What wories me

[Phil Allison]

Hi to all,


** The scary thing that I worry about now and then does not take decades to happen, has no doubts associated with it whatsoever and is far worse than AGW.

A nuclear exchange could happen any time and would likely devastate much of the planet, in a matter of hours, leaving it useless for hundreds or many thousands of years.

There are several thousand ICBMs, submarine launched missiles and cruise missiles fitted with nuclear warheads just waiting to be used. The latter are expected to become " doom's day " weapons".

Mostly the warheads are fusion bombs, massively bigger than the Hiroshima fission bomb.

A great many countries have them now: the USA, UK, France, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel. May soon be more.

Then there are home made versions, using low grade nuclear material and high explosives - so called "dirty bombs".

Terrorists used Boeing jets full of passengers as suicide cruise missiles not long ago in the USA. They would not hesitate to use a dirty bomb or illegally obtained nuke - either without warning as revenge or in some elaborate hostage scheme that achieved their ends.

Don't see any international panic about that going on.

How odd ??

Must be another motive for wanting mining and the use of all fossil fuel to stop.

Wonder what that could be ??

Hmmmmm ........

Strange that little Greta is not beside herself about it too.


...... Phil

 

[boB]

On Tue, 5 Nov 2019 23:32:19 -0800 (PST), Phil Allison
<pallison49@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi to all,


** The scary thing that I worry about now and then does not take decades to happen, has no doubts associated with it whatsoever and is far worse than AGW.

A nuclear exchange could happen any time and would likely devastate much of the planet, in a matter of hours, leaving it useless for hundreds or many thousands of years.

There are several thousand ICBMs, submarine launched missiles and cruise missiles fitted with nuclear warheads just waiting to be used. The latter are expected to become " doom's day " weapons".

Mostly the warheads are fusion bombs, massively bigger than the Hiroshima fission bomb.

A great many countries have them now: the USA, UK, France, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel. May soon be more.

Then there are home made versions, using low grade nuclear material and high explosives - so called "dirty bombs".

Terrorists used Boeing jets full of passengers as suicide cruise missiles not long ago in the USA. They would not hesitate to use a dirty bomb or illegally obtained nuke - either without warning as revenge or in some elaborate hostage scheme that achieved their ends.

Don't see any international panic about that going on.

How odd ??

Must be another motive for wanting mining and the use of all fossil fuel to stop.

Wonder what that could be ??

Hmmmmm ........

Strange that little Greta is not beside herself about it too.


..... Phil

This issue crosses my mind sometimes too. But what can one do ?
This is a very unfortunate reality.

I just have to not worry too much and do my thing because it's
evidently healthier to try and be happy in life.

 

[Rick C]

On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 2:47:54 AM UTC-5, boB wrote:

On Tue, 5 Nov 2019 23:32:19 -0800 (PST), Phil Allison
pallison49@gmail.com> wrote:


Hi to all,


** The scary thing that I worry about now and then does not take decades to happen, has no doubts associated with it whatsoever and is far worse than AGW.

A nuclear exchange could happen any time and would likely devastate much of the planet, in a matter of hours, leaving it useless for hundreds or many thousands of years.

There are several thousand ICBMs, submarine launched missiles and cruise missiles fitted with nuclear warheads just waiting to be used. The latter are expected to become " doom's day " weapons".

Mostly the warheads are fusion bombs, massively bigger than the Hiroshima fission bomb.

A great many countries have them now: the USA, UK, France, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel. May soon be more.

Then there are home made versions, using low grade nuclear material and high explosives - so called "dirty bombs".

Terrorists used Boeing jets full of passengers as suicide cruise missiles not long ago in the USA. They would not hesitate to use a dirty bomb or illegally obtained nuke - either without warning as revenge or in some elaborate hostage scheme that achieved their ends.

Don't see any international panic about that going on.

How odd ??

Must be another motive for wanting mining and the use of all fossil fuel to stop.

Wonder what that could be ??

Hmmmmm ........

Strange that little Greta is not beside herself about it too.


