Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

And now for something completely different: The Doomsday Clock!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • And now for something completely different: The Doomsday Clock!

    The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, who have for years set a "Doomsday Clock" to show (supposedly) how close we are to self-annihilation, has made their 2020 prediction. Seems we're closer than ever before! A mere 100 seconds...

    The board named a triple threat of nuclear proliferation, climate change, and cyber-based disinformation.
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/fernand.../#7241353467ab



    No mention that the number of nuclear weapons has decreased significantly since the 80's and the end of the cold war. But, there's Gorebal Warming and we only have ten years to live before we all die from too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere... Or, the threat that some body might steal your credit card numbers, and what did people do to get information before the internet...?

    This is as opposed to say, the Cuban Missile Crisis when at several points we were one person away from an actual, real, mushroom clouds-type, nuclear war...

    But, then again, whenever a Republican gets in the White House the "Clock" moves closer to total destruction and it moves away when a Democrat is there...



  • #2
    Yeah, it is a dumb concept to begin with. Apparently these numb nuts never head of Able Archer.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
      The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, who have for years set a "Doomsday Clock" to show (supposedly) how close we are to self-annihilation, has made their 2020 prediction. Seems we're closer than ever before! A mere 100 seconds...



      https://www.forbes.com/sites/fernand.../#7241353467ab



      No mention that the number of nuclear weapons has decreased significantly since the 80's and the end of the cold war. But, there's Gorebal Warming and we only have ten years to live before we all die from too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere... Or, the threat that some body might steal your credit card numbers, and what did people do to get information before the internet...?

      This is as opposed to say, the Cuban Missile Crisis when at several points we were one person away from an actual, real, mushroom clouds-type, nuclear war...

      But, then again, whenever a Republican gets in the White House the "Clock" moves closer to total destruction and it moves away when a Democrat is there...

      Israel didn't have nuclear weapons in the 80s and them now being armed could be the biggest catalyst towards nuclear warfare. Who has them, is more important than the overall numbers.
      "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
      - Benjamin Franklin

      The new right wing: hate Muslims, preaches tolerance for Nazis.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
        The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, who have for years set a "Doomsday Clock" to show (supposedly) how close we are to self-annihilation, has made their 2020 prediction. Seems we're closer than ever before! A mere 100 seconds...



        https://www.forbes.com/sites/fernand.../#7241353467ab



        No mention that the number of nuclear weapons has decreased significantly since the 80's and the end of the cold war. But, there's Gorebal Warming and we only have ten years to live before we all die from too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere... Or, the threat that some body might steal your credit card numbers, and what did people do to get information before the internet...?

        This is as opposed to say, the Cuban Missile Crisis when at several points we were one person away from an actual, real, mushroom clouds-type, nuclear war...

        But, then again, whenever a Republican gets in the White House the "Clock" moves closer to total destruction and it moves away when a Democrat is there...

        But the warhead throw weight has dramatically increased. A single ICBM can now carry ten independently targeted warheads.

        BTW: The Democrats are the ones responsible for a larger portion of the world wars...not the Republicans.
        Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post

          Israel didn't have nuclear weapons in the 80s and them now being armed could be the biggest catalyst towards nuclear warfare. Who has them, is more important than the overall numbers.
          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

          But the warhead throw weight has dramatically increased. A single ICBM can now carry ten independently targeted warheads.

          BTW: The Democrats are the ones responsible for a larger portion of the world wars...not the Republicans.


          Throw weight has also decreased per weapon as the delivery systems have become more accurate.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post





            Throw weight has also decreased per weapon as the delivery systems have become more accurate.
            Cool chart
            We hunt the hunters

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post





              Throw weight has also decreased per weapon as the delivery systems have become more accurate.
              How many megatons do you actually need to kill a city? A lot less than you think. And even less to kill an entire nation. Think about how little it would take to actually stop America completely in its tacks, and then we'll talk about "diminishing throw weight."

