How many nukes would it take to destroy a city?

Originally posted by StellarX
A twenty megaton warhead used against London is going to cause as much devastation as the 10 750 Kt warheads the SS-18 were formally equipped with before some in the disarmament crowd decided to restrict warheads instead of megatonage. Either way active defenses is of far more use against single warhead missiles ( even with countermeasures) than they would be against Mirv'ed weapons.

But any kind of civl defence against a 20 Mt warhead is futile. That's the point you seem to have trouble getting to. No shelter is going to help.

The problem with that theory is that Britain never had anywhere near enough to deter possible Russian aggression

Only if you go with the theory that the Russians would just shrug off the loss of umpteen million people, which is absurd. The "Great Patriotic War " left huge scars in the national psyche - nobody wants to go through that again. The UKs nuclear arsenal might not be able to obliterate the USSR entirely, but it would effectively finish it.

Switzerland is not richer by most any means of comparison

GNP is generally quoted a a lot higher than the UK per capita.

2) Culture - the Swiss have a long tradition of civil defence; you can't create it out of the blue

'Culture'? Are you joking? The Swiss have a culture of building underground shelters for long duration wars involving aircraft and nuclear weapons? Are you one of those people who believe in ancient high tech civilization or what are you on about?

I'm talking about Swiss culture, which you seem to have missed. Going right back to the federation of the Cantons they have had a highly colelctive view of defending the population - even now they have virtually no standing army, it's all citizen-based.
Their civil defence program is an extension of the idea that responsibility is shared out all the way down to the very lowest level of individual houses, each of which is required to have a shelter. You can't introduce that sort of culture overnight.
Crucially also, Switzerland is determinedly neutral and is never going to be the target for a nuclear attack. There's a big difference between being ready for fall-out when France get blasted to having to take hits on Geneva and Zurich - either of which would be obliterated by a single direct hit.

3) Geology (a lot of British homes are built on flood plains - no cellars!)

Then you build community air raid shelters above ground;

...which would be completely different to the Swiss model. The point of their system is that the shelters are integrated into buildings and costed as part of them. You don't need separate buildingsd or land for shelters.

Accidental first strikes then?

In each of those cases, one side might have responded to an apparent first strike fromt he other side with a 'retaliation' which would have been seen as a total surprise first strike.

Frankly i am more disappointed than anything else that you wish to maintain that civil defenses could not have been successfully implemented

Because they couldn't. There is no meaningful civil defence against a multi-megaton strike, as was repeatedly proven. Your fantasy of evacuating everyone to 'a safe place' is just that - a fantasy. Even if it were possible, anywhere you evacuated the population to would itself simply become a target.

And if you think that reducing deaths from (say) 20 million to (say) 10 million is something that would be applauded...I think you're crazy.

Originally posted by Wembley
But any kind of civl defence against a 20 Mt warhead is futile. That's the point you seem to have trouble getting to. No shelter is going to help.

Civil defense is no more practical or impractical against a single twenty megaton warhead than it is against 10 750 KT warheads which could be carried by other versions of the SS-18. In fact a modification of the SS-18 with 18 - 24 550-750 KT warheads were considered ( it was practical) but they apparently decided that that was putting too many eggs in one basket. if you will.

The most serious consequence of the single twenty megaton burst is that the damage will be more concentrated and shelters in the near vicinity far more likely to be destroyed.

Only if you go with the theory that the Russians would just shrug off the loss of umpteen million people, which is absurd.

The United States would have destroyed Moscow any ways. I am not aware of any means in which the Russians could have saved Moscow with or without British nukes. If they could not evacuate the large majority of Moscow residents or make sufficient shelters for them the British 'detterrent' would have been bouncing rubble while still leaving Britain completely undefended and now a aggressor state.

The "Great Patriotic War " left huge scars in the national psyche - nobody wants to go through that again. The UKs nuclear arsenal might not be able to obliterate the USSR entirely, but it would effectively finish it.

It also showed that nation what it could survive and what must be done and considered to bring about such survival. This is why the USSR absolutely had no protect it's citizens as any measure short of that would have resulted in more unrest and disassociation. The Uk's nuclear capacity could potentially be easily be countered by Russian active ABM defenses; the UK just lacked the economic means to make sufficient warheads and delivery vehicles to ensure even the destruction of Moscow . To suggest that the UK could have effectively 'finished off' the USSR presumes a second strike after a US strike were very effective.

GNP is generally quoted a a lot higher than the UK per capita.

I think it was around 10-15% so i could understand if Britain had 10-15% less shelters ; maybe if they didn't build the carriers, dozens of warships and ballistic missiles submarines a passive defense could have been 'afforded? Why do you keep insisting that we should sleep with machine guns next to the bed but leave the house unlocked? Doesn't it make more sense to secure one's country first before starting to invite retaliation or arms races by building strategic weapons? MAD indeed.

I'm talking about Swiss culture, which you seem to have missed. Going right back to the federation of the Cantons they have had a highly colelctive view of defending the population - even now they have virtually no standing army, it's all citizen-based.

So did Greece, Sparta, Rome and every other state which made a distinction between citizens and slaves. The Swiss have no standing army? Where do they send the conscripts then? Do they just camp out for a year and eat whatever the Swiss does or do you need a comparative large scale infrastructure to accommodate that many citizens per year? How can you say that the Swiss can afford conscription but the UK for instance can't?

Their civil defence program is an extension of the idea that responsibility is shared out all the way down to the very lowest level of individual houses, each of which is required to have a shelter. You can't introduce that sort of culture overnight

No but apparently you can take tens of billions of dollars from the British public coffers and build massive amounts of offensive weapons while the culture never liked that either. You don't think the British government could have enforced shelter preparation ( the Swiss after all didn't start building air raid shelters in medieval European times) with less public outcry than taking all that money from things that could not protect Britain?

Crucially also, Switzerland is determinedly neutral and is never going to be the target for a nuclear attack.

So they are so well prepared despite being not even targeted for nuclear attack while the UK that is isn't prepared at all? Can you explain how that is?

