New Cold War US-Russia?

Pages

AuthorTopic: New Cold War US-Russia?
Shock Trooper
Member # 3716
Profile #0
Hi,

How do you feel about the reactions in Russia to the announcement of the deployment of an anti-missile shield in former Soviet satellite countries Poland and Czech Republic?

An excerpt from the website Moscow News: (www.mosnews.com)
"In response to U.S. missile shield plans, Moscow has already warned Washington that it could unilaterally pull out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) and resume production of intermediate- and short-range missiles in the future."

(source: http://mosnews.com/news/2007/03/02/grushko.shtml march 2).

--------------------
"Inspiration comes from hard work" -Charles Baudelaire.
Posts: 292 | Registered: Sunday, November 23 2003 08:00
Shaper
Member # 3442
Profile Homepage #1
The whole idea of having nuclear weapons scares me terribly, regardless of who is controlling them. If the US goes ahead with the plans, then I can completely see why Russia would want to start making more missiles. But, and this is the crux, I don't think they should.

Maybe I'm just some hippy, but making huge amounts of bombs can never be a good idea. All it takes is for one over-enthusiastic leader to press the button, and it won't be love but the bomb that brings us together.

I also object to letting Bush build all kinds of missile bases in the UK, but that's a debate for another time.

--------------------
And when you want to Live
How do you start?
Where do you go?
Who do you need to know?


*Name by Slarty, so blame him if it's filthy...
Posts: 2864 | Registered: Monday, September 8 2003 07:00
Law Bringer
Member # 335
Profile Homepage #2
Maybe I'm two decades behind, but isn't Russia already sitting on large nuclear stockpiles? The thing about MAD is that you only have to be able to destroy the world once. Making more is just a very expensive gesture with no meaningful force behind it.

—Alorael, who is also not terribly enthusiastic about missile defense. It hasn't come all that far from Star Wars days, so any real threat is likely to remain a threat. In fact, making a shield is, as already seen, likely to provoke threats. And if safety from nukes is guaranteed, or more likely perceived, it makes launching them dangerously attractive.
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
Guardian
Member # 6670
Profile Homepage #3
By Alo:
quote:
The thing about MAD is that you only have to be able to destroy the world once. Making more is just a very expensive gesture with no meaningful force behind it.
Silly Alorael! You forgot job creation!

Slightly off-topic, but how effective would dirty bombs be today? I'd almost consider them to be more dangerous overall in the near future than conventional nukes, since there's no Mutually Assured Destruction aspect.

--------------------
Oh, great. Congratulations, you have moderately inconvenienced me. Daddy would be so proud.
- Xykon (OotS #114)
Posts: 1509 | Registered: Tuesday, January 10 2006 08:00
Agent
Member # 1934
Profile Homepage #4
This is perfect timing for this topic. I'm going to hear a presentation today about what will happen to the world if there is a nuclear war.
I've talked to the man giving the presentation already, and we're pretty screwed if even a few bombs go off.

--------------------
You acquire an item: Radio Free Foil
Posts: 1169 | Registered: Monday, September 23 2002 07:00
Infiltrator
Member # 5754
Profile #5
Hasn't the U.S. got enough enemies already? They're already the number one target for terrorists, do they really need Russia as their enemy to.

Once I had a geography teacher that decided that geogeaphy class was end of the world class. He'd tell us how we'd get into huge nuclear wars in the future and other stuff like that.
Posts: 626 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
Shock Trooper
Member # 3716
Profile #6
I guess it's not just about cities devasted and people killed, but significant contribution to global warming?

--------------------
"Inspiration comes from hard work" -Charles Baudelaire.
Posts: 292 | Registered: Sunday, November 23 2003 08:00
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #7
Although, if we do have global warming, wouldn't nuclear winter be the best answer?

This message sponsored by the Pollute the Earth Society (Ostrich Chapter)

--------------------
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

Well, I'm at least pretty sure that Salmon is losing.


Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
Profile #8
There was always something sick, to my mind, about the nuclear doomsayers.

No, a few bombs would not end civilization. Just kill millions of people.

Isn't that bad enough?

--------------------
We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty.
Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
Profile #9
The US's attempts to build a nuclear shield are rightly seen as dangerous by the rest of the world. The neoconservatives have spent decades building up a capitalist autarky: the idea is that the corporate machine running American society will continue running whether or not anyone likes it (not even Americans), and will be able to do whatever it pleases with impunity.

It's yet another instance of the military-industrial complex hijacking the government. Once there's a nuke shield up, it just makes sense to work on more and better nukes... for deterrence, of course.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
Agent
Member # 1934
Profile Homepage #10
quote:
Originally written by Student of Trinity:


No, a few bombs would not end civilization. Just kill millions of people.

A war between say, India and Pakistan, would kill a lot more people than you think. There would be massive losses in their country and the resulting dust clouds and radioactive debris would almost destroy the ozone layer.
Europe and the Eastern side of the US would not be able to have any agriculture. The same goes for most of South America. I think this would kill a little more than a few million people.

