.  In the 1970's it became very apparent that no one would want to survive the initial strike and it was best to be killed instantly, That is certainly the case now with these modern nuclear weapons. Apocalypse and The Final Conflict, here we come!!

In the meantime though the British/American nuclear deterrent must be maintained at full strength, with especially the Trident replacement coming on stream.

[Rods2]

If you are not in the immediate blast radius on a strategic target you have a good chance of survival if you are in a suitable bomb shelter. The immediate blast area can vary from 0.5miles to several miles for the larger nukes with unsurvivable temperatures unless you are in a decent nuke shelter, but beyond that it is the high fast pressure changes from the shock wave & wind speeds that flatten all the buildings that kill people in the open or in buildings.

For the first 30 days or so you wouldn't want to leave your shelter while the shorter half-life nuclear particles decay & then you've got the nuclear winter to contend with, if enough nukes have been used. Chernobyl has shown that animal & plant life are more resilient than the 1950s-60s doomsday nuke forecasts expected. Life is reasonably nuclear hard due to natural background radiation & cosmic rays.

Cosmic rays hitting the earth are at a peak at the moment where we are at the end of the current 11 year solar cycle number 24 with very low sunspot activity. At the end of solar cycle 23 we have a cold spell & snow at the end of October 2008 & likewise in 2009 with snow in late November, so we may have a slightly longer & colder winter than is average this year.

[Lizzie Zoom]

That is the typical sanitised version of what would happen during a nuclear strike, and the post period of such an attack, as promoted by the UK Government in the 1970's to ease public fears.  It was, and still is, crap!!

IF you had time to seek out a nuclear shelter (not two doors put into an A frame type shelter) that actually does not exist for 95% of the population, and survive for X number of days in that shelter - what kind of life would that be?!! - you would inevitable have to emerge eventually into a land decimated by the attack.  You would be in a country where no life support services exist, and you would quickly succumb to a slow, very painful, death by radiation.

We in the South East, within 60 miles of THE key target for multiple enemy nuclear missile attack, and just 100 miles from the Royal Navy base at Portsmouth, another target, and the Dungeness B Nuclear Power Plant, another key target, within 20 miles of us, our chances of surviving even the initial blast, let alone living in a post-apocalyptic land devoid of anything to live on, would be virtually zero.

That is the reality. It was during the Cold War, and it is certainly now with the latest weapons out there, such as the Russian Tsar bomb that surely they would use to make victory certain.  Even 'smaller' nuclear devices, in many multiples, would do their job of destroying the main populated areas of the UK. 

Any other versions of that are pure propaganda to keep us, the general public, from panicking and to keep us chugging along in ignorance of what WOULD happen.  The only way to stop all that is to ensure our military are given all the resource they need to fend off any threat, or actual nuclear exchange, even if that means reducing what is spent on our medical and social services.  History has proved a weak nation is perceived as an easy target for war.

[Lizzie Zoom]

..............and of course if those members in Scotland think they are safe, you have the Faslane naval base as a key target!!

Those in Cornwall and Devon have Devonport.............

Then there are numerous RAF / USAF bases as targets..............

No one would therefore be "safe" in the horrible event of a nuclear strike!

[STEMO]

That is the typical sanitised version of what would happen during a nuclear strike, and the post period of such an attack, as promoted by the UK Government in the 1970's to ease public fears.  It was, and still is, crap!!

IF you had time to seek out a nuclear shelter (not two doors put into an A frame type shelter) that actually does not exist for 95% of the population, and survive for X number of days in that shelter - what kind of life would that be?!! - you would inevitable have to emerge eventually into a land decimated by the attack.  You would be in a country where no life support services exist, and you would quickly succumb to a slow, very painful, death by radiation.

We in the South East, within 60 miles of THE key target for multiple enemy nuclear missile attack, and just 100 miles from the Royal Navy base at Portsmouth, another target, and the Dungeness B Nuclear Power Plant, another key target, within 20 miles of us, our chances of surviving even the initial blast, let alone living in a post-apocalyptic land devoid of anything to live on, would be virtually zero.

