True its nowhere near doomsday people have envisioned. Death would only happen slower for the unlucky that would have to survive. Possible weather patern changes, colapse of a world economy at large, Massive political power vacums, and the enriched urainium/plutonium set loose by the explosions would filter through every part of the ecosystem.
Uh, no. First 40% of the ICBMs would just fail to launch anyway due to their unreliability. The Soviet Union would intercept a large number of buses before they could discharge their warheads and nail individual warheads and bombers with their regular SAMs tipped with nukes. Most of the detonations would be multi-megaton airbursts and the radiation would rapidly dissapate into the atmosphere. Where ground bursts were used the radiation would be lethal for a week, safe for short exposure for another week then as healthy as living down wind of a coal power plant. Scrape three inches off the top soil, which will take a few months granted, then rebuild.
It does, disassembling weapons as a meens of transport has been military pratice for generations. Its why modern soliders are trained to assemble multible weapons from a box of assorted parts containing 3 complete weapons and random parts. Guerallia fighters have longed used the pratice to aviod detection. Countries used the pratice as a meens of devloping weapons but keeping them hidden. Its a sound military pratice used time and again.
Doesn't apply in space as those give off heat far in excess of the four kelvin temperature of space in the "dark side" and far cooler in the "hot side". Then you have to assemble the weapons which wastes time, food, air, water, money, and leaves the port authority wondering WTF you are doing with the assembly work and order you to heave to for an inspection.
Misidentifications have happened before, USSR nearly launced nuclear arms (less than 2 min away from doing at one point) over a small research rocket was fired by the US. (they knew it wasn't large enough to be a nuclear missle, they just didn't know what it was for sure) And had actualy shot down a passenger jet (and knew what it was) that had acidently flown into thier airspace. It is proven to have happened before and will happen again. Its just a matter of time. Far more advanced sensors and scanners may help deter but not prevent.
True to a point, but a Golden BB can not by any means be used as an effective argument. Works in trials, but not in a debate. Also which flight are you referring to? KAL 902 in 1978 or KAL 007 in 1983? Neither case really matters as both violated proper procedures leading the Soviets to believe they were spy planes and because neither pilots of the flights followed proper procedures of squaking, the Soviets deemed them spies and shot them down. The Soviets followed proper procedures, the KAL pilots did not. The shoot downs were thus justified. Yeah the Soviets were dicks in the aftermath, but that is irrelevant.
For starters, unbiased research is impossible since it is performed by humans and its proven impossible for a human to be truly unbiased. And I agree, idiots came to power and will countinue to do so. We have our people at large to thank for that.
Thats why you look for peer reviewed articles which remove most of the bias.
Nuclear power may be safe but far from being as efficent as it needs to be. We are currently hidding a mountain of nuclear waste under a mountain and pretending its not there.
Because of idiots like Greenpiece keep us from storing it at Yucca Mountain. Besides once we get our space program back on track we can send the waste into the sun if necessary though there are other alternatives. FYI We can reprocess spent fuel rods instead of dumping them in lead containers. It is just currently cheaper to dig up new Uranium than to reprocess spent rods. Also have you ever study economics as your grasp on how mass production drives prices down seems to escape you.
Yes it is, if you tried using the nuclear debate 300 years ago you would have been dismissed as unreasonable.
ROFLMAO... Please learn the difference between scientific fact and scientific theory.
FYI In refrence to the dogfighting, I failed to point out the US planes wern't even equiped with guns. Missles were thought to be supreme and guns were removed since a one shot = confirmed kill was the concept. When actual dogfighting came about US planes found themselves time and again at severe disavantages against thier soviet MIG counterparts.
That was indeed stupid as you should always have a backup system. However, a missile still allows you to nail a bomber stream alot more efficiently especially if that missile is packing a nuke. Guns are when you are out of missiles and you still need to make an intercept when there is no one else capable to make it and no time to RTB to rearm.
"Some idiots" were highly trained military engineers and stratigests, you can only call them that now since you have the luxury of aquired knowledge and experiance.
Who were told by other highly trained military engineers and stratigests that they were flat out wrong. Your point?
True, its not Star Trek. But then again you can go through all the models you want, get to the trial and find find it doesn't work.
Well duh, thats not in dispute.
Well your wall of ignorance is more disturbing, You've shown calcs showing missle vs fighter. I asked for a scenerio where missle vs fighter calcs determined an outcome in war.
You either have poor reading skills and memories or you are a completely dishonest jackass. I have backed up all my posts with verifiable information, which you have yet to do. My proofs are done. The burden of proof is upon you now. Show me calcs and explain why I should listen to you over the experts.
I am giving you three days to formulate the calcs or I shall assume you have conceded the entirety of the debate.