[QUOTE=Gintoki;29744022]See man that's the scary shit about Nukes, If it had no after effect than we would all be find and dandy, but fucking radiation had to cause fucking cancer.[/QUOTE]
But the radiation caused is minor. The problem is that [I]they kill lots of people.[/I]
[QUOTE=BrainDeath;29744138]But the radiation caused is minor. The problem is that [I]they kill lots of people.[/I][/QUOTE]
Right, they level tons of ground. And with the right type, the radiation can be the worst factor, since certain large scale bombs, and some old-style dirty atomic bombs can irradiate an area heavily and turn it into a useless Chernobyl. Imagine New York in an exclusion zone. Yea.
[editline]10th May 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Badal;29743989][img_thumb]http://cryptome.org/eyeball/bmd/pict36.jpg[/img_thumb]
This has existed before you were even born.[/QUOTE]
SDI was a failed project, bub. It didn't work. It does not exist. Hence the "concept" in the poster. We don't have an equivalent to it that is fool proof. In fact, we don't really have an equivalent at all.
the blast only kills a small portion
couple/few thousand maybe
the radiation however kills slow and many
You're a bit late on this. The US, Russia and China all have active anti-ballistic-missile systems. Far from perfect, though - the US one in particular is good at detecting inbound missiles, but is crappy at doing anything about them. Russia's only covers the Moscow area, and China's is untested against actual missiles (their KT anti-satellite missiles are designed to also take out ballistic missiles, but have so far only been used against satellites).
[QUOTE=mini me;29744309]the blast only kills a small portion
couple/few thousand maybe
the radiation however kills slow and many[/QUOTE]
I'm pretty sure that if you blow up a nuclear device in the middle of, say New York, you'd have a little more than just few thousand people dead.
Lets start using swords and stuff?
Anti-ballistic missiles. For ICBMs, the US uses the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense, while Russia uses the A-135.
For smaller missiles (IRBM, SRBM; think Scud), the US uses MIM-104 Patriot PAC-3, Russia uses the S-300, S-400 and S-500. All 4 were formally SAM launchers repurposed for ABM use.
None of these guarantee a 100% nuclear missile kill rate, mainly due to there not being enough of them, but they would sure as hell mitigate a nuclear war to a very noticeable extent.
[QUOTE=mini me;29744309]the blast only kills a small portion
couple/few thousand maybe
the radiation however kills slow and many[/QUOTE]
No, a hydrogen bomb at even a few megatons would level a very large area, on top of the even large burn radius, with the blast wave going out even farther than the blast itself. The blast/shock/burn combo is what kills the most, the radiation is deadly as well, but over a longer period.
Well, the prospect of something that could speed up radioactive decay, thus causing radioactive material to release all the radiation at once and not leach it out into the environment like with fallout, would be useful for post-nuclear cleanup. But how could one accelerate radioactive decay, short of using different types of radiation? (Alpha particles could absorb beta radiation in theory, since alphas are positive and betas are negative)
[QUOTE=Hattiwatti;29744387]I'm pretty sure that if you blow up a nuclear device in the middle of, say New York, you'd have a little more than just few thousand people dead.[/QUOTE]
well depending on location of course the numbers going to be different
obviously if you do it in the country less people will die that if you did it in the city
do it in the desert nobody will give a fuck
i never gave a location i was just pointing out that after the blast irradiated food and water/the black rain and radiation related problems are the things that kill much more than the initial blast
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