There's a big difference between being ready for fall-out when France get blasted to having to take hits on Geneva and Zurich - either of which would be obliterated by a single direct hit.

There is a big difference between throwing your hands in the air and faking premature mental and physical death for lack of the mental capacity to consider your survival/defensive options. Basically your advocating that the Possum carries neon lights and sirens so as to best attract attention from far far larger predators while refusing to change it's survival strategy of playing dead.

..which would be completely different to the Swiss model. The point of their system is that the shelters are integrated into buildings and costed as part of them. You don't need separate buildingsd or land for shelters.

Some are but not everything is and not all of Britain is built on flood planes either. Why must you insist on finding reasons not to do anything? The point is that some areas are harder to defend than others and this have ALWAYS been the case. The French could build the Maginot defense line in the 20's but clearly we should just surrender to anything more dangerous than a 500 pound bomb....

In each of those cases, one side might have responded to an apparent first strike fromt he other side with a 'retaliation' which would have been seen as a total surprise first strike.

In non of those cases were their any reason to suggest that such was in fact happening. Singular missiles do not win wars ( or even a ballistic missile submarine) and massed all out strikes ( battle simulation tapes/planet alignment ) do not take place in political vacuum. You are again presuming that a war could break out at any moment during the entire cold war which just isn't the case. Wars didn't even break out during the Cuban missile crisis, Korea, the Berlin Blockade or similar events where both sides had basically brought their strategic and conventional forces to far higher levels of readiness.

Because they couldn't. There is no meaningful civil defence against a multi-megaton strike, as was repeatedly proven.

Never proven as there never was a war. Hiroshima and other nuclear tests showed that even small scale preparation with cheap shallow buried defenses would be sufficient to save the lives of the many tens of millions in cities that would have otherwise died. We are talking about burying tubes of steel in the garden here so integrated basement defenses is on a whole different level with much greater potential to save lives and maintain them in safety.

Your fantasy of evacuating everyone to 'a safe place' is just that

I never said everyone. That was suggested by authorities who refused to defend people in place. Evacuation should at best be part of the plan but sheltering in place is far cheaper and economically more sound. To evacuate everyone far from their communities and away from industrial capacity is a desperate strategy for an unprepared people.

- a fantasy. Even if it were possible, anywhere you evacuated the population to would itself simply become a target.

Because you refuse to acknowledge the limitations of information gathering by the various means employed. Satellites would go the way of the dinosaur within the opening hours and might be largely gone before the nukes ever start flying. If the population is properly dispersed to even shallow covered trench defenses the USSR would have to expend the majority of it's strategic weapons just to ensure a few million added fatalities while the US gets a free hand against the USSR.

There is no fantasy in preparation and defense and that is why the USSR and other nations invested so much in it. The USSR could have built a few more nuclear weapons with which to intimidate Britain but it chose to invest massive resources ( labor and financial ) in the passive defenses that would ensure that what their ABM defenses could not stop their citizens could be protected from. The Same conclusion were reached by commissions consisting of generals back in the US but basically they were politically defeated and their active working missile defenses dismantled so as to not 'provoke' Russia into building even more nuclear weapons. That's basically what happens when you trust politicians to fight your wars for you.

And if you think that reducing deaths from (say) 20 million to (say) 10 million is something that would be applauded...I think you're crazy.

Well the casualties in the US might have been as high as 150 million in the 80's so yes, every ten million saved is something quite worthy of applause. I think not preparing defenses while you build weapons is crazy. I mean digging trenches in wartime is clearly just for show as they don't save lives either? I sure saw a manual where they claimed that bullets were now so dangerous and plentiful that trying to hide or presenting a smaller target was just wasted effort. When the artillery shells land you can just as well stand up cause your going to die any ways.

I wish i could understand the minds that come up with these strategies of alternating inaction ( no passive defenses) and shear aggression ( build weapons of all kinds including nuclear) which are supposed to best defend a small nation with relatively high population density. You would think having so little to lose would inspire the creation of deep shelters but you would apparently be wrong.

Stellar

Originally posted by zero lift
What are you on about - 'Struggle For Survival' was published in the past couple of years, not 1955?

In all fairness it has not been updated with the last 50 years worth of knowledge. My apologies for that blunder...

From 1949 onwards, the US considered the UK to be the 'biggest aircraft carrier in the world'; that's why they based much of their strategic and tactical nuclear threat capability on airbases throughout the UK.

Not something the British government had to allow given how the UK were in fact a sovereign nation. Again if you wish to host foreign forces you can expect retaliation for them using their country as a base for aggressive operations. If you then choose not to prepared your country for the added devastation it will suffer you are just making it more obvious that you are not acting in the best interest of Britain. Why couldn't Britain take the French route and set somewhat independent course? Why form NATO at all?

Then there's the fact that the UK operated their own retaliatory nuclear threat.

Which was never sufficient to prevent a war against the USSR without the presence of the US nuclear arsenal.

Couple that with the blindingly obvious fact (but unfortunately not obvious to StellarX), that the UK was the main rendezvous point for the massive number of US service personnel (who were to reinforce the European battelfronts), and I think you'll agree that the Soviet Union would have allocated a significant number of their warheads to UK targets.

Why allow Britain to be used in American aggression in the first place? Let them build more aircraft carriers if they want to have their war with Russia? You don't think cooperation between European states would have been sufficient to deter aggression by Russian? Why did the USSR have to start a arms race any ways? The only thing that this exposes is the fact that the UK government would spend vast amounts of money building the same type of weapons the US deployed IN THEIR COUNTRY without doing anything to protect it's citizens from the added threats.

And then in the eighties, the US added more UK targets by basing their mobile cruise missile launch systems in the UK. In effect, this meant that the Soviets would have had to blanket southern England with nuclear warheads to ensure that they destroyed this capability.

So who's side where the British government on given how they made Britain ever and ever more vulnerable at a time when the USSR surpassed NATO in strategic capacity in the late 70's? When were either the British government or NATO going to start working on a credible defense that would not have resulted in both their populations being largely annihilated for lack of preparedness?

