Miscellaneous News
- Thread starter bd popeye
- Start date
No. While disgusting, Jaime Lannister's relationship with his sister was consensual.
According to an investigative report written in the Scientific American by Sebastian Philippe: Nuclear attack on American silos would result in 300 MILLION DEATH, affecting its neighboring country up north, Canada and the provinces of Ontario.
Here is the report from the magazine:
Last March the U.S. Air Force released a two-volume, 3,000-plus-page report detailing the environmental impact of its plans to replace all 400 “Minuteman” land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) with new “Sentinel” missiles by the mid-2030s. The program is part of a $1.5-trillion effort to modernize the U.S. nuclear arsenal and its command-and-control infrastructure. The report, required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970, covers the “potential effects on the human and natural environments from deployment of the Sentinel system” and from, among other things, the refurbishing of existing missile silos and the construction of new utility corridors and communications towers. But it doesn't mention the most significant risks to surrounding communities—namely, what happens if these missiles, which are intended to serve as targets for enemy nuclear weapons, are ever attacked.
The original purpose of the land-based missile system was to deter an enemy nuclear attack by threatening prompt and devastating retaliation, but a key argument for the continued existence—and now the replenishment—of the land-based missiles is to provide a large number of fixed targets meant to exhaust the enemy's resources. Since 1962, when the first ICBMs were installed in the U.S. heartland, competition from other legs of the nuclear triad has forced the rationale for land-based weapons to evolve. By the 1970s, when the U.S. Navy deployed long-range submarine-launched ballistic missiles, the air force had placed 1,000 Minutemen in silos across seven states. As missile-guidance systems improved, it soon became clear that the land-based weapons were vulnerable to attack because of their fixed locations, whereas the stealthy sea-based weapons were much better protected.
The air force used the vulnerability of the land-based missiles to argue for their necessity. In 1978 General Lew Allen, Jr., then air force chief of staff, proposed that the silos offered “” of targets in the U.S. to “absorb” incoming Soviet nuclear weapons. Destroying the missile fields would require such a massive attack that adversaries couldn't manage it or even contemplate it. Absent the land-based missiles, the argument goes, an adversary would have available to seek out and attack other U.S. military and infrastructure targets or even cities.
Even if an adversary is rational enough to not initiate a full-scale attack, the land-based missiles greatly increase the risk of accidental nuclear war. To preclude the possibility of enemy weapons destroying the missiles in their silos, the air force maintains the fleet on high alert, ready to launch on an order from the president— of enemy missile launches being detected. This “launch on warning” posture makes land-based missiles the most destabilizing leg of the U.S. nuclear triad (which also comprises the missiles based on aerial bombers and submarines). During the cold war there were about enemy attacks. If a similar error precipitates the launching of the ICBMs, the adversary will almost certainly retaliate by launching its own nuclear arsenal at military, industrial and demographic targets in the U.S.
Attacking a missile silo requires detonating one or two nuclear warheads, with explosive yields equivalent to 100,000 tons of TNT, close to the buried target. The resulting nuclear explosions will generate gargantuan fireballs that will vaporize everything in their surroundings and produce destructive shock waves capable of wrecking the missiles in their launch tubes. Because the warheads will detonate close to the ground, the nuclear fireballs will suck in soil and other debris and mix it with radioactive bomb effluents as they rise in the air. About 10 minutes after detonation, the mixture of debris and fission products will form miles-high radioactive mushroom clouds, which will then be dispersed by high-altitude winds, leading to fallout on downwind areas.
A nuclear missile is buried under the white concrete silo door to the left in this picture. The entrance to the silo, which lies just west of Garrison, N.D., is monitored constantly by cameras and other sensors. Credit: Nina Berman
Studies of the projected fallout from a nuclear attack on the missile fields, published in Scientific American in and , showed that radioactive particles could travel hundreds of miles downwind. A 1990 guide from the Federal Emergency Management Agency on risks and hazards from natural and nuclear calamities confirmed these assessments, adding that no locality in the U.S. was free of the risk of receiving deadly levels of radiation. Today FEMA's publications about the effects of nuclear explosions focus on single nuclear detonations; the agency no longer publishes countrywide assessments of risks from nuclear attacks.