--------------------
You acquire an item: Radio Free Foil
Posts: 1169 | Registered: Monday, September 23 2002 07:00
Shock Trooper
Member # 3716
Profile #11
India and Pakistan have had wars in the past. Their differences are not completely solved, so we should pay attention to what's going on there.

--------------------
"Inspiration comes from hard work" -Charles Baudelaire.
Posts: 292 | Registered: Sunday, November 23 2003 08:00
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
Profile #12
quote:
Originally written by Andraste:

... the resulting dust clouds and radioactive debris would almost destroy the ozone layer.
Europe and the Eastern side of the US would not be able to have any agriculture. The same goes for most of South America.

What I'm telling you is that that is hooey. The Earth is too big for a few bombs to have such planetary consequences.

The US and the USSR have already detonated plenty of huge nuclear devices, in tests; more, I'm sure, than the combined nuclear arsenals of India and Pakistan. The ozone layer and European agriculture are still around.

Why do people trumpet doomsday scenarios like this one?

Because they're realistic? No, they're ridiculous.

So that people who don't give a damn about thousands of Indians and Pakistanis burning to death will get incensed at some far-fetched threat to their own comfort? This is why I'm disgusted.

--------------------
We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty.
Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00
Agent
Member # 2210
Profile #13
Krakatoa which exploded was a small volcano, it caused major weather changes. A nuclear bomb would have pretty devastating consequences for climate, we would solve the global problem however, it would be global cooling.

--------------------
Wasting your time and mine looking for a good laugh.

Star Bright, Star Light, Oh I Wish I May, I Wish Might, Wish For One Star Tonight.
Posts: 1084 | Registered: Thursday, November 7 2002 08:00
Councilor
Member # 6600
Profile Homepage #14
The 1883 eruption of Krakatoa was not a small eruption. It was huge. The global cooling came from ashes sent 50 km high into the atmosphere. Nuclear bombs can't do that.

Dikiyoba.
Posts: 4346 | Registered: Friday, December 23 2005 08:00
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #15
quote:
Originally written by Student of Trinity:

So that people who don't give a damn about thousands of Indians and Pakistanis burning to death will get incensed at some far-fetched threat to their own comfort? This is why I'm disgusted.
But isn't it typical to inform citizens of catastrophic happenings by first telling them it will happen to distant people who have no relations to them? Then, later, how it could happen to our European ancestors, and finally ourselves?

Most Americans have no direct concept of what a nuclear explosion would accomplish/destroy. Talking about a distant threat, and making it as horrific an image as possible, will persuade more folks that nuclear detonation is not the last choice the CiC should make, but the choice s'he should never make.

--------------------
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

Well, I'm at least pretty sure that Salmon is losing.


Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
Agent
Member # 1934
Profile Homepage #16
quote:
Originally written by Dikiyoba:

The global cooling came from ashes sent 50 km high into the atmosphere. Nuclear bombs can't do that.

Yes they can. The cities that they are dropped on will burn and there will be massive fire storms. The ash from these fires will go much higher than 50 km and will stay up there for decades.

--------------------
You acquire an item: Radio Free Foil
Posts: 1169 | Registered: Monday, September 23 2002 07:00
Apprentice
Member # 7501
Profile #17
nuclear bombs don't cause global warming it is CO2(carbon-2oxygen) emissions that cause global warming.nuclear bombs emmit radiation(in the form of Helium atoms without electtrons, and decaying radiactive metal that are ALWAYS HEAVY METALS, which carbon adn oxygen are not. global warming effects are slow but compared to the last 10 million years it is fast right now. i don't know anything about nuclear winters..
quote:
student of trinity;
There was always something sick, to my mind, about the nuclear doomsayers.

No, a few bombs would not end civilization. Just kill millions of people.

Isn't that bad enough?
true a few bombs would not end civilization, but it could cause a chain reaction like in WW1/2
2 nations go to war, and bring allies, who also bring in allies.
we also have the United nations to "decide" on what do do...
not; Krakatoa EXPLODED, volcanoes normally ERUPT, they let of a little bit of their cap but Krakatoa EXPLODED!
quote:
But isn't it typical to inform citizens of catastrophic happenings by first telling them it will happen to distant people who have no relations to them? Then, later, how it could happen to our European ancestors, and finally ourselves?

Most Americans have no direct concept of what a nuclear explosion would accomplish/destroy. Talking about a distant threat, and making it as horrific an image as possible, will persuade more folks that nuclear detonation is not the last choice the CiC should make, but the choice s'he should never make.
the more the media can get, the more money they can make...

finally, the ashes from Krakatoa were SPREAD OUT , from winds..
but nuclear bombs expel a large cloud upon detonation followed by a shock wave, and finally radiation.
the difference between the clouds expelled by krakatoa and nuclear bombs is the MASS of the cloud expelled. Krakatoa expelled a majority of the mountains mass(it exploded..) but a nuclear bomb doesn't expel that much mass.

--------------------
previous display name was TAKE ALL
SHAPER I am ALWAYS with you i know all that u do i know all of your secrets including how to shape
Posts: 41 | Registered: Sunday, September 17 2006 07:00
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #18
That brings to mind a very important question.

