Russian Analyst Calls For Nuclear Attack on Yellowstone National Park

originally posted by: clay2 baraka
What a complete moron.. Igniting Yellowstone would likely cause an extinction level event. Yes, that would include Russia.

Moron..

Can you cite your source stating that it is an ELE?

www.livescience.com...

"Based on the new models, the scientists now think the vast majority of Earth's species would weather a Yellowstone supereruption just fine (except, of course, for those knocked out due to proximity of the initial blast). They don't see any evidence in the geologic record of mass extinctions coinciding with supereruptions, and they don't predict extinctions to result from such geologic events in the future."

There is a source refuting your claim.

You are as miss-informed and over-dramatic as he is. You go around calling people morons when in fact you are.

a reply to: bullcat

Russia using a nuke to attack America may just result in America launching. That is an ELE.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: bullcat

Russia using a nuke to attack America may just result in America launching. That is an ELE.

You are making the same mistake that every American makes, claiming that America will be attacked by nuclear weapons first, I think that is highly unlikely. If America is attacked, it will be the result of an American attack and be retaliation. Perhaps if Americans all stayed at home with their gobs shut we wouldn't have to worry about wars.

a reply to: bullcat
[link] www.independent.co.uk... .html[/link]ATS is truncating the URL in mobile.. Grrr



Edit: Proper link - Link

originally posted by: clay2 baraka
a reply to: bullcat

www.independent.co.uk... 40073.html

"Sorry but we haven't been able to serve the page you requested - please try again"

Nice link.

originally posted by: bullcat

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: bullcat

Russia using a nuke to attack America may just result in America launching. That is an ELE.

You are making the same mistake that every American makes, claiming that America will be attacked by nuclear weapons first, I think that is highly unlikely. If America is attacked, it will be the result of an American attack and be retaliation. Perhaps if Americans all stayed at home with their gobs shut we wouldn't have to worry about wars.

....

Seriously dumb reply. The entire thread is about a Russian saying they should attack the US with a nuke first.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: bullcat

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: bullcat

Russia using a nuke to attack America may just result in America launching. That is an ELE.

You are making the same mistake that every American makes, claiming that America will be attacked by nuclear weapons first, I think that is highly unlikely. If America is attacked, it will be the result of an American attack and be retaliation. Perhaps if Americans all stayed at home with their gobs shut we wouldn't have to worry about wars.

....

Seriously dumb reply. The entire thread is about a Russian saying they should attack the US with a nuke first.

The guy is the Dumas court jester, why are you even taking him seriously, not even Putin takes him seriously.

McCain and Clinton, however, well, they are far far more dangerous, and when they flap their gobs about about bombing Iran, it will most likely happen.

originally posted by: bullcat

originally posted by: clay2 baraka
a reply to: bullcat

www.independent.co.uk... 40073.html

"Sorry but we haven't been able to serve the page you requested - please try again"

Nice link.

Link here

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: bullcat

originally posted by: clay2 baraka
a reply to: bullcat

www.independent.co.uk... 40073.html

"Sorry but we haven't been able to serve the page you requested - please try again"

Nice link.

www.independent.co.uk... .html

Still 404.

What is the point you are trying to make? That you cannot post links?

originally posted by: bullcat

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: bullcat

originally posted by: clay2 baraka
a reply to: bullcat

www.independent.co.uk... 40073.html

"Sorry but we haven't been able to serve the page you requested - please try again"

Nice link.

www.independent.co.uk... .html

Still 404.

What is the point you are trying to make? That you cannot post links?

I was not the one who originally posted it, the problem lies not with me but with ATS. I am merely fixing it for you since you are too lazy to find it when I found it in 2 seconds.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: bullcat

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: bullcat

originally posted by: clay2 baraka
a reply to: bullcat

www.independent.co.uk... 40073.html

"Sorry but we haven't been able to serve the page you requested - please try again"

Nice link.

www.independent.co.uk... .html

Still 404.

What is the point you are trying to make? That you cannot post links?

I was not the one who originally posted it, the problem lies not with me but with ATS. I am merely fixing it for you since you are too lazy to find it when I found it in 2 seconds.

I'm too lazy?

Perhaps you are the one that is too lazy to read a guide on posting links?

Why don't you use the "preview" button before you post it and you can see the result before you submit?

Just a suggestion.

So because you are frustrated with the web site interface, you resort to attacking people? Good job. Very mature.

originally posted by: bullcat

So because you are frustrated with the web site interface, you resort to attacking people? Good job. Very mature.

Kind of funny you would say this since I did not attack you, and you did attack me.