All these past studies relied on relatively simple fallout models and average seasonal winds. Current computational capability, along with higher resolutions in archived weather data, allows scientists to map the radiological risk from a preemptive nuclear attack on the missile silos in unprecedented detail. The results of my simulations, presented here for the first time, paint a harrowing picture of the potential consequences of living with these weapons for the foreseeable future.
According to my models, a concerted nuclear attack on the existing U.S. silo fields—in Colorado, Wyoming, Nebraska, Montana and North Dakota—would annihilate all life in the surrounding regions and contaminate fertile agricultural land for years. Minnesota, Iowa and Kansas would also probably face high levels of radioactive fallout. Acute radiation exposure alone would cause several million fatalities across the U.S.—if people get advance warning and can shelter in place for at least four days. Without appropriate shelter, that number could be twice as high. Because of great variability in wind directions, the entire population of the contiguous U.S. and the most populated areas of Canada, as well as the northern states of Mexico, would be at risk of lethal fallout—more than 300 million people in total. The inhabitants of the U.S. Midwest and of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario in Canada could receive outdoor whole-body doses of radiation several times higher than the minimum known to result in certain death.
Even if there is no nuclear war, people in communities near the missile fields will continue to face serious risks that are also not discussed in the environmental impact statement. One is the accidental release of radioactive materials, such as plutonium, in the warheads by a mechanical shock, fire or explosion. A second is the leading to a nuclear explosion. The history of the U.S. nuclear missile program provides several examples of or missiles and of missiles in their launch tubes. One time, in 1964, a warhead fell from the top of its missile to the bottom of its 80-foot-deep silo. are not always discussed publicly. The air force hasn't disclosed, for example, the nature of a 2014 “mishap” that occurred while personnel were troubleshooting a Minuteman. The episode caused to the missile, which had to be removed from its silo.
The air force needs to be far more transparent about the true risks of its land-based nuclear missile fleet so the U.S. public can make informed decisions about living with this danger for another half a century.
Continued...
Here is the report from the magazine:
Who Would Take the Brunt of an Attack on U.S. Nuclear Missile Silos?
These fallout maps show the toll of a potential nuclear attack on missile silos in the U.S. heartlandLast March the U.S. Air Force released a two-volume, 3,000-plus-page report detailing the environmental impact of its plans to replace all 400 “Minuteman” land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) with new “Sentinel” missiles by the mid-2030s. The program is part of a $1.5-trillion effort to modernize the U.S. nuclear arsenal and its command-and-control infrastructure. The report, required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970, covers the “potential effects on the human and natural environments from deployment of the Sentinel system” and from, among other things, the refurbishing of existing missile silos and the construction of new utility corridors and communications towers. But it doesn't mention the most significant risks to surrounding communities—namely, what happens if these missiles, which are intended to serve as targets for enemy nuclear weapons, are ever attacked.
The original purpose of the land-based missile system was to deter an enemy nuclear attack by threatening prompt and devastating retaliation, but a key argument for the continued existence—and now the replenishment—of the land-based missiles is to provide a large number of fixed targets meant to exhaust the enemy's resources. Since 1962, when the first ICBMs were installed in the U.S. heartland, competition from other legs of the nuclear triad has forced the rationale for land-based weapons to evolve. By the 1970s, when the U.S. Navy deployed long-range submarine-launched ballistic missiles, the air force had placed 1,000 Minutemen in silos across seven states. As missile-guidance systems improved, it soon became clear that the land-based weapons were vulnerable to attack because of their fixed locations, whereas the stealthy sea-based weapons were much better protected.
The air force used the vulnerability of the land-based missiles to argue for their necessity. In 1978 General Lew Allen, Jr., then air force chief of staff, proposed that the silos offered “” of targets in the U.S. to “absorb” incoming Soviet nuclear weapons. Destroying the missile fields would require such a massive attack that adversaries couldn't manage it or even contemplate it. Absent the land-based missiles, the argument goes, an adversary would have available to seek out and attack other U.S. military and infrastructure targets or even cities.