..... Phil


This issue crosses my mind sometimes too. But what can one do ?
This is a very unfortunate reality.

I just have to not worry too much and do my thing because it's
evidently healthier to try and be happy in life.

I'm not sure which issue is being discussed. There is the very low probability that there will be a nuclear exchange. Look at it this way. We have had three major civilian power generating nuclear reactor accidents since the nuclear age dawned. Yet there has only been a single war waged where nuclear weapons were used and even then only on two cities.

Then there is the dirty bomb issue... which has had exactly zero cases in all recorded history. So how likely is that to happen?

Then we have the confluence of a dirty bomb and an airplane hijacking. Have there been any hijackings since 9/11? I don't recall. Regardless, I'm pretty sure there are radiation monitoring equipment in major airports. That's easy stuff to prevent.

So which one of these do you think is at all likely?

--

Rick C.

- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

boB <boB@K7IQ.com> wrote in
news:8gu4se94niks9pcbjdoruh55vk9kgpgio1@4ax.com:

On Tue, 5 Nov 2019 23:32:19 -0800 (PST), Phil Allison
pallison49@gmail.com> wrote:


Hi to all,


** The scary thing that I worry about now and then does not take
decades to happen, has no doubts associated with it whatsoever and
is far worse than AGW.

A nuclear exchange could happen any time and would likely
devastate much of the planet, in a matter of hours, leaving it
useless for hundreds or many thousands of years.

There are several thousand ICBMs, submarine launched missiles and
cruise missiles fitted with nuclear warheads just waiting to be
used. The latter are expected to become " doom's day " weapons".

Mostly the warheads are fusion bombs, massively bigger than the
Hiroshima fission bomb.

A great many countries have them now: the USA, UK, France, Russia,
China, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel. May soon be more.

Then there are home made versions, using low grade nuclear
material and high explosives - so called "dirty bombs".

Terrorists used Boeing jets full of passengers as suicide cruise
missiles not long ago in the USA. They would not hesitate to use a
dirty bomb or illegally obtained nuke - either without warning as
revenge or in some elaborate hostage scheme that achieved their
ends.

Don't see any international panic about that going on.

How odd ??

Must be another motive for wanting mining and the use of all
fossil fuel to stop.

Wonder what that could be ??

Hmmmmm ........

Strange that little Greta is not beside herself about it too.


..... Phil


This issue crosses my mind sometimes too. But what can one do ?
This is a very unfortunate reality.

I just have to not worry too much and do my thing because it's
evidently healthier to try and be happy in life.

Since we have not built or established any subterranean cities
latey...

Hey... There's an idea!

 

[Phil Allison]

Rick C lives on Another Planet wrote:

-------------------------------------

I'm not sure ....

** Should have stopped right there.

Da Nile is not just a river in Egypt ....



...... Phil

 

[Piotr Wyderski]

boB wrote:

> This issue crosses my mind sometimes too. But what can one do ?

Most likely South America, large portion of Africa, Mexico etc. will
survive relatively unharmed. Nothing interesting to nuke there. So will
smaller towns. A global disaster -- yes, for sure, risk to the survival
of the entire mankind -- no, not even close.

> This is a very unfortunate reality.

This is a very fortunate reality. There has been no major war in Europe
for over 70 years, unbelievable.

Best regards, Piotr

 

[whit3rd]

On Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 11:32:24 PM UTC-8, Phil Allison wrote:

** The scary thing that I worry about now and then does not take decades to happen, has no doubts associated with it whatsoever and is far worse than AGW.

A nuclear exchange could happen any time...
Don't see any international panic about that going on.

What rock have you been living under? The prediction of human control of climate
STARTED with recognition of the 'nuclear winter' scenario. International
arms limitation agreements, and rollback of nuclear arsenals, took place
back in the 1980s.

 

[Martin Brown]

On 06/11/2019 07:32, Phil Allison wrote:

Hi to all,


** The scary thing that I worry about now and then does not take
decades to happen, has no doubts associated with it whatsoever and is
far worse than AGW.

