Re: Glowing
Posted: Sat Dec 12, 2015 11:23 am
Typhoon wrote:A well curied ham.
Another day in the Universe
https://www.onthenatureofthings.net/forum/
https://www.onthenatureofthings.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3579
If one is absolutely convinced that such a scenario is "imminent", then such a website is superfluous.Mr. Perfect wrote:I guess then my website is of great value.
Nuclear use against Jihadist-held territory is not completely excluded:Mr. Perfect wrote:(...)Putin raises possibility of using nuclear weapons against terrorists - but hopes they ‘will never need’ them.
Putin is not a man with a real history of empty threats. It's a part of life now.
Not clear to me what benefit there is to be gained from unreliable and inaccurate misinformation.Mr. Perfect wrote:Personal defense advice from "Colonel Sun".
"In the event of a nuclear detonation know as little about it as possible".
[Sorry, the requested page does not exist.
Please check the URL for correct spelling and capitalization.]
To each their own.
It appears that you guys here are several years behind the curve in nuclear war strategy. I'm amazed at the assumptions implicit in some of the reasoning here. Suffice it to say there are scenarios in play none of you have considered.Alexis wrote:Nuclear use against Jihadist-held territory is not completely excluded:Mr. Perfect wrote:(...)Putin raises possibility of using nuclear weapons against terrorists - but hopes they ‘will never need’ them.
Putin is not a man with a real history of empty threats. It's a part of life now.
- A moderate leader like V V Putin refuses nuclear use and "hopes" to be able to continue refusing it in the future.
- A less moderate would-be leader like Ted Cruz has stated he would use nuclear weapons against the I.S.
That being said, this is unrelated to "nuclear war" as in: both sides have nukes. Notably, ICBMs, SLMBs and MRVs are excluded... because no Jihadist, even no Muslim-majority nation has any (Pakistan's nukes are regional range)
As for the nuclear terrorism scenario, only nations are able to build nukes and nuclear theft is not really an option because devices are well guarded. So if somebody put a nuclear bomb on a freighter in a US harbor, that "somebody" would have to be Pakist... sorry would have to be a nation rather than a terrorist group. I disagree with Typhoon: the US would not invade Borneo in response.
And the predictable US reaction is precisely why this scenario is very improbable: reprisal would be extremely painful.
Do inform us about how "up to date" you are.Mr. Perfect wrote:It appears that you guys here are several years behind the curve in nuclear war strategy. I'm amazed at the assumptions implicit in some of the reasoning here. Suffice it to say there are scenarios in play none of you have considered.Alexis wrote:Nuclear use against Jihadist-held territory is not completely excluded:Mr. Perfect wrote:(...)Putin raises possibility of using nuclear weapons against terrorists - but hopes they ‘will never need’ them.
Putin is not a man with a real history of empty threats. It's a part of life now.
- A moderate leader like V V Putin refuses nuclear use and "hopes" to be able to continue refusing it in the future.
- A less moderate would-be leader like Ted Cruz has stated he would use nuclear weapons against the I.S.
That being said, this is unrelated to "nuclear war" as in: both sides have nukes. Notably, ICBMs, SLMBs and MRVs are excluded... because no Jihadist, even no Muslim-majority nation has any (Pakistan's nukes are regional range)
As for the nuclear terrorism scenario, only nations are able to build nukes and nuclear theft is not really an option because devices are well guarded. So if somebody put a nuclear bomb on a freighter in a US harbor, that "somebody" would have to be Pakist... sorry would have to be a nation rather than a terrorist group. I disagree with Typhoon: the US would not invade Borneo in response.
And the predictable US reaction is precisely why this scenario is very improbable: reprisal would be extremely painful.
Prepare to your discretion. Choose ignorance if you want, or do a little open minded research and studying as you would for any other likely event.
Keep in mind the nuclear scenario as likely is something you liberals champion, from Kerry to Buffet to baramba himself.
Netflix link does not work for those outside of the USA.Mr. Perfect wrote:I've been studying post USSR nuclear war since 2004. It used to be a liberal talking point, John Kerry ran on terrorists getting nukes way back then, it was mainstream liberal ideology. Liberals were the ones who made this movie. Note the date. I watched it when it came out.
http://www.netflix.com/title/70129456
So it is amazing you guys forgot so fast, if you ever even followed politics then, but I would suggest watching this movie first the we can lead you to other educational resources.
What is the simulation for how a bomb gets built and shipped here? I can only imagine a cargo ship delivering...From what point do your simulations start?Mr. Perfect wrote:So I can only post a small portion of what I am on these forums, suffice it so say that when obama was elected it made nuclear war inevitable. As such with my contacts we began doing simulations. Can't really do a full briefing here, but start to use tools like this to learn about your area and challenges you face. If it isn't too late.
http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/
There are some easier ones, but find one that works for you.
A vehement hatred of "liberalism" and, yet, his entire worldview is informed by liberal Hollywood entertainment. Freud would have loved to be alive today.Mr. Perfect wrote:sed to be a liberal talking point, John Kerry ran on terrorists getting nukes way back then, it was mainstream liberal ideology. Liberals were the ones who made this movie. Note the date. I watched it when it came out.
http://www.netflix.com/title/70129456
A classic.Torchwood wrote:DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE
---------------------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR CIVIL DEFENCE.
ON HEARING THE FIRST WARNING:
1. PROCEED TO THE NEAREST BUILDING.
2. STAY AWAY FROM LOOSE OBJECTS, AND DROP ALL GLASSES, BOOKS ETC. IN
YOUR HANDS.
3. REMOVE SHARP OBJECTS, SUCH AS PENCILS AND KEYS, FROM YOUR POCKETS.
4. LOOSEN YOUR NECKTIE, UNBUTTON YOUR COAT AND REMOVE RESTRICTIVE
ARTICLES OF CLOTHING.
5. REMOVE EYEGLASSES, EARRINGS, WATCHES AND OTHER JEWELRY.
6. UPON SEEING THE BRILLIANT FLASH OF A NUCLEAR EXPLOSION, BEND OVER
AND PLACE YOUR HEAD FIRMLY BETWEEN YOUR LEGS.
7. THEN KISS YOUR ASS GOODBYE
As always, of course not. It's merely if you liberals want to argue with someone, you should argue with yourselves first. My threat assessments are years older and more informedZack Morris wrote:A vehement hatred of "liberalism" and, yet, his entire worldview is informed by liberal Hollywood entertainment. Freud would have loved to be alive today.Mr. Perfect wrote:sed to be a liberal talking point, John Kerry ran on terrorists getting nukes way back then, it was mainstream liberal ideology. Liberals were the ones who made this movie. Note the date. I watched it when it came out.
http://www.netflix.com/title/70129456
Quite a few survived the last nuclear war.Typhoon wrote: A classic.
More so as it is accurate.
You can watch the slacker media tape I posted, and it will answer most of your questions.jerryberry wrote: What is the simulation for how a bomb gets built and shipped here? I can only imagine a cargo ship delivering...From what point do your simulations start?
A couple of tiny nuclear weapons do not a nuclear war make.Mr. Perfect wrote:Quite a few survived the last nuclear war.Typhoon wrote: A classic.
More so as it is accurate.
Histrionic Vice clickbait is your "citation"?Mr. Perfect wrote:0c4f4NJSB_4
Do you think the people of Japan consider WWII a nuclear war.Typhoon wrote:A couple of tiny nuclear weapons do not a nuclear war make.Mr. Perfect wrote:Quite a few survived the last nuclear war.Typhoon wrote: A classic.
More so as it is accurate.
Numeracy counts in all amounts.