Even if an adversary is rational enough to not initiate a full-scale attack, the land-based missiles greatly increase the risk of accidental nuclear war. To preclude the possibility of enemy weapons destroying the missiles in their silos, the air force maintains the fleet on high alert, ready to launch on an order from the president— of enemy missile launches being detected. This “launch on warning” posture makes land-based missiles the most destabilizing leg of the U.S. nuclear triad (which also comprises the missiles based on aerial bombers and submarines). During the cold war there were about enemy attacks. If a similar error precipitates the launching of the ICBMs, the adversary will almost certainly retaliate by launching its own nuclear arsenal at military, industrial and demographic targets in the U.S.
Attacking a missile silo requires detonating one or two nuclear warheads, with explosive yields equivalent to 100,000 tons of TNT, close to the buried target. The resulting nuclear explosions will generate gargantuan fireballs that will vaporize everything in their surroundings and produce destructive shock waves capable of wrecking the missiles in their launch tubes. Because the warheads will detonate close to the ground, the nuclear fireballs will suck in soil and other debris and mix it with radioactive bomb effluents as they rise in the air. About 10 minutes after detonation, the mixture of debris and fission products will form miles-high radioactive mushroom clouds, which will then be dispersed by high-altitude winds, leading to fallout on downwind areas.
Studies of the projected fallout from a nuclear attack on the missile fields, published in Scientific American in and , showed that radioactive particles could travel hundreds of miles downwind. A 1990 guide from the Federal Emergency Management Agency on risks and hazards from natural and nuclear calamities confirmed these assessments, adding that no locality in the U.S. was free of the risk of receiving deadly levels of radiation. Today FEMA's publications about the effects of nuclear explosions focus on single nuclear detonations; the agency no longer publishes countrywide assessments of risks from nuclear attacks.
All these past studies relied on relatively simple fallout models and average seasonal winds. Current computational capability, along with higher resolutions in archived weather data, allows scientists to map the radiological risk from a preemptive nuclear attack on the missile silos in unprecedented detail. The results of my simulations, presented here for the first time, paint a harrowing picture of the potential consequences of living with these weapons for the foreseeable future.
According to my models, a concerted nuclear attack on the existing U.S. silo fields—in Colorado, Wyoming, Nebraska, Montana and North Dakota—would annihilate all life in the surrounding regions and contaminate fertile agricultural land for years. Minnesota, Iowa and Kansas would also probably face high levels of radioactive fallout. Acute radiation exposure alone would cause several million fatalities across the U.S.—if people get advance warning and can shelter in place for at least four days. Without appropriate shelter, that number could be twice as high. Because of great variability in wind directions, the entire population of the contiguous U.S. and the most populated areas of Canada, as well as the northern states of Mexico, would be at risk of lethal fallout—more than 300 million people in total. The inhabitants of the U.S. Midwest and of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario in Canada could receive outdoor whole-body doses of radiation several times higher than the minimum known to result in certain death.
Even if there is no nuclear war, people in communities near the missile fields will continue to face serious risks that are also not discussed in the environmental impact statement. One is the accidental release of radioactive materials, such as plutonium, in the warheads by a mechanical shock, fire or explosion. A second is the leading to a nuclear explosion. The history of the U.S. nuclear missile program provides several examples of or missiles and of missiles in their launch tubes. One time, in 1964, a warhead fell from the top of its missile to the bottom of its 80-foot-deep silo. are not always discussed publicly. The air force hasn't disclosed, for example, the nature of a 2014 “mishap” that occurred while personnel were troubleshooting a Minuteman. The episode caused to the missile, which had to be removed from its silo.
The air force needs to be far more transparent about the true risks of its land-based nuclear missile fleet so the U.S. public can make informed decisions about living with this danger for another half a century.
Part 2.
Credit: Sébastien Philippe, Svitlana Lavrenchuk and Ivan Stepanov
Fatality Count: For a simulated attack on any day of 2021, the scientists computed the resulting fatalities. The chart shows the impact of variable wind directions on the estimated fatalities after four days of exposure. The estimates range from 340,000 (for an attack on July 1) to 4.6 million (on December 2). The average estimated death toll is 1.4 million. The curve shows the probability (technically, probability density) of the number of fatalities specified on the vertical axis.
