What wories me

[Piotr Wyderski]

Phil Allison wrote:

** So radioactive fall out is not a problem ?

Goes world wide in a few weeks.

Do you see the difference betwen a severe problem an a guaranteed mass
extinction? Extreme increase of cancers? Sure. Very shortened average
life expectancy? Perhaps. Extreme hunger? Likely. Extinction? No, not
really.

A number of Hiroshima citizens have had survived the nuclear strike in
spite of being there for a long time afterwards. So why should, say, the
inhabitants of distant Bolivia suffer imminent death? Even the majority
of the infrastructure will remain intact, as it is wery well distributed
all around the world. So are libraries, that is, knowledge.

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

** Irrelevant too.

Extremely relevant: there has been no war for precisely that reason. An
attack on a NATO member (or of the Warsaw pact, if you prefer) would
result in a massive retaliation, including deployment of nuclear
warfare. Better not to start a fight if you can't win. The logic behind MAD.

 

[bitrex]

On 11/6/19 2:32 AM, 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

Phil is spot on with this one, it is extremely scary and anyone who
thinks the danger somehow went away with the end of the Cold War is a fool.

One of the problems with direct anti-nuclear-weapons activism and
protest is that it's a far more dangerous business and more hazardous to
your health than climate change activism.

There are definitely left-wing groups and Christian religious groups
that engage in protests against nuclear weapons but the US government
does a very effective job at terrorizing any voices that get too loud or
out of line about it into silence.

You accidentally step one inch onto a US military base during a protest
against nuclear weapons you're going to get hauled before a judge who
will throw the book at you and the legal system will tear your life
apart real good.

The American Right sometimes has a grudging acceptance of
save-the-Earth-and-recycle activism but there's no better way to get
branded an all-out TRAITOR by everyone on the Right and plenty of people
on the Left here then talking bad about the military and what they do
with their time.

 

[Clive Arthur]

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.

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

The UK only has US supplied Trident missiles in four subs.

Cheers
--
Clive

 

[legg]

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

Yeah, well, if you've got a pair of clowns hovering over
the buttons . . . .

RL

 

[bitrex]

On 11/6/19 5:17 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:

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.

Problem with mutual assured destruction is there's no evidence it's
"worked well" at all or will continue to do so for any time interval you
care to speak of. It could stop working tomorrow for all anyone knows.
Maybe we've just gotten lucky so far. We definitely have on several
known-to-the-public occasions and there are probably many more the
public is unaware of.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Soviet_nuclear_false_alarm_incident>

Unlike the climate the interaction of human psychology and nuclear
weapons can't be effectively modeled it's the definition of unpredictable.

 

[bitrex]

On 11/6/19 6:42 AM, Phil Allison wrote:

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

Even little girls whose voices get too loud about what the US military
does with its time and money maybe tend to find themselves "made obsolete."

Gretas aren't afraid of US right-wingers making fun of her and calling
her names on the Internet they are in the main huge pussies.

The CIA and DOD is another story. People who make a nuisance of
themselves over the nuclear weapons situation in whatever country
they're protesting that's building them sometimes get fucked up:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warrior>

 

[whit3rd]

On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 5:12:12 AM UTC-8, Phil Allison wrote:

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

Irrelevant, since normal concerned adults know the hypothesis
to be compatible with the facts, and convincing, and NOT
under control (unlike nuclear munitions).

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.

Irrational plan, that; not as important as preserving our fields, flocks,
fisheries, and climate. So, ignore those loons, and find a way to stop
greenhouse acceleration instead of stopping 'all development'.

Sadly, I'm thinking the poster isn't going to hear this, he lives under a rock.

 

[whit3rd]

On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 7:39:42 AM UTC-8, bitrex wrote:

You accidentally step one inch onto a US military base during a protest
against nuclear weapons you're going to get hauled before a judge who
will throw the book at you and the legal system will tear your life
apart real good.

That's not an irrational response, though; deniable probes into defense around
armed bases are a possible enemy assault preparation. A century
ago, terrorism was Pancho Villa trying to get into a US arsenal...
he didn't succeed, and we're all glad of that.

The next one won't succeed, either.

 

[bitrex]

On 11/6/19 3:30 PM, John Larkin wrote:

On Wed, 6 Nov 2019 10:39:34 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 11/6/19 2:32 AM, 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


Phil is spot on with this one, it is extremely scary and anyone who
thinks the danger somehow went away with the end of the Cold War is a fool.

One of the problems with direct anti-nuclear-weapons activism and
protest is that it's a far more dangerous business and more hazardous to
your health than climate change activism.

There are definitely left-wing groups and Christian religious groups
that engage in protests against nuclear weapons but the US government
does a very effective job at terrorizing any voices that get too loud or
out of line about it into silence.


Terrorizing? How?

You accidentally step one inch onto a US military base during a protest
against nuclear weapons you're going to get hauled before a judge who
will throw the book at you and the legal system will tear your life
apart real good.