I'm not surprised, I gave you a link.

Of all the things you could say. The moment i offer the fact that even the worse cases dooming scenario painters said that such wars were survivable with preparation you interject nonsense about how you told me about pages that said things that were self evidently true. Preparations can be made in even worse case scenarios that will safeguard the continued functioning of the state with the majority of citizens there to aid in rebuilding.

The short answer is that they didn't think they would survive intact - if you read the book you'll discover that fact!

They did which is why they build rather large bomb shelters for themselves but not for anyone else.

By 1963 it had become obvious that nowhere in the UK could be considered safe from nuclear attack (the same fact was dawning on the Soviets and the US); all that a Government could do was to disperse across the UK during the Precautionary Period and hope that the few survivors would somehow manage to accrete at specific locations.

Strath recommended a programme of shelter building for the population, but estimates put the cost at £1.25bn. At today's prices, that would amount to almost £23bn. It was considered too costly, so military planners determined that the best form of defence was the guarantee of immediate retaliation against an aggressor. And to do that, someone would have to be tucked away safely ready to push the button.

www.guardian.co.uk...

How could no area be safe in a bunker underground? What kind of nonsense is this and why do you keep repeating it? You would not be safe ABOVE GROUND standing around in the streets of large cities for sure but how do you get from that rather obvious fact to 'nowhere in the UK could be considered safe from attack'? Would they send commando's by airplane to attack the bunkers or what? Why do you so desperately want to believe that the fact that so little preparations where made PROVES that preparations could not be made? Do you know how 'accurate' nuclear weapons were in 1963 and how little effect they could or would have had against even known buried targets? What about then nearly twenty years that had passed since the inception of the nuclear age? How can not doing much serve as evidence that not much can be done? Is the absence of airplanes in the middle ages evidence that airplanes could never be built?

Your whole train of logic was never on rails.

And as for your BS about the UK Government providing protected accommodation for "tens of thousands" - care to provide proof that the number was that high; or did you just pluck it out of the air like so much of your evidence?

Until two years ago, the existence of this complex, variously codenamed Burlington, Stockwell, Turnstile or 3-Site, was classified. It was a huge yet very secret complex, where the government and 6,000 apparatchiks would have taken refuge for 90 days during all-out thermonuclear war. Solid yet cavernous, surrounded by 100ft-deep reinforced concrete walls within a subterranean 240-acre limestone quarry just outside Corsham, it drives one to imagine the ghosts of people who, thank God, never took refuge here.

Local councils, too, had their underground bunkers. Some are now used for storage. Others, such as one in Cambridge, have been retained and upgraded, today housing "emergency planning" facilities with half an eye on possible attacks by terrorists using chemical or biological weapons.

www.guardian.co.uk...

I meant the 'few tens of thousands' with respect to most governments ( UK, US and others) but as you can see it may in fact be ten thousand ( depending on what ' the government' + 6000 means) in just that one until-two-years-ago classified complex. As you can see shelters were also prepared for local governments but since no number is cited it might be no more than a few thousand all over the country. How many other classified shelters ( updated as this one was clearly no longer kept as anything but a exists or existed i don't know but i suppose that is sufficient absence of evidence for you to again throw your hands in the air and cry out in despair.

[Ah, that explains your earlier cock-ups.

And the fact that you have not responded to even one of my dozen odd sites sources mean what then? Do you have any interest other than insisting on what you like totally disregarding everything to the contrary i present? What is that compared to getting one date wrong?

Your arrogance knows no bounds, does it?

Says the person who have cited one 'source', in the form of book no less, with no specific statement named. How is your lack of anything but insistence that my sources are 'wrong' not arrogant?

Don't be so quick to dismiss facts which go against your opinion StellarX;

I am not dismissing 'facts' as they are misrepresentations based on numerous logic fallacies when not made up from whole cloth. You are throwing an entire book at me holding it up 'as the whole truth' somehow expecting me to say much other than have citing more sources you will similarly ignore.

read the entire book and you might realise that your position is based on very shaky foundations.

You don't have to read an entire book of supposed' fact' to realise that it's not based on facts. Do you continue reading books on physics when basic 'facts' are misrepresented or mistated in the first pages? Why would you insist that i read this book when i earlier provided plenty of material in this thread you could counter in like specific fashion? Why avoid making specific points instead of throwing a book at me? What do you expect me to do short of reading it entirely and then restating my position that it's just not accurate?

Continued

read the entire book and you might realise that your position is based on very shaky foundations.

You don't have to read an entire book of supposed' fact' to realise that it's not based on facts. Do you continue reading books on physics when basic 'facts' are misrepresented or misstated in the first pages? Why would you insist that i read this book when i earlier provided plenty of material in this thread you could counter in like specific fashion? Why avoid making specific points instead of throwing a book at me? What do you expect me to do short of reading it entirely and then restating my position that it's just not accurate?

I would add that much of the source material has only been recently declassified, hence there is a mountain of info in the book to which you will never have previously had access.

Does the book for instance disclose the fact that the UK government believed that it could ride out a nuclear war in it's 6000+ sleeper shelter? How is there always money for that and the carriers, submarines, Euro fighters, dozens of naval vessels and nuclear arms but not the few tens of billions ( today's prices; meaning less than a decade employing less than half the current UK defense budget) to properly protect the citizens?

Ooh goody!
Will it be up to your previously excellent standards (NBC suits protect the wearer from gamma-emitting radioactive fallout)?

Since you have never specified the concentrations of gamma ray emitting fallout or the actual danger posed your correction was accurate but not of much use while so very vague. Not even all the firefighters and rescue personal who worked within tens of meters of the exposed Chernobyl reactor , in the first hours, died despite inhaling and ingesting such materials so why am i to believe that cesium and other decay or byproducts of the fusion process are going to be distributed widely and in general health destroying quantities? As earlier noted as warheads get larger blast and thermal effects become far more dangerous than the immediate gamma release so i would appreciated it if you do not cite that early Gamma radiation release as 'evidence' that subsequent gamma emitting particle distribution is the most serious long term fallout problem when according to you NBC suits where not even designed with such a consideration in mind. You might start with a explanation as to exactly how far in open air gamma radiation is propagated from a given particle emitting it so we can discuss if walking on it or having it stick to your NBC type clothing will in fact pose a health risk or if you in fact have to inhale or ingest it for it to get to within dangerous proximity to organs.