Credit: Sébastien Philippe, Svitlana Lavrenchuk and Ivan Stepanov
Credit: Sébastien Philippe, Svitlana Lavrenchuk and Ivan Stepanov
Credit: Sébastien Philippe, Svitlana Lavrenchuk and Ivan Stepanov
is a scientist at Princeton University's Program on Science and Global Security. He develops methods for monitoring nuclear weapons and models the impact of nuclear explosions.
HOW FALLOUT AND FATALITIES SHIFT WITH THE WINDS
A concerted nuclear attack on the missile silos in the U.S. heartland would generate radioactive dust that travels with prevailing winds. Sébastien Philippe and his colleagues at Princeton University’s Program on Science and Global Security used archived weather data to simulate the paths of the resulting plumes for 48 hours, by when most of the dust settles. Because wind directions change daily, the researchers computed fallout dispersal from an 800-kiloton warhead detonating simultaneously at each of 450 silos on any given day of 2021. The selections below (A–I) demonstrate the variability of wind directions and, consequently, of the doses of outdoor radiation received over four days of exposure to radioactivity. The scientists further combined these simulations with data on population density and building height to calculate the resulting fatalities. Someone absorbing four grays (equivalent to four joules of radiation energy per kilogram of body weight) would have a 50 percent chance of dying, but people sheltering in bigger buildings would receive smaller doses. Depending on wind directions, a nuclear attack on the missile silos could kill several million people.
Credit: Sébastien Philippe, Svitlana Lavrenchuk and Ivan Stepanov
Fatality Count: For a simulated attack on any day of 2021, the scientists computed the resulting fatalities. The chart shows the impact of variable wind directions on the estimated fatalities after four days of exposure. The estimates range from 340,000 (for an attack on July 1) to 4.6 million (on December 2). The average estimated death toll is 1.4 million. The curve shows the probability (technically, probability density) of the number of fatalities specified on the vertical axis.
Credit: Sébastien Philippe, Svitlana Lavrenchuk and Ivan Stepanov
WHICH LOCATIONS ARE THE RISKIEST?
To calculate the average risk of radiation exposure at any given location in North America from a nuclear attack on the silo fields, Philippe and his co-workers summed the simulated outcomes for any day of 2021 (preceding graphic) and divided by 365. They thereby averaged the impact of shifting winds on radioactive fallout across the continent. This map shows the average outdoor radiation dose across North America after four days of exposure. Communities living closest to the silos could receive several times more than 8 Gy, which scientists regard as lethal. Most inhabitants of Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska and Minnesota would get average doses greater than 1 Gy, causing fatalities from acute radiation syndrome, especially among children. The U.S. population would receive average doses greater than 0.001 Gy per year, which is the current annual limit for exposure to the public.
Credit: Sébastien Philippe, Svitlana Lavrenchuk and Ivan Stepanov
THE WORST-CASE SCENARIOS
Sifting through simulations for each day of 2021, the Princeton researchers computed the worst possible outcome at each location from a concerted nuclear attack on the missile silos. This map shows all the worst-case scenarios across North America. Not all locations would experience the worst outcome from the same attack; which areas would be impacted depends on wind patterns on the day of the attack. Overall, most people in North America live in areas with about a 1 percent chance of receiving an outdoor dose greater than 1 Gy. The chance of getting a lethal dose escalates closer to the silos, with three million at risk of receiving 8 Gy or more. These simulations make no assumptions about access to health care or emergency services. Nor do they include other sources of exposure such as immediate radiation from nuclear explosions.
Credit: Sébastien Philippe, Svitlana Lavrenchuk and Ivan Stepanov
is a scientist at Princeton University's Program on Science and Global Security. He develops methods for monitoring nuclear weapons and models the impact of nuclear explosions.
He's one of the richest people in the world. There is no question that he would value his own privilege to speak his thoughts very highly. It's called "fuck you" money. Some people never feel they have enough, no matter how much they have. So even when they have "fuck you" money, they still keep their heads down. He clearly thinks he has more than enough and doesn't care about getting more.