That's reasonable, if you climb a fence or try to get past a guard.
Try barging into Apple or Google headquarters. If you do damage, or
assault someone, the charges will be worse than trespassing.



The American Right sometimes has a grudging acceptance of
save-the-Earth-and-recycle activism but there's no better way to get
branded an all-out TRAITOR by everyone on the Right and plenty of people
on the Left here then talking bad about the military and what they do
with their time.

Don't make up things and get hysterical again.

There's definitely a "deep state" of a sort I just think it's maybe a
bit different than you imagine it.

The FBI, CIA, and DOD have their own ideas about who runs America.

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 6 Nov 2019 10:39:34 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 11/6/19 2:32 AM, 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


Phil is spot on with this one, it is extremely scary and anyone who
thinks the danger somehow went away with the end of the Cold War is a fool.

One of the problems with direct anti-nuclear-weapons activism and
protest is that it's a far more dangerous business and more hazardous to
your health than climate change activism.

There are definitely left-wing groups and Christian religious groups
that engage in protests against nuclear weapons but the US government
does a very effective job at terrorizing any voices that get too loud or
out of line about it into silence.

Terrorizing? How?

You accidentally step one inch onto a US military base during a protest
against nuclear weapons you're going to get hauled before a judge who
will throw the book at you and the legal system will tear your life
apart real good.

That's reasonable, if you climb a fence or try to get past a guard.
Try barging into Apple or Google headquarters. If you do damage, or
assault someone, the charges will be worse than trespassing.

The American Right sometimes has a grudging acceptance of
save-the-Earth-and-recycle activism but there's no better way to get
branded an all-out TRAITOR by everyone on the Right and plenty of people
on the Left here then talking bad about the military and what they do
with their time.

Don't make up things and get hysterical again.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

[John Larkin]

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.

The most probably nuke war would be between Israel and Iran, or
between India and Pakistan. Either would be "limited" and not pollute
the entire planet much.

I know some guys who test nukes, and they say that the US has so many
safeguards on our weapons, they are surprised that they could go off
at all. I hope the ruskies and the chinese gadgets are similar.

When dynamite and the machine gun were invented, people thought that
they would make war so horrible that nobody would want to go to war.
Wrong. But it looks like nukes did that.

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 ??

The WTC attack was awful, but limited. A dirty weapon, a chemical
explosive scattering of radioactive stuff, would be similarly awful
but local.

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.

Time for her to go back to class. Her parents are probably rich enough
by now.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

On Wednesday, 6 November 2019 16:12:34 UTC, bitrex wrote:

Unlike the climate the interaction of human psychology and nuclear
weapons can't be effectively modeled it's the definition of unpredictable.

Also unpredictable is the technology used to deliver them. There have
been messy accidents, for example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1966_Palomares_B-52_crash

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Thule_Air_Base_B-52_crash

John

 

[bitrex]

On 11/6/19 2:58 PM, jrwalliker@gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, 6 November 2019 16:12:34 UTC, bitrex wrote:

Unlike the climate the interaction of human psychology and nuclear
weapons can't be effectively modeled it's the definition of unpredictable.

Also unpredictable is the technology used to deliver them. There have
been messy accidents, for example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1966_Palomares_B-52_crash

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Thule_Air_Base_B-52_crash

John

You might take some small comfort in that nobody really knows for sure
what happens when you fire live missiles over the North Pole it's never
been tested for obvious reasons. Maybe they all fuck up and go haywire
from the magnetic fields.

It seems extremely likely but within the realm of possibility I guess.

 

[bitrex]

On 11/6/19 3:36 PM, bitrex wrote:

On 11/6/19 2:58 PM, jrwalliker@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 November 2019 16:12:34 UTC, bitrex  wrote:

Unlike the climate the interaction of human psychology and nuclear
weapons can't be effectively modeled it's the definition of
unpredictable.

Also unpredictable is the technology used to deliver them.  There have
been messy accidents, for example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1966_Palomares_B-52_crash

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Thule_Air_Base_B-52_crash

John


You might take some small comfort in that nobody really knows for sure
what happens when you fire live missiles over the North Pole it's never
been tested for obvious reasons. Maybe they all fuck up and go haywire
from the magnetic fields.

It seems extremely likely but within the realm of possibility I guess.

Unlikely, rather

 

[bitrex]

On 11/6/19 2:21 PM, whit3rd wrote:

On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 7:39:42 AM UTC-8, bitrex wrote:

You accidentally step one inch onto a US military base during a protest
against nuclear weapons you're going to get hauled before a judge who
will throw the book at you and the legal system will tear your life
apart real good.

That's not an irrational response, though; deniable probes into defense around
armed bases are a possible enemy assault preparation. A century
ago, terrorism was Pancho Villa trying to get into a US arsenal...
he didn't succeed, and we're all glad of that.

The next one won't succeed, either.