As to their active defenses you can use the following to do some research of your own:

Ironically, the development of the upgraded ground-based battle-management radars, which can track MIRVed RVs, was carried out during the ABM Treaty negotiations. Construction of these facilities could hardly have gone unnoticed by the West, for they resemble several Manhattan skyscrapers joined together in one unit. Construction began in 1972, and the first units became operational in the1980s. The well-known Krasnoyarsk Radar-the sixth of nine such radars--was a deliberate treaty violation by the Soviet leadership. Is it possible that United States and NATO spy satellites did not detect these massive structures? If not, then why are these flagrant treaty violations being ignored?

In total the U.S.S.R. deployed two generations of national missile defenses, consisting of 18 large radars and 12,000 SAM/ABM interceptors at 280 complexes. Moscow itself is protected not only by 100 ABM missiles, as permitted by the treaty, but also by several thousand SAM/ABM interceptors.

newsmax.com.../4/24/53247

Immediately prior to the signing of the ABM treaty, the Soviets had developed a surface-to-air missile, the SA-5, which was observed to have a peculiar trajectory. The SA-5 was fired high above the atmosphere and then would descend to intercept and destroy enemy bombers. While technically such a trajectory could not be ruled out, logically, however, it could not be accepted as this type of trajectory represents the least efficient way to shoot down enemy aircraft. On the other hand, the SA-5?s trajectory would be just the ticket for shooting down incoming ballistic missiles which themselves travel above the atmosphere. Taking this into account, the SA-5 had to be an ABM weapon. But with the ABM treaty almost in hand, this fact was ignored and the treaty went into effect. The treaty remains in effect, limiting development of a U.S. ABM system. Meanwhile, Russian dual-purpose (anti-aircraft/anti-missile) missile systems like the SA-5 continue to exist.

www.thenewamerican.com...

However, Soviet and Russian sources, including former Premier Alexei Kosygin and the Chief Designer of the original Moscow ABM system, confirm that: the SA-5 and SA-10 were dual purpose antiaircraft/missile systems (SAM/ABMs), and that the Hen House and LPAR radars provided the requisite battle management target tracking data. These and other sources cited in The ABM Treaty Charade are not exhaustive.

Nevertheless, CIA has not revised its position on this issue, nor have the U.S. Congress and the public been informed that the ABM Treaty was a valid contract from beginning to end.

In the late 1960s the U.S. sacrificed its 20-year technological advantage in ABM defenses on the altar of "arms control." As Russian sources now admit, the Soviet General Staff was in total control of Soviet "arms control" proposals and negotiations, subject to Politburo review, which was largely pro forma. The Soviet military's objective was to gain as much advantage as possible from "arms control" agreements (SALT).

www.jinsa.org...

Russia inherited most of the Soviet empire's illegal national ABM defenses. Although the Hen Houses and LPARs located in the successor states created significant gaps in coverage, Russia still controls 12 or 13 of those radars. Consequently, SAM/ABMs still defend most of the Russian Federation from U.S. ICBMs, much of the SLBM threat, and Chinese missiles. Scheduled completion of the LPAR in Belorus will restore complete threat coverage, except for the gap left by the dismantled Krasnoyarsk LPAR. Granted, the Hen Houses are old, but the United States has been operating similar radars for 40 years.

Despite its economic difficulties, Russia continued development and production of the SA-10, adding (in 1992-1993 and 1997) two models with new missiles and electronics and replacing more than 1000 SA-5 missiles with late model SA-10s having greatly improved performance against ballistic missiles of all ranges. Russia is protected by as at least as many (about 8500) SAM/ABMs as in 1991, and they are more effective. No wonder Russia shows little concern for its proliferation of missile and nuclear technology.

Even more impressively, Russia has begun flight-testing the fourth generation "S-400" ("Triumph") SAM/ABM designed not only to end the "absolute superiority" of air assault demonstrated by the United States in the 1992 Gulf War and the 1999 Kosovo operation, but also to improve Russia's illegal ABM defenses against strategic ballistic missiles. The S-400 is scheduled to begin deployment in 2000, more testimony to Russia's commitment to maintaining its national ABM defenses in violation of the ABM Treaty.

www.security-policy.org...

Mr. Lee's analysis is complex. To vastly simplify, he says he has evidence that Russia's surface-to-air interceptor missiles carry nuclear warheads and therefore are capable of bringing down long-range ballistic missiles, not just aircraft and shorter-range missiles, which is their stated purpose. Russia has 8,000 of these missiles scattered around the country, and Mr. Lee says he has found numerous Russian sources that describe how successive generations of SAMs were in fact designed with the express intention of shooting down ballistic missiles, which is illegal under the treaty.

www.opinionjournal.com...

As you can see they had more than passive defenses and found massive benefit by disarmament treaties that lowered warhead counts for ICBM's.

Other than that any specific sources ( short of entire books; i have presumed that you have the capacity to do so your not proving anything) to make specific points will be of value to keeping this discussion on track.

Stellar


[edit on 29-10-2008 by StellarX]

Stelar I think you are being unrealistic.
First of all it's the radiaton, it would penetrate anything.Forms of radiation such as gamma and xray will penetrate deep in to the ground, they put a thick bar of led when you take a lame x-ray and it only lasts for like 3 seconds and you are talking of covering water with blankets.You will vomit your liver out from the aftermath if you are lucky to survive the blast.

Hey Stellar most of your "LINKS" are NOT showing any pages, can you do a "MUCH BETTER" job at posting links that we can all link to, I'm starting to think, your making these "QUOTES" up and posting a link that doesn't work, thinking we might not try and click on to it.
Thanx

[edit on 30-10-2008 by 1000hanz]

[edit on 30-10-2008 by 1000hanz]

You dont actually need a nuke wait for a protest to start and piss off one person and then whole crowd will go nuts and tear it down.