That is the reality. It was during the Cold War, and it is certainly now with the latest weapons out there, such as the Russian Tsar bomb that surely they would use to make victory certain.  Even 'smaller' nuclear devices, in many multiples, would do their job of destroying the main populated areas of the UK. 

Any other versions of that are pure propaganda to keep us, the general public, from panicking and to keep us chugging along in ignorance of what WOULD happen.  The only way to stop all that is to ensure our military are given all the resource they need to fend off any threat, or actual nuclear exchange, even if that means reducing what is spent on our medical and social services.  History has proved a weak nation is perceived as an easy target for war.

Victory? Don't think there'd be any victors.

[STEMO]

..............and of course if those members in Scotland think they are safe, you have the Faslane naval base as a key target!!

Those in Cornwall and Devon have Devonport.............

Then there are numerous RAF / USAF bases as targets..............

No one would therefore be "safe" in the horrible event of a nuclear strike!

I don't think Barnsley would be safe. They'd want to kill off any places of high culture as well as military establishments.

[Lizzie Zoom]

That is the typical sanitised version of what would happen during a nuclear strike, and the post period of such an attack, as promoted by the UK Government in the 1970's to ease public fears.  It was, and still is, crap!!

IF you had time to seek out a nuclear shelter (not two doors put into an A frame type shelter) that actually does not exist for 95% of the population, and survive for X number of days in that shelter - what kind of life would that be?!! - you would inevitable have to emerge eventually into a land decimated by the attack.  You would be in a country where no life support services exist, and you would quickly succumb to a slow, very painful, death by radiation.

We in the South East, within 60 miles of THE key target for multiple enemy nuclear missile attack, and just 100 miles from the Royal Navy base at Portsmouth, another target, and the Dungeness B Nuclear Power Plant, another key target, within 20 miles of us, our chances of surviving even the initial blast, let alone living in a post-apocalyptic land devoid of anything to live on, would be virtually zero.

That is the reality. It was during the Cold War, and it is certainly now with the latest weapons out there, such as the Russian Tsar bomb that surely they would use to make victory certain.  Even 'smaller' nuclear devices, in many multiples, would do their job of destroying the main populated areas of the UK. 

Any other versions of that are pure propaganda to keep us, the general public, from panicking and to keep us chugging along in ignorance of what WOULD happen.  The only way to stop all that is to ensure our military are given all the resource they need to fend off any threat, or actual nuclear exchange, even if that means reducing what is spent on our medical and social services.  History has proved a weak nation is perceived as an easy target for war.

Victory? Don't think there'd be any victors.

No, you are right there would not be.

But that would not stop an enemy like Russia or China trying to get one!

[Lizzie Zoom]

..............and of course if those members in Scotland think they are safe, you have the Faslane naval base as a key target!!

Those in Cornwall and Devon have Devonport.............

Then there are numerous RAF / USAF bases as targets..............

No one would therefore be "safe" in the horrible event of a nuclear strike!

I don't think Barnsley would be safe. They'd want to kill off any places of high culture as well as military establishments.

Yep.  Liverpool would be a target then!

[Sir Tigger KC]

You're such a bloody cheerful lot!     

[ronnyd]

Puts Greta Thunbergs carbon neutral voyage across the Atlantic in that high tec yacht  into some perspective.  Oh the irony if they had a mishap and had to be rescued by an oil tanker or a gas guzzling Sea King helicopter.

[Rods2]

Speculation that Russian nuclear powered missile test explosion happened during the botched recovery of a previous failed test. Most of Eastern Europe ended up with the radiation cloud going across them as it moved south & west until it continued south over the Middle East.

https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-radiation-explosion-sunken-missile-investigation-nyonoksa/30138178.html

[Lizzie Zoom]

Thank God, for Great Britain, the winds have been blowing from the West, South, or North, but not directly from the East - unlike after Chernobl !!