Funnily enough "Dr Strangelove" was on TV last night as a part of the
Berlin wall coming down and Stanley Kubrick anniversary exhibition (at
the Design Centre in London and worth seeing if you like his films).

It is a very high impact but very low probability scenario.

UK no longer has a nationwide set of monitoring stations for this
eventuality. They were disbanded sometime in the 1990's.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Observer_Corps#Stand_down_and_legacy

A nuclear exchange could happen any time and would likely devastate
much of the planet, in a matter of hours, leaving it useless for
hundreds or many thousands of years.

It was much more likely in the 1950's and 60's when they were at times
on a hair trigger and with munitions locked and loaded in the air at all
times. Mutually assured destruction or MAD for short.

There are several thousand ICBMs, submarine launched missiles and
cruise missiles fitted with nuclear warheads just waiting to be used.
The latter are expected to become " doom's day " weapons".

There are slightly fewer of them than there used to be at least for the
moment. The arms race looks to be hotting up again due to Trump.

Mostly the warheads are fusion bombs, massively bigger than the
Hiroshima fission bomb.

A great many countries have them now: the USA, UK, France, Russia,
China, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel. May soon be more.

The first five have enough to be a serious nuisance. I seriously doubt
if America would let the UK use our nuclear weapons independently.

The last four on your list probably only have basic fission weapons
(although it is possible that Israel may have H-bombs).

I live uncomfortably close to BMEWS Site 3 so I probably won't know much
about it if they do start a nuclear exchange.

Then there are home made versions, using low grade nuclear material
and high explosives - so called "dirty bombs".

They could make a mess by area denial but they would have to work
incredibly hard to do anything that was worse than Fukushima. Terrorists
are far more likely to use chemical weapons like Aum Shinroku did as
they are considerably easier to get hold of and deploy.

Terrorists used Boeing jets full of passengers as suicide cruise
missiles not long ago in the USA. They would not hesitate to use a
dirty bomb or illegally obtained nuke - either without warning as
revenge or in some elaborate hostage scheme that achieved their
ends.

A 747 impact with full fuel load is a roughly 1kT equivalent weapon.
H-bombs start at around 1MT. Nukes are very difficult to get hold of.

If terrorists were ever to get hold of one I'd expect it to be exploded
as a ground burst in London, Paris, San Diego or New York.

Don't see any international panic about that going on.

How odd ??

There used to be in the 1960's with people digging elaborate bomb
shelters. Rich Halls "Red Menace" was also on last night:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000b1gw/rich-halls-red-menace

You may have to spoof a UK IP address and pretend to have a TV license
to see it. Perhaps it is also online elsewhere?

Must be another motive for wanting mining and the use of all fossil
fuel to stop.

Wonder what that could be ??

Hmmmmm ........

Strange that little Greta is not beside herself about it too.

The nuclear threat has receded considerably thanks to Reagan and
Gorbachev. There may be a regional conflict where a nuclear exchange
occurs but I can't see any of the players with large arsenals wanting to
destroy their own countries. UK would come out of it particularly badly
since half a dozen H-bombs would see off most of the population.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 6:32:24 PM UTC+11, Phil Allison wrote:

Hi to all,


** The scary thing that I worry about now and then does not take decades to happen, has no doubts associated with it whatsoever and is far worse than AGW.

A nuclear exchange could happen any time and would likely devastate much of the planet, in a matter of hours, leaving it useless for hundreds or many thousands of years.

There are several thousand ICBMs, submarine launched missiles and cruise missiles fitted with nuclear warheads just waiting to be used. The latter are expected to become " doom's day " weapons".

Mostly the warheads are fusion bombs, massively bigger than the Hiroshima fission bomb.

A great many countries have them now: the USA, UK, France, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel. May soon be more.

Then there are home made versions, using low grade nuclear material and high explosives - so called "dirty bombs".

Terrorists used Boeing jets full of passengers as suicide cruise missiles not long ago in the USA. They would not hesitate to use a dirty bomb or illegally obtained nuke - either without warning as revenge or in some elaborate hostage scheme that achieved their ends.