Originally posted by 1000hanz
Hey Stellar most of your "LINKS" are NOT showing any pages, can you do a "MUCH BETTER" job at posting links that we can all link to,

Yes, i suppose i should check them every time before i post them being forced as i am to repeat the same old stuff for the benefit of the newly uninformed. Thanks for pointing out just how thankless a 'job' i have chosen.

I'm starting to think, your making these "QUOTES" up and posting a link that doesn't work, thinking we might not try and click on to it.
Thanx

It's good to see that paranoia isn't entirely dead..... If you can show that these pages do not in fact exist anywhere online ( search for the specific words or titles) i will mail you some custom flattened cookies.

Thanks for caring enough to bother me with your ineptitude.

Stellar

Originally posted by pepsi78
Stelar I think you are being unrealistic.

And your entitled to your opinion.

First of all it's the radiaton, it would penetrate anything.

No, it would not; my estimations might be unrealistics but it's not like there isn't physics involved that determines exactly what penetrates what. As i earlier showed a few meters( or feet; feel free to check) of concrete or sand is more than sufficient to deal with even prompt gamma radiation.

Forms of radiation such as gamma and xray will penetrate deep in to the ground, they put a thick bar of led when you take a lame x-ray and it only lasts for like 3 seconds

They don't penetrate deeply ( unless that's what you mean by a meter or two) and as for the thick bar of led there is a reason we are talking sand and not led. Feel free to discover the difference with some easy to do internet research.

and you are talking of covering water with blankets.You will vomit your liver out from the aftermath if you are lucky to survive the blast

Why? As long as particle's can't and don't get in there is no ionizing effect that i am aware of. Feel free to send your advice to the guys who actually wrote the rules on these types of precautions! What i don't understand is why people believe the blast effects to be so all pervasive? Do you guys realise that not everone lives in city centers and that anything underground ( just a meter) can be almost entirely immune from anything but close proximity ( depending on Kt ranges) detonations?

Why insist on no preperation and or suprise scenarios? What is the fascination with throwing your hands in the air and proclaiming defeat without even knowing the actual risks/dangers involved?

At least i never said disarmament propaganda didn't and or doesn't work!

Stellar

let me add 1 counter point - sympathetic waves

10x 100KT weapons dropped at certain points around even the largest city , would form a sympethetic blast wave which would exceed the destructive potential of even the largest single warhead - each blast wave would join with the one next to it to form 1 `super` blast , as each suppliments and re-enforces the others

i used to have a model for this and alot of literature - but thats the method employed now for total *entropic* based warfare - a city removal weapon , 1 ICBM or SLBM and bam that city of hundreds of thousands is totally gone

Civil defense is no more practical or impractical against a single twenty megaton warhead than it is against 10 750 KT warheads which could be carried by other versions of the SS-18.....The most serious consequence of the single twenty megaton burst is that the damage will be more concentrated and shelters in the near vicinity far more likely to be destroyed.

By the "near vicinity" you mean most of London. Civil defence is this type is laughable.
Your fantasy universe may be comprised of 500 ft deep shelters with their own air supply and a years' supply of food, but in the real world shelters are little use against megatons.

The Uk's nuclear capacity could potentially be easily be countered by Russian active ABM defenses

Your view of ABM defences seems to be as wildly optimsitic as your view of shelters. Even the Russians never claimed what you're claiming.

The Swiss have no standing army? Where do they send the conscripts then?

LOL - you need to read up a bit about the Swiss army, which is a truly wacky and uniquely Swiss institution. They have less than 5,000 regulars...their culture really is different.

You don't think the British government could have enforced shelter preparation ( the Swiss after all didn't start building air raid shelters in medieval European times) with less public outcry than taking all that money from things that could not protect Britain?

As I explained above, building shelters would be futile and pointless, which was quickly recognised. (This was in the 60's when memories of the Blitz were still fresh: people knew all about shleters and what they were worth)

In the extremely unlikely event that you could build shleters which did afford some kind of protection, the enemy simply builds a few more or bigger warheads.

Crucially also, Switzerland is determinedly neutral and is never going to be the target for a nuclear attack.

So they are so well prepared despite being not even targeted for nuclear attack while the UK that is isn't prepared at all? Can you explain how that is?

The Swiss are prepared for all sorts of eventualties; but their preparations would be useless if they were actually targeted. As I said, it's a cultural thing.

Wars didn't even break out during the Cuban missile crisis, Korea, the Berlin Blockade or similar events

Thus demonstrating the effectiveness of deterrence which you're trying so hard to undermine.

every ten million saved is something quite worthy of applause. I think not preparing defenses while you build weapons is crazy.

It's about deterrence , not war -- nobody sane ever planned to fight a nuclear war. If you honestly can't see why the above type of statement makes you look morally insane to most people, then you need to get out more.
Nucelar war (like all wars) is not about physics, it's about people.
Having 140 million dead instead of 150 million is not as you suggest an achievement that anyone is ever going to be proud of.

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by 1000hanz
Hey Stellar most of your "LINKS" are NOT showing any pages, can you do a "MUCH BETTER" job at posting links that we can all link to,

Yes, i suppose i should check them every time before i post them being forced as i am to repeat the same old stuff for the benefit of the newly uninformed. Thanks for pointing out just how thankless a 'job' i have chosen.

Just post the links in a way that we can varify them, thats all I'm asking dude.

[edit on 31-10-2008 by 1000hanz]

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by zero lift
What are you on about - 'Struggle For Survival' was published in the past couple of years, not 1955?

In all fairness it has not been updated with the last 50 years worth of knowledge.

My apologies for that blunder...

OK let me make this very clear…Steve Fox‘s bookStruggle for Survival was first published circa 2004 (updated in 2005 and 2007). If you’d bothered to read it you would have discovered it contains a history of UK Cold War Home Defence planning which spans the years 1950-1995.