              A handful of major cities, a handful of ports and a few major electrical hubs and the country is dead. After all, a mere thunderstorm can knock out the power grid for one-third or more of the nation for weeks. Imagine what the EMP from a nuke will do to power grids, cities and everything hat uses electricity and/or microchips, pretty much everything you need to stay alive today. Of course, that "lower throw weight" won't kill you right away - you take a lot longer to die a lot less pleasantly. One small warhead is all it would take to kill everyone in LA and the surrounding areas...by destroying the water supply aquaduct. Take out Hoover damn with another one and goobye West Coast, unless you can learn how to drink radioactive water without electrical power to pump it. We live in the edge of a razor blade.

              Oh, and btw, America's delivery systems have become more accurate. Russia's...not so much. They have always relied on robust rather than sophisticated. During the Cold War, they allocated three 20 megaton weapons to Colorado Springs, one deep-penetrating to take out Cheyenne Mountain, a second 20 meg to take out Fort Carson/Colorado Springs and a third 20 meg to take out Peterson Field/Colorado Springs Airport. That's 60 megatons for a city of only 300,000. Throw in the bonus of the only rail and highway routes connecting north and south mid-western America along the Front Range and the only major military airports in Colorado and that's still overkill, but it's the Russian way of doing things. A near miss actually counts in three things: horseshoes, grenades and nuclear war.

              America, relying on sophistication to replace brute strength, still has enough "reduced" warheads to kill the entire planet several times over, and everybody else has the rest. And we no longer have an active civil defense system.
              Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                How many megatons do you actually need to kill a city? A lot less than you think. And even less to kill an entire nation. Think about how little it would take to actually stop America completely in its tacks, and then we'll talk about "diminishing throw weight."

                A handful of major cities, a handful of ports and a few major electrical hubs and the country is dead. After all, a mere thunderstorm can knock out the power grid for one-third or more of the nation for weeks. Imagine what the EMP from a nuke will do to power grids, cities and everything hat uses electricity and/or microchips, pretty much everything you need to stay alive today. Of course, that "lower throw weight" won't kill you right away - you take a lot longer to die a lot less pleasantly. One small warhead is all it would take to kill everyone in LA and the surrounding areas...by destroying the water supply aquaduct. Take out Hoover damn with another one and goobye West Coast, unless you can learn how to drink radioactive water without electrical power to pump it. We live in the edge of a razor blade.

                Oh, and btw, America's delivery systems have become more accurate. Russia's...not so much. They have always relied on robust rather than sophisticated. During the Cold War, they allocated three 20 megaton weapons to Colorado Springs, one deep-penetrating to take out Cheyenne Mountain, a second 20 meg to take out Fort Carson/Colorado Springs and a third 20 meg to take out Peterson Field/Colorado Springs Airport. That's 60 megatons for a city of only 300,000. Throw in the bonus of the only rail and highway routes connecting north and south mid-western America along the Front Range and the only major military airports in Colorado and that's still overkill, but it's the Russian way of doing things. A near miss actually counts in three things: horseshoes, grenades and nuclear war.

                America, relying on sophistication to replace brute strength, still has enough "reduced" warheads to kill the entire planet several times over, and everybody else has the rest. And we no longer have an active civil defense system.
                The point I was making was the "scientists" who set the clock closer claimed that nuclear arms were proliferating and growing in number when clearly the reverse is true. It isn't about them blowing up some city or nation, or the planet for that matter, but rather that those who say we're closer to doomsday are either imbeciles, insane, or lying because on the nuclear weapons front, we're way down from where we were in the 1980's. That's the point here: The people setting this 'clock' aren't looking at reality. They are looking at politics and they're lying their collective @$$es off doing it.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                  But the warhead throw weight has dramatically increased. A single ICBM can now carry ten independently targeted warheads.

                  BTW: The Democrats are the ones responsible for a larger portion of the world wars...not the Republicans.
                  Just when I thought I could start getting comfortable with you guys....

                  How do you figure that?
                  Just because a Democrat was in the White House, he wasresponsible?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Phaing View Post

                    Just when I thought I could start getting comfortable with you guys....

                    How do you figure that?
                    Just because a Democrat was in the White House, he wasresponsible?
                    I agree that they aren't particularly responsible for starting them, but Democrats usually end them badly.

                    Wilson WW 1 and the failed peace + League of Nations failure
                    FDR WW 2 and the creation of the Cold War
                    Truman Korea and the truce versus a peace treaty.
                    A few examples...

                    Comment

                    Latest Topics

                    Collapse

                    Working...
                    X