Don't see any international panic about that going on.

How odd ??

Must be another motive for wanting mining and the use of all fossil fuel to stop.

Wonder what that could be ??

Hmmmmm ........

Strange that little Greta is not beside herself about it too.

We've had mutual assured destruction since I was kid. It seems to work, and the number of nuclear weapons around has actually gone down a bit.

Climate change is just as real, and it's progressing. Greta is probably right to be more worried about it.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Phil Allison]

boB wrote:

-------------

This issue crosses my mind sometimes too. But what can one do ?
This is a very unfortunate reality.

I just have to not worry too much and do my thing because it's
evidently healthier to try and be happy in life.

** So says the lamb on its way to the slaughter house.


...... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

Martin Brown wrote:

-------------------

The first five have enough to be a serious nuisance. I seriously doubt
if America would let the UK use our nuclear weapons independently.

** You do realise the UK developed numerous fission and fusion weapons the 1950s and 60s ?? Lots of them, some very big.

Tested them in the far outback areas of Australia and off the WA coast on an island.

Horrible business cos it was done in secrecy and with much deceit.

The promised thorough clean ups never happened.

Google it if you like.


...... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

whit3rd wrote:

--------------
Phil Allison wrote:

** The scary thing that I worry about now and then does not take decades to happen, has no doubts associated with it whatsoever and is far worse than AGW.

A nuclear exchange could happen any time...
Don't see any international panic about that going on.

What rock have you been living under? The prediction of human control of climate
STARTED with recognition of the 'nuclear winter' scenario. International
arms limitation agreements, and rollback of nuclear arsenals, took place
back in the 1980s.

** Hmmmmmm ...

Our resident 33.3% Wit is a master of the non sequitur.

He will need to look the word up you know.


..... Phil

 

[Chris Jones]

On 06/11/2019 18:32, Phil Allison wrote:

A nuclear exchange could happen any time and would likely devastate much of the planet, in a matter of hours, leaving it useless for hundreds or many thousands of years.
This is a very reasonable concern.

> There are several thousand ICBMs, submarine launched missiles and cruise missiles fitted with nuclear warheads just waiting to be used. The latter are expected to become " doom's day " weapons".
Yes, and the sheer number of them ought to be the biggest concern for
people living in Australia: They have enough weapons that they will
easily run out of "important" (potentially threatening) targets and have
many weapons left over, so they might target those left-overs at
Australia without needing much justification.

> Mostly the warheads are fusion bombs, massively bigger than the Hiroshima fission bomb.
It is difficult to comprehend the difference and I think people might be
more concerned if they could.

> A great many countries have them now: the USA, UK, France, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel. May soon be more.
Yes. I worry most about the weapons of countries that have dozens to
thousands of fusion weapons, designed by competent engineers with large
budgets.

Then there are home made versions, using low grade nuclear material and high explosives - so called "dirty bombs".
Terrorists used Boeing jets full of passengers as suicide cruise missiles not long ago in the USA. They would not hesitate to use a dirty bomb or illegally obtained nuke - either without warning as revenge or in some elaborate hostage scheme that achieved their ends.

I don't worry much about those. The people crazy enough to want them are
unlikely to be competent enough to deploy them effectively on anyone but
themselves.

Don't see any international panic about that going on.

How odd ??

Not much has been in the media about it after the 1980s, so anyone too
young to remember those times would not be prompted to think about it.

Also, there isn't much that can be done about it, at least at a personal
level, whereas influencing CO2 output is quite feasible, though
sometimes inconvenient. There is usually more to be gained by worrying
about the things that one can fix or mitigate. I do also worry about
nuclear weapons but I don't think I gain much by doing so.

 

On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 2:32:24 AM UTC-5, Phil Allison wrote:

Hi to all,


** The scary thing that I worry about now and then does not take decades to happen, has no doubts associated with it whatsoever and is far worse than AGW.

A nuclear exchange could happen any time and would likely devastate much of the planet, in a matter of hours, leaving it useless for hundreds or many thousands of years.