Your comment to my fixing a link ATS did not want to post properly.

What is the point you are trying to make? That you cannot post links?

Except it's posted properly and my link works just fine. My last reply to you as I try not to converse with your ilk.

OK, the link has been fixed, can we please get back to the actual topic now.

Reminder: Play the ball, not the player.

Thank you.

yup, it would be a dumb idea (and it's taken out of the context)...

anyway, the thing is, there is a much simpler way to knock out USofA out of existence: an EMP strike...

just one strike would destroy most of the power grid and civilian electronics

imagine what would happen to USofA with long term electric power shortage...

imagine what would 40 million legally armed (and who knows how many illegally armed) hungry crazed americans do...

Katrina would look like a walk in the park...

originally posted by: donhuangenaro
yup, it would be a dumb idea (and it's taken out of the context)...

anyway, the thing is, there is a much simpler way to knock out USofA out of existence: an EMP strike...

just one strike would destroy most of the power grid and civilian electronics
imagine what would happen to USofA with long term electric power shortage...

imagine what would 40 million legally armed (and who knows how many illegally armed) hungry crazed americans do...

Katrina would look like a walk in the park...

I keep hearing about these EMP strikes, the same way I keep hearing the term, Surgical Strike. Like it is some kind of magical bullet. Things are never that easy, it is not as simple nor as clean as it sounds.

a reply to: Telos
If true, then this "analyst" didnt make it past cracking the earths crust and causing a super volcano to erupt would blacken our skies with ash and possibly change global temperatures as a result of reduced sunlight. The world wide hunger would kill billions in the poorest parts of the world in the first few years.

The secondary effects of releasing that much internal pressure at once is that it would cause seismic activity elsewhere and possibly stronger.
It could re-shift the tectonic plates, make new ones, who knows. Thats like predicting the fluid dynamics of the earths inner workings after idiots nuke the planet to kill americans.

Even a bunkered elite would have severe complications in long term survival. A mini ice age is no walk in the park. The mental stress of making a fallout shelter no matter how luxurious and complete into a generational home for your family and its descendants must be tremendous.

I hope this "analyst" was just popping off mental farts while searching for ideas to present to justify his job.

This is comic book type absurdity that a tacky super villain would think of.

There really shouldn't be any concern for the radioactive fallout caused by Yellowstone being set off in this manner.

Even though the largest nuclear weapon tested by Russia (then the Soviet Union), Tsar Bomba, had a yield of 50 Mt, it would have contained less than 25,000 kilograms of fissile material. And that was a design from early 60s. Designs have surely gotten better, smaller, and more efficient. Hypothetically, there could be a similar yield weapon that uses less fissile material, but let's stick with that mass of 25,000 kg.

The last eruption of Yellowstone, Lava Creek, ejected an estimated 1000 km^3 of rock, dust, and ash into the atmosphere. With an average density of 5.5 g/cm^3, or 5.5 × 10^12 kg/km^3, that is equal to 5.5 x 10^15 kg of material.

Now how much would 25,000 kg be compared to that? About 0.0000000045% of the total.

originally posted by: cmdrkeenkid
There really shouldn't be any concern for the radioactive fallout caused by Yellowstone being set off in this manner.

Even though the largest nuclear weapon tested by Russia (then the Soviet Union), Tsar Bomba, had a yield of 50 Mt, it would have contained less than 25,000 kilograms of fissile material. And that was a design from early 60s. Designs have surely gotten better, smaller, and more efficient. Hypothetically, there could be a similar yield weapon that uses less fissile material, but let's stick with that mass of 25,000 kg.

The last eruption of Yellowstone, Lava Creek, ejected an estimated 1000 km^3 of rock, dust, and ash into the atmosphere. With an average density of 5.5 g/cm^3, or 5.5 × 10^12 kg/km^3, that is equal to 5.5 x 10^15 kg of material.

Now how much would 25,000 kg be compared to that? About 0.0000000045% of the total.

Not to mention the rocks and lava themselves are radioactive naturally, we are surrounded in a world of radioactivity, hence the term, background radiation.

a reply to: bullcat

Yeah, I'm sure the net radioactivity naturally found in the earth would be greater than the fissile material in any bomb. I just couldn't find good numbers on how much is down there, so I didn't delve into it.

a reply to: cmdrkeenkid

Right, but if it doesn't erupt Yellowstone, sorta moot. Any geologists commenting on if this is even possible, or are people just pulling this out of their butts?

Because I don't know, I think it'd be the first time in history a volcano was triggered by a bomb....

May be somewhat important to consider in such a discussion.

A volcano has never ever been triggered, by a bomb...