Government already knows all about the people in those e.g. Christian
pacifist groups like the Quakers and some 80 y/o nuns who protest
nuclear arms in boots-on-the-ground way regularly, they know they're not
working for fuckin' ISIS or anyone just fine they've got their data.

 

[bitrex]

On 11/6/19 2:32 AM, 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

<https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/04/24/why-is-there-so-little-popular-protest-against-todays-threats-of-nuclear-war/>

 

[Clifford Heath]

On 7/11/19 7:24 am, John Larkin wrote:

I know some guys who test nukes, and they say that the US has so many
safeguards on our weapons, they are surprised that they could go off
at all. I hope the ruskies and the chinese gadgets are similar.

I've been reading about the massive safeguards and backups used by NASA
for Apollo, and comparing them with the incredibly dangerous, untested,
slipshod way the USSR space program was done, and it seems extremely
unlikely that the Russia weapons have safeguards anything like the US ones.

When dynamite and the machine gun were invented, people thought that
they would make war so horrible that nobody would want to go to war.
Wrong. But it looks like nukes did that.

The US doesn't need to *go* to war any more. They "send the war" using
robotic drones, while the front line sit safe in adjacent countries, and
the drone pilots sit at home in Mom's house in Iowa in front of a game
console. And the rest of the world is not far behind, including Iran.

Clifford Heath.

 

[bitrex]

On 11/6/19 6:21 PM, bitrex wrote:

On 11/6/19 5:06 PM, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 7/11/19 7:24 am, John Larkin wrote:
I know some guys who test nukes, and they say that the US has so many
safeguards on our weapons, they are surprised that they could go off
at all. I hope the ruskies and the chinese gadgets are similar.

I've been reading about the massive safeguards and backups used by
NASA for Apollo, and comparing them with the incredibly dangerous,
untested, slipshod way the USSR space program was done, and it seems
extremely unlikely that the Russia weapons have safeguards anything
like the US ones.

All nuclear security of everybody was bad by modern standards well into
the 1970s.

I don't think the USSR space program was nearly as "slipshod" as you
think it is, the Soyuz rocket family is the most reliable space launch
system ever designed. They had their engineering disasters and triumphs
same as the US did. Their Moon shot program was a disaster because it
was indeed slipshod and rushed.

Their variant of the Space Shuttle though was arguably a more robust and
pragmatic design than the US design which was fiendishly complex
(overcomplicated) and killed 14 astronauts. They tested it out in
atrocious weather NASA wouldn't think of launching it not because they
were slipshod but that's how confident in the design they were. It
worked fine first time /shrug

They did have a 10-15 year advance in tech to leverage to build it but
it wasn't a copy of the US design by any means - a silly 1960s-era
design to copy!

 

[bitrex]

On 11/6/19 5:06 PM, Clifford Heath wrote:

On 7/11/19 7:24 am, John Larkin wrote:
I know some guys who test nukes, and they say that the US has so many
safeguards on our weapons, they are surprised that they could go off
at all. I hope the ruskies and the chinese gadgets are similar.

I've been reading about the massive safeguards and backups used by NASA
for Apollo, and comparing them with the incredibly dangerous, untested,
slipshod way the USSR space program was done, and it seems extremely
unlikely that the Russia weapons have safeguards anything like the US ones.

All nuclear security of everybody was bad by modern standards well into
the 1970s.

I don't think the USSR space program was nearly as "slipshod" as you
think it is, the Soyuz rocket family is the most reliable space launch
system ever designed. They had their engineering disasters and triumphs
same as the US did. Their Moon shot program was a disaster because it
was indeed slipshod and rushed.

Their variant of the Space Shuttle though was arguably a more robust and
pragmatic design than the US design which was fiendishly complex
(overcomplicated) and killed 14 astronauts. They tested it out in
atrocious weather NASA wouldn't think of launching it not because they
were slipshod but that's how confident in the design they were. It
worked fine first time /shrug

When dynamite and the machine gun were invented, people thought that
they would make war so horrible that nobody would want to go to war.
Wrong. But it looks like nukes did that.

The US doesn't need to *go* to war any more. They "send the war" using
robotic drones, while the front line sit safe in adjacent countries, and
the drone pilots sit at home in Mom's house in Iowa in front of a game
console. And the rest of the world is not far behind, including Iran.

Clifford Heath.

 

[Phil Allison]

bitrex wrote:

-=-----------

Phil Allison wrote:

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


..... Phil


https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/04/24/why-is-there-so-little-popular-protest-against-todays-threats-of-nuclear-war/

** The above link makes some good points.

4000 nukes complete with active delivery systems and materials to make many times more on hand quickly is NOT scary ?

Any nuclear exchange is likely to escalate rapidly, if North Korea hits a US target retaliation will be swift. Likely from US subs or carrier fleet with cruise missiles.

Then it will be on for young and old.

China will get stuck in against the US.

Japan may be hit in retaliation by NK if the US mainland is out of range.

Be the worst thing that ever happened, by miles.

Still not scary?

Maybe little Greta would become speechless again.


...... Phil