There are several thousand ICBMs, submarine launched missiles and cruise missiles fitted with nuclear warheads just waiting to be used. The latter are expected to become " doom's day " weapons".

Mostly the warheads are fusion bombs, massively bigger than the Hiroshima fission bomb.

A great many countries have them now: the USA, UK, France, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel. May soon be more.

Then there are home made versions, using low grade nuclear material and high explosives - so called "dirty bombs".

Terrorists used Boeing jets full of passengers as suicide cruise missiles not long ago in the USA. They would not hesitate to use a dirty bomb or illegally obtained nuke - either without warning as revenge or in some elaborate hostage scheme that achieved their ends.

Don't see any international panic about that going on.

How odd ??

Must be another motive for wanting mining and the use of all fossil fuel to stop.

Wonder what that could be ??

Hmmmmm ........

Strange that little Greta is not beside herself about it too.


..... Phil

You will only see international panic about topics that can conveniently advance leftism. The nuclear football does not currently meet that need (as it did 30 years ago). Not to worry, it is sitting on the back burner and will become the hot topic again when maximum leftist leverage can be realized from it.

 

[Martin Brown]

On 06/11/2019 11:19, Phil Allison wrote:

Martin Brown wrote:

-------------------

The first five have enough to be a serious nuisance. I seriously
doubt if America would let the UK use our nuclear weapons
independently.


** You do realise the UK developed numerous fission and fusion
weapons the 1950s and 60s ?? Lots of them, some very big.

We only just got the working Christmas Island UK H-bomb test inside the
test ban treaty ban of 1963 against atmospheric testing. But it gave us
a seat at the top table of nuclear powers with H-bomb technology.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/may/15/newsid_2510000/2510335.stm

France continued long after the atmospheric test ban treaty refusing to
sign until they had tested one of their own with Canopus in 1968:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canopus_(nuclear_test)

Tested them in the far outback areas of Australia and off the WA
coast on an island.

Of course I know that. But Polaris and it's ilk are long since defunct.
We now buy in US made Trident missiles and although our government says
that we have true independent control of their launch I rather doubt it.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-nuclear-deterrence-factsheet/uk-nuclear-deterrence-what-you-need-to-know

Horrible business cos it was done in secrecy and with much deceit.

The promised thorough clean ups never happened.

Promised cleanups never do. The decay rate of fallout is 1/10 for every
7x fold increase in time elapsed so even in the 1980's Trinitite glass
was relatively safe to handle. It made Geiger counters click though.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Phil Allison]

Piotr Wyderski wrote:

----------------------

Most likely South America, large portion of Africa, Mexico etc. will
survive relatively unharmed. Nothing interesting to nuke there.

** So radioactive fall out is not a problem ?

Goes world wide in a few weeks.

This is a very fortunate reality. There has been no major war in Europe
for over 70 years, unbelievable.

** Irrelevant too.


...... Phil

 

[Martin Brown]

On 06/11/2019 11:45, Phil Allison wrote:

Piotr Wyderski wrote:

----------------------


Most likely South America, large portion of Africa, Mexico etc. will
survive relatively unharmed. Nothing interesting to nuke there.


** So radioactive fall out is not a problem ?

Goes world wide in a few weeks.

It is but its radioactivity falls off by a factor of 10 for every 7 fold
increase in time from 1 hour after the detonation. Within a fortnight it
is 0.1% of what it was immediately after the blast. There are a lot of
short lived isotopes in the fallout plume and also some rare earth
isotopes that are metastable but not observed naturally.

http://www.falloutradiation.com/johnwayne7

All bets are off if there are a lot of ground bursts but they make the
most mess in their neighbourhood and downwind. Military prefer airbursts
for this reason and the much larger damage profile it produces.

I would actually be more worried about the effects of firestorm smoke on
the overall temperature of the planet in the longer term assuming that I
could survive the first couple of weeks. Some of the Silicon valley
hyper rich have been buying up bunkers with high end luxury properties
in New Zealand in anticipation of the risk you are worried about.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/feb/15/why-silicon-valley-billionaires-are-prepping-for-the-apocalypse-in-new-zealand

This is a very fortunate reality. There has been no major war in Europe
for over 70 years, unbelievable.