Found this interesting X post: China 2025, the Taiwan war scenario. Americans have been talking, planning about this since 1994, perhaps due to the Taiwan Crisis that occurred under Clinton's presidency (1st term). It's interesting to note and notice with respect to the date or rather the year they selected: 2025. Which is the same year they have been telling the world that China will make it's move against Taiwan since last year by people from within the Pentagon/War Dept. and from the usual chicken-hawk politicians that are angling for untold misery and suffering for both the Chinese people in Taiwan and mainland China.
and here's the talk in full:
and here's the talk in full:
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
Promising a better economic relationship is an oxymoron. The US has stopped other countries' further access to the US market even to its closest allies. Any kind of pact that the US is pushing for now is about controlling other countries' economies to serve US interests in guise of economic opportunities for allies. No access to the US but notice how the US is now budding in on economic disputes that have nothing to do with them? Look at Japan whining that China isn't buying their radioactive seafood? The US needs to be involved in that? That's because that's the deal behind the scenes the US made to keep its allies happy in exchange for taking a stronger stance against China, the primary customer for most of the US's allies in Asia. The US is not showing them the money so the US has to manipulate China to pay for the US/Japan alliance. From Ukraine to Israel to Iran, the mighty West needs their enemy, China, to help them deal with those problems because they're impotent to do it on their own.
It's over for the West. They're on their descent from their height in history. This isn't a taunt. It's fact. At their height, they could dictate terms to everyone else because there was no real competition for them especially economically. Most people still believe in the propaganda that the West thinks about what's best for everyone not just itself. People think when Western companies outsource they're being altruistic giving jobs to poor people around the world. No they're looking to exploit less restrictive laws that would be illegal if they practiced it in their own countries. It's a joke to believe they paid a fair price or even at all for all the strategic resources they need to run their first world economies. There's a reason they're the biggest invaders of others in history and it's because they didn't have most of these resources at home. You never heard of the alarm over supply chain problems being an issue for the West until now. It's because they have to pay for it at fair market value unlike before. The world makes more money with China around.
Europe didn't develop resource-rich Africa even to this modern day in spite of the so-called enlightened human rights caring Westerner. Why? Because they thought Africans wouldn't amount to anything on their own so they could hold out until African countries come begging to them and then they could dictate terms. Why do I know this is the case? Because as soon as China entered the scene 20 years ago when there was no competition for the West, an alarmed Europe talked about how China was "invading their backyard" meaning Africa was their possession and not seen as a bunch of individual sovereign countries. If it were theirs, why don't they just take it? Because they would be seen as the human rights violating imperialist monster they're trying to move away from. And the reason why they're stuck between a rock and a hard place is because they're not the only ones with nukes and they have a lot more to lose when they think they're richer and better than everyone else.
The West is stuck in their own propaganda rhetoric. They criticized China's approach to Africa as just being business as opposed to the humanity loving West giving aid arguing theirs was better because they didn't expect anything monetarily in return. China in exchange for resources it needed in countries that couldn't afford it built roads, hospitals, schools, and the power plants they needed to run them. Those things last beyond just the one-time usage aid the West gave which at anytime could be denied and thus turned into leverage if people didn't comply to the West's demands. The West taking a picture of themselves handing over a bowl of porridge to a starving child doesn't spur on economic activity,
The West also accused China of distorting commodity markets where countries in Europe could not compete against China in buying the world's resources that were offered. They were complaining because China drove up commodity prices. They were complaining that the world was making more money for themselves because that's what happens when there's competition for their resources. So who's the one thinking about only themselves and no one else and opposed to what's best for all?
The only way the West can get back to their height is through war. Is that such a sure thing for them? The US terrorizes the world with threatening their invincible military power so why haven't they done it? The US can't take casualties. Why do you think the US is all about arming others to fight their wars for them? It's because they know they can't take casualties. Even warmongering Donald Trump didn't want that on him with North Korea. Do you see US troops fighting along with Ukrainian troops? Nope. The US brags about how many more nukes they have than China but it only takes one nuke detonation in the US to have Americans traumatized hence why they won't join Ukraine because of fear of nukes launching. They already think China is winning and owns them... Then why would China go to war?
The only thing the West has left other than going to war which will only speed up their downfall is accepting decline.
Last edited:
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
Is Disney all that great anymore I mean a decade ago, they are big but since they basically ruined Star Wars and marvel as well as all those other classics with their remakes, It’s difficult for me to see this as a bad thing