Isn't it about time we have a discussion on music? All this talk of HEAVY METAL makes me wonder what is happening in the genre...

--------------------
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

Well, I'm at least pretty sure that Salmon is losing.


Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
Agent
Member # 1934
Profile Homepage #19
quote:
Originally written by TAKE ALL:

nuclear bombs don't cause global warming it is CO2(carbon-2oxygen) emissions that cause global warming.nuclear bombs emmit radiation(in the form of Helium atoms without electtrons, and decaying radiactive metal that are ALWAYS HEAVY METALS,
Helium atoms without electrons are called alpha particles. Those are the least dangerous form of radiation. It's the beta and gamma radiation that will kill you.

quote:
the difference between the clouds expelled by krakatoa and nuclear bombs is the MASS of the cloud expelled. Krakatoa expelled a majority of the mountains mass(it exploded..) but a nuclear bomb doesn't expel that much mass.
Yes, but it burns things. The are massive firestorms after nuclear bombs are dropped on cities. Look around your house. Look at everything that you think is flammable. Look at everything that you don't think is flammable. It will all burn.
:Edit: Link to Firestorm on the Wiki.

[ Saturday, March 03, 2007 12:01: Message edited by: Andraste ]

--------------------
You acquire an item: Radio Free Foil
Posts: 1169 | Registered: Monday, September 23 2002 07:00
Agent
Member # 8030
Profile Homepage #20
Stated by Andraste
quote:
Helium atoms without electrons are called alpha particles. Those are the least dangerous form of radiation. It's the beta and gamma radiation that will kill you.
True. The people living around Nagasaki that survived the bombing haven't suffered any bad health problems caused by the radiation. I've even heard that a study showed that a little bit of radiation is good for you. However, when plants started growing again near the sites of the attacks, many of them were deformed.

--------------------
WWJD?
Posts: 1384 | Registered: Tuesday, February 6 2007 08:00
Agent
Member # 1934
Profile Homepage #21
quote:
Originally written by Excalibur:

True. The people living around Nagasaki that survived the bombing haven't suffered any bad health problems caused by the radiation.
Ummm, yes they did. Ever heard of Radiation Poisoning?

[ Saturday, March 03, 2007 14:50: Message edited by: Andraste ]

--------------------
You acquire an item: Radio Free Foil
Posts: 1169 | Registered: Monday, September 23 2002 07:00
Shaper
Member # 6292
Profile #22
quote:
Originally written by Spent Salmon:

Talking about a distant threat, and making it as horrific an image as possible, will persuade more folks that...
Hey! Let's start showing "Reefer Madness" to students again.

Oh, and I still like Ozzy. I wonder if he'll ever make another album?
Those wacky preachers' kids. God bless 'em!

-S-

--------------------
A4 Item Locations A4 Singleton G4 Items List G4 Forging List The Insidious Infiltrator
Posts: 2009 | Registered: Monday, September 12 2005 07:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
Profile #23
Helium atoms without electrons are called alpha particles. Those are the least dangerous form of radiation. It's the beta and gamma radiation that will kill you.

Wrong: while alpha particles will be blocked by something as thin as a newspaper (which is why 'duck and cover' had any basis in reality - ducking and covering would, in fact, protect your skin from alpha particles), they're by far the most destructive form of radiation to soft tissue.

In the aftermath of nuclear explosions, there's a lot of radioactive debris floating around, either releasing or laced with alpha radiation; getting substantial amount of a-radiation into your system (especially your soft, defenseless, vital lungs) will pretty much guarantee you a premature death by cancer if you don't absorb enough radiation to die from radiation sickness. To say nothing, of course, of severe respiratory problems and internal burns.

quote:
Originally written by Excalibur:

I've even heard that a study showed that a little bit of radiation is good for you.
This effect, which is what happens when a moderate amount of something harmful causes a beneficial effect - mostly because the benefit from reaction to the harmful stimulus outweighs the damage from the stimulus - is called hormesis. However, the optimal level of radiation for hormesis is well below a normal level in most areas of the world, especially high altitudes or big cities.

Fun fact, and one of my favorite statistics ever: someone living next to a coal plant receives three times the annual dose of radiation of someone living next to a nuclear plant, and each receive less than a hundredth the annual dose of radiation they would receive were they to move to Wyoming or a similarly elevated area.

[ Saturday, March 03, 2007 16:41: Message edited by: Protocols of the Elders of Zion ]
Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
Law Bringer
Member # 2984
Profile Homepage #24
Discounting, of course, the risk of a melt-down.

Who worries about the radiation from a properly functioning power plant? Even without statistics to prove it, I'd tend to trust those responsible for the shielding regulations that the normal radiation levels are harmless. It's the accidents that are dangerous.

--------------------
Encyclopaedia ErmarianaForum ArchivesForum StatisticsRSS [Topic / Forum]
My BlogPolarisI eat novels for breakfast.
Polaris is dead, long live Polaris.
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair.
Posts: 8752 | Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00

Pages