** Irrelevant too.

Of the WMD worth worrying about for terrorist use designer biological
and chemical weapons are a significantly greater threat than nuclear.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Phil Allison]

Chris Jones wrote:

------------------

Also, there isn't much that can be done about it, at least at a personal
level, whereas influencing CO2 output is quite feasible, though
sometimes inconvenient. There is usually more to be gained by worrying
about the things that one can fix or mitigate.

** So you would organise a new arrangement of deck chairs on a fast sinking liner with 5000 pax cos it was something to do?

I do also worry about
nuclear weapons but I don't think I gain much by doing so.

** Of course - but that is not the issue.

AGW fanatics try to convince that their hypothesis IS the big one.

Yet they will not even the consider a move to wide use of atomic energy - which is the obvious way to end use of fossil fuels.

What they actually want is all development in all countries to cease and in fact go backwards.

AGW is just a convenient means to that end.



...... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

blo...@columbus.rr.com wrote:

-------------------------------
Phil Allison wrote:

** The scary thing that I worry about now and then does not take decades to happen, has no doubts associated with it whatsoever and is far worse than AGW.

A nuclear exchange could happen any time and would likely devastate much of the planet, in a matter of hours, leaving it useless for hundreds or many thousands of years.

There are several thousand ICBMs, submarine launched missiles and cruise missiles fitted with nuclear warheads just waiting to be used. The latter are expected to become " doom's day " weapons".

Mostly the warheads are fusion bombs, massively bigger than the Hiroshima fission bomb.

A great many countries have them now: the USA, UK, France, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel. May soon be more.

Then there are home made versions, using low grade nuclear material and high explosives - so called "dirty bombs".

Terrorists used Boeing jets full of passengers as suicide cruise missiles not long ago in the USA. They would not hesitate to use a dirty bomb or illegally obtained nuke - either without warning as revenge or in some elaborate hostage scheme that achieved their ends.

Don't see any international panic about that going on.

How odd ??

Must be another motive for wanting mining and the use of all fossil fuel to stop.

Wonder what that could be ??

Hmmmmm ........

Strange that little Greta is not beside herself about it too.


..... Phil

------------------------------

You will only see international panic about topics that can
conveniently advance leftism.
The nuclear football does not currently meet that need (as it
did 30 years ago). Not to worry, it is sitting on the back
burner and will become the hot topic again when maximum leftist
leverage can be realized from it.

** Crikey - someone actually read my initial post.

AGW is a hypothetical worry at present, there is every reason to think that we humans can mitigate or fix the problem if and as it slowly arises.

However, a nuke detonated in a major city, killing millions, by persons unknown could lead to disaster. What do residents of other cities do in response ?

Stay put or leave avoid the same happening to them.

9/11 involved four co-ordinated attacks, 3 of which succeeded.

A future terrorist attack would likely involve several cites with nukes or dirty bombs - one at a time, randomly to provoke mass evacuations.

A single stolen cruise missile with nuke warhead could be used to blackmail any particular city in a radius of thousands of miles.

A garage built one could do the same with less range with a dirty bomb on board.

The needed tech is all on hand using GPS and small, powerful engines.

The recent attack on the Saudi oil refinery by 20 or so drones is proof of concept.



..... Phil

 

[Winfield Hill]

whit3rd wrote...

On Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 11:32:24 PM UTC-8, Phil Allison wrote:

** The scary thing that I worry about now and then ...

A nuclear exchange could happen any time...
Don't see any international panic about that going on.

What rock have you been living under? The prediction of human
control of climate STARTED with recognition of the 'nuclear winter'
scenario. International arms limitation agreements, and rollback
of nuclear arsenals, took place back in the 1980s.

The "rollback" has stalled, or been rolled back. We now
have multiple "crazy" heads of state, with "big" buttons.


--
Thanks,
- Win