So it can be truthfully be said to contain over 50 years worth of knowledge.

Then there's the fact that the UK operated their own retaliatory nuclear threat.

Which was never sufficient to prevent a war against the USSR without the presence of the US nuclear arsenal.

Really…so in your opinion the Soviets would have just shrugged off 16 million deaths, would they? You have a very strange view of humanity StellarX; sometimes one gets the feeling that people are just numbers to you.

Couple that with the blindingly obvious fact (but unfortunately not obvious to StellarX), that the UK was the main rendezvous point for the massive number of US service personnel (who were to reinforce the European battelfronts), and I think you'll agree that the Soviet Union would have allocated a significant number of their warheads to UK targets.

Why allow Britain to be used in American aggression in the first place? Let them build more aircraft carriers if they want to have their war with Russia? You don't think cooperation between European states would have been sufficient to deter aggression by Russian? Why did the USSR have to start a arms race any ways? The only thing that this exposes is the fact that the UK government would spend vast amounts of money building the same type of weapons the US deployed IN THEIR COUNTRY without doing anything to protect it's citizens from the added threats.

All very interesting StellarX, but you omit to mention that I was responding to your ridiculous suggestion that -

even the 1960's the Warsaw pact would have had to use every and any warhead on the United States, not Britain.

Care to retract it?

And then in the eighties, the US added more UK targets by basing their mobile cruise missile launch systems in the UK. In effect, this meant that the Soviets would have had to blanket southern England with nuclear warheads to ensure that they destroyed this capability.

So who's side where the British government on given how they made Britain ever and ever more vulnerable at a time when the USSR surpassed NATO in strategic capacity in the late 70's? When were either the British government or NATO going to start working on a credible defense that would not have resulted in both their populations being largely annihilated for lack of preparedness?

Hmm…I try to show you how the deployment of mobile US cruise missiles launchers would have caused the Soviets to make a blanket nuclear attack across southern England, which would have in turn negated Civil Defence measures, and you respond with a diatribe about policy?

By 1963 it had become obvious that nowhere in the UK could be considered safe from nuclear attack (the same fact was dawning on the Soviets and the US); all that a Government could do was to disperse across the UK during the Precautionary Period and hope that the few survivors would somehow manage to accrete at specific locations.

Strath recommended a programme of shelter building for the population, but estimates put the cost at £1.25bn. At today's prices, that would amount to almost £23bn. It was considered too costly, so military planners determined that the best form of defence was the guarantee of immediate retaliation against an aggressor. And to do that, someone would have to be tucked away safely ready to push the button.

www.guardian.co.uk...

How could no area be safe in a bunker underground? What kind of nonsense is this and why do you keep repeating it? You would not be safe ABOVE GROUND standing around in the streets of large cities for sure but how do you get from that rather obvious fact to 'nowhere in the UK could be considered safe from attack'? Would they send commando's by airplane to attack the bunkers or what? Why do you so desperately want to believe that the fact that so little preparations where made PROVES that preparations could not be made? Do you know how 'accurate' nuclear weapons were in 1963 and how little effect they could or would have had against even known buried targets? What about then nearly twenty years that had passed since the inception of the nuclear age? How can not doing much serve as evidence that not much can be done? Is the absence of airplanes in the middle ages evidence that airplanes could never be built?

Your whole train of logic was never on rails.

The advent of missiles (and later, MIRV capabilities), caused all Governments to realise that nowhere could be guaranteed safe from nuclear attack (where you got the idea of commando assault is beyond me).

Even the Cheyenne Mountain underground complex was considered vulnerable, which is why the US spent enormous sums on maintaining a viable alternative (in the early days, the so-called ‘doomsday ships’, later airborne CCC capabilities).

The UK Government favoured redundant dispersal - aka PYTHON Groups. The days of a wartime seat of Central Government (BURLINGTON et al) were over.

And as for your BS about the UK Government providing protected accommodation for "tens of thousands" - care to provide proof that the number was that high; or did you just pluck it out of the air like so much of your evidence?

Until two years ago, the existence of this complex, variously codenamed Burlington, Stockwell, Turnstile or 3-Site, was classified. It was a huge yet very secret complex, where the government and 6,000 apparatchiks would have taken refuge for 90 days during all-out thermonuclear war. Solid yet cavernous, surrounded by 100ft-deep reinforced concrete walls within a subterranean 240-acre limestone quarry just outside Corsham, it drives one to imagine the ghosts of people who, thank God, never took refuge here.
www.guardian.co.uk...

I meant the 'few tens of thousands' with respect to most governments ( UK, US and others) but as you can see it may in fact be ten thousand ( depending on what ' the government' + 6000 means) in just that one until-two-years-ago classified complex.

You’d be better advised to source your research from reliable documents (see below) rather than a badly researched newspaper article.







As you will note, the above extract from a declassified (formerly TOP SECRET) Government document reveals that in 1964, the UK Central Government protected accommodation at Corsham was due to accommodate 3, 780 personnel - not 6000 +!

continued...


zero lift

read the entire book and you might realise that your position is based on very shaky foundations.

You don't have to read an entire book of supposed' fact' to realise that it's not based on facts.

How on earth do you come to that conclusion?

If you’d taken the trouble to read it, you would realise that the whole book is sourced from declassified Government files.

I would add that much of the source material has only been recently declassified, hence there is a mountain of info in the book to which you will never have previously had access.

Does the book for instance disclose the fact that the UK government believed that it could ride out a nuclear war in it's 6000+ sleeper shelter?

It does better than that StellarX.

It tells the story of how, even as early as the early sixties, the UK Government realised that the Corsham complex was now vulnerable to missile delivered ground burst (where you got the idea of commando assault is beyond me). This caused them to develop the idea of redundant dispersal.

“…The idea was that although TURNSTILE could not be manned in 2-3 days it would be possible to organise groups of say 80 people any one of which could function by itself as a nucleus or an embryonic central government. Some reports suggest the groups would be 150 strong but this may have included communications and non-operational staff. Each Python Group would be headed by a Senior Minister designated to act as the Prime Minister and supported by 2 other ministers. One would be designated to act primarily for defence and overseas affairs and the other for internal matters. Up to 8 Python Groups would be dispersed around the country to Survival Locations with the possibility of some groups being airborne or sea borne[4] and even going overseas. Each Python Group could act as the central government albeit on a very limited, nucleus basis. After say 30 days the surviving groups would come together at TURNSTILE, if it survived or some other “accretion centre” to establish a Central Government Authority for the recovery period…”

The fact remains StellarX that, far from being the much mythologized underground wartime Seat of Government, the infamous BURLINGTON bunker acted for most of the Cold War only as a decoy!

But don't take my word for it, have a peak at the following recntly declassified doc.



Take a look at the following pics - do they look like an up-to-date Wartime Seat of Government?


Radio PA System


Prime Minister's Bathroom

If you bothered to read the book, you’d already know that!

read the entire book and you might realise that your position is based on very shaky foundations.

You don't have to read an entire book of supposed' fact' to realise that it's not based on facts.

Really…you’re sure of that are you?

I have already told you that the whole book relies on official declassified material, but for reasons known only to yourself you choose to ignore this fact.

Let me give you an example; the recent update for Chapter 4 was sourced from the following declassified Government files:

BBC Report on Exercise FELSTEAD
BBC War Book 1965 second draft
BBC War Book 1975
CAB 21 4135
CAB 21 6081 Machinery of Government in War Burlington Ministerial nominations 1961 Jul 31 1962 Sep 26
CAB 21 6083 Machinery of Government in War Turnstile Ministerial nominations 1963 Jan 25 1965 Dec 17
Cabinet Office declassification of Corsham Underground Site No 3 (aka BURLINGTON et al) 2004
CHANTICLEER
CHANTICLEER 1968 Telephone Directory
CHECKPOINT
Corsham Underground Site No 3 1996 DCSA map
Corsham Underground Site No 3 1970 Lamson tube map
Corsham Underground Site No 3 Ministry of Works 1960s services map
EYEGLASS
FCO 16/58 Government War Book regional co-ordination of UK overseas authorities in global war 1967
FCO 16/59 Government War Book regional co-ordination of UK overseas authorities in global war 1967 1968
FCO 16/60 Government War Book regional co-ordination of UK overseas authorities in global war 1968
HO 223/5 Organisation of government to deal with international emergencies (codewords MACMORRIS and FLUELLEN procedures) 1961 Jan 01 - 1966 Dec 31
HO 223/129 Central Government in War proposals for Home Office administrative arrangements and facilities; Home Office Briefing Room 1971 Jan 01 - 1974 Dec 31
HO 256/459 Broadcasting under wartime conditions 1955-1964
HO 322/270 Working Party on Review of Public Control Memorandum 1958 1963
HO 322/275 Defence (Administration of Justice) Regulations 1965 1967
HO 322/317 Regional seats of government organisation 1964-1965
HO 322/412 Regional war rooms standing instructions; functions HO 322/785 Probable nuclear targets in the United Kingdom assumptions for planning 1969 Jan 01 1972 Dec 31
LINSTOCK
QUADRANGLE
PERIPHERAL
POWE 33/2054 National emergency wartime oil organisation and communications 1952-1960
POWE 33/2160 Oil industry emergency headquarters and regional organisation 1955-1959
POWE 33/2499 War Book 1959-1965
POWE 61/58 Joint Government Industry Oil Defence Planning Group minutes of meetings 1-49 1961-1962
POWE 61/121 Ministry of Power complement (oil) 1957-1964
POWE 61/122 NATO agencies accommodated at Burlington 1960-1964
POWE 61/123 Accommodation for NATO agencies other than at Burlington 1962-1964
POWE 61/124 Accommodation for NATO agencies other than at Burlington 1964-1965
Project ALBATROSS
T 199/924 Central Government Headquarters in time of war general papers 1960 1962
T 199/925 Central Government Headquarters in time of war general papers 1961 1973
T 216/755 Home Defence Secretariats staffing at 'Burlington' and in the Regions 1960-1961
T 216/756 Home Defence Secretariats staffing at 'Burlington' and in the Regions 1961
T 216/757 Home Defence Secretariats staffing at 'Burlington' and in the Regions 1962
T 216/758 Home Defence Secretariats staffing at 'Burlington' and in the Regions 1962 1963
T 216/759 Home Defence Secretariats staffing at 'Turnstile' and in the Regions 1963-1964
T 216/760 Home Defence Secretariats staffing at 'Turnstile' and in the Regions 1964 1965
T 219/1046 Civil Defence Central Government headquarters accommodation 1954 Jan 01-1959 Dec 31
T 227/1877 NATO war planning inspection of civil wartime agencies 1963
T 227/1959 War Planning 1964 post-Cuba review of home defence 1962-1965
T 227/1962 Machinery of government in war regional seats of government and sub-regions provision of funds for goods and services 1962 1964
T 227/2309 Civil Defence Planning (NATO Civil Defence Agencies) 1962-1966
T 230/704 Home Defence Committee Working Party initial phase measures to combat the effects of immediate air attack 1953
TACK




And you have the gall to say there are no facts in the book?




zero lift

[edit on 31/10/08 by zero lift]

reply to post by 1000hanz


That is what you could have asked had your intentions been respectable. Then again maybe that's the way people ask for help where your from?

This took a few hours to find ( but some interesting new finds to read) so i hope you put them to some positive use.

Ironically, the development of the upgraded ground-based battle-management radars, which can track MIRVed RVs, was carried out during the ABM Treaty negotiations. Construction of these facilities could hardly have gone unnoticed by the West, for they resemble several Manhattan skyscrapers joined together in one unit. Construction began in 1972, and the first units became operational in the1980s. The well-known Krasnoyarsk Radar-the sixth of nine such radars--was a deliberate treaty violation by the Soviet leadership. Is it possible that United States and NATO spy satellites did not detect these massive structures? If not, then why are these flagrant treaty violations being ignored?

In total the U.S.S.R. deployed two generations of national missile defenses, consisting of 18 large radars and 12,000 SAM/ABM interceptors at 280 complexes. Moscow itself is protected not only by 100 ABM missiles, as permitted by the treaty, but also by several thousand SAM/ABM interceptors.

findarticles.com...

In part

Dead link : newsmax.com.../4/24/53247

Immediately prior to the signing of the ABM treaty, the Soviets had developed a surface-to-air missile, the SA-5, which was observed to have a peculiar trajectory. The SA-5 was fired high above the atmosphere and then would descend to intercept and destroy enemy bombers. While technically such a trajectory could not be ruled out, logically, however, it could not be accepted as this type of trajectory represents the least efficient way to shoot down enemy aircraft. On the other hand, the SA-5?s trajectory would be just the ticket for shooting down incoming ballistic missiles which themselves travel above the atmosphere. Taking this into account, the SA-5 had to be an ABM weapon. But with the ABM treaty almost in hand, this fact was ignored and the treaty went into effect. The treaty remains in effect, limiting development of a U.S. ABM system. Meanwhile, Russian dual-purpose (anti-aircraft/anti-missile) missile systems like the SA-5 continue to exist.

www.thenewamerican.com...

Could not find a link for that one so i here are a few other sources that expounds on the basic claims made above:

Meanwhile, Russia's de facto national missile-defense network, with at least 8,000 modern interceptors and 12 long-range radars, will gain in strategic importance as the United States and Russia decrease the number of offensive nuclear weapons to lower and lower levels.

The Moscow-system missiles, the SA-5 and SA-10/12, were tipped with small nuclear warheads so they didn't require the incredible bullet-hitting-bullet complexity of the U.S. systems developed during the Clinton years. U.S. spy satellites repeatedly identified tactical nuclear-warhead storage sites at the interceptor bases spread across the Soviet empire.

* G.V. Kisun'ko, the chief designer of the ABM systems developed or deployed around Moscow for more than three decades, confirms in a 1996 memoir that large Hen House and Dog House radars at Sary Shagan were designed as battle-management radars for the early Soviet ABM system for the defense of Moscow. Kisun'ko also stated that the SA-5 was designed as a dual-purpose SAM/ABM in conjunction with the Hen House radars.

* B.V. Bunkin, the designer of the follow-on SA-10 and SA-12 (S-300 PMU and S-300V in Russian nomenclature) missile systems, and several other Russian sources, confirmed that these also were dual-purpose SAM/ABMs. SA-10s largely have replaced the thousands of SA-5 interceptors deployed across the Soviet empire during the Cold War. Bunkin's latest SAM/ABM design, the SA-20, is scheduled to begin deployment this year.

www.findarticles.com...

"Former Secretary of Defense Melvin R. Laird claims that thousands of SA-5 interceptors have been deployed in hundreds of sites around some 110 Soviet urban areas, principally in the European U.S.S.R"

www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil...

Note: SA-5 is actually a reused NATO reporting name: it originally referred to the Russian V-1000 Anti Ballistic Missile system, introduced in 1963 and retired the following year for unknown reasons. The SA-5 (as described here) is apparently considered to be a "highly modified version of it".

everything2.com...

On 04 March 1961 an R-12 ballistic missile fitted with a mockup in the form of a 500-kg steel plate, simulating a standard warhead, was launched from the State proving ground at station Sary-Shagan. The target was detected by proving ground radars at a range of 1,500 km and destroyed by a V-1000 antimissile missile, outfitted with a high-explosive-payload.

In 1963 the Griffon [NATO reporting name] interceptor was paraded in Red Square, and characterized as an ABM interceptor. The Griffon was a two-stage liquid fueled interceptor that was 16.5 meters long with a range of over 250 kilometers. Construction of the RZ-25 ABM system, which employed the V-1000 interceptor, was first detected in the early 1960's near the Estonian capital Tallinn. However this construction soon ceased. A highly modified version of the Griffon, the Gammon, was subsequently developed.

www.fas.org...

So i hope that clears up the issue about what the Sa-5 was and could do.

However, Soviet and Russian sources, including former Premier Alexei Kosygin and the Chief Designer of the original Moscow ABM system, confirm that: the SA-5 and SA-10 were dual purpose antiaircraft/missile systems (SAM/ABMs), and that the Hen House and LPAR radars provided the requisite battle management target tracking data. These and other sources cited in The ABM Treaty Charade are not exhaustive.

Nevertheless, CIA has not revised its position on this issue, nor have the U.S. Congress and the public been informed that the ABM Treaty was a valid contract from beginning to end.

In the late 1960s the U.S. sacrificed its 20-year technological advantage in ABM defenses on the altar of "arms control." As Russian sources now admit, the Soviet General Staff was in total control of Soviet "arms control" proposals and negotiations, subject to Politburo review, which was largely pro forma. The Soviet military's objective was to gain as much advantage as possible from "arms control" agreements (SALT).

www.jinsa.org...

I have not so far found an alternate link for the Jinsa article but the earlier FAS does cover the 'revelations' made.

Continued

Neither of these changes in CIA assessments was the result of evidence on either SA-5 and Hen House design, or actual radar operations. In rare moments of candor, CIA acknowledged that there simply were too many ``intelligence gaps'' in the evidence from U.S. technical collection systems to resolve these issues. The CIA and the NIE majority simply systematically violated the rule that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, e.g. if satellites did not detect the Soviet radars passing battle management target tracking data, therefore, only early warning data were being passed. When the U.S. identified nuclear warhead storage at the SA-5 complexes in the early 1970s NIE positions remained the same. Conclusive evidence filling in the ``intelligence gaps'' began to surface publicly from U.S. and Russian sources only in 1992. The principal Russian sources for that evidence are: --A.N. Kosygin, former Premier and Politburo member for over three decades; --Gen. Col. Yu.V. Votintsev, Commander ABM (PRO) and Space Defense (PKO) Troops, 1967-85; --G.V. Kisun'ko, Chief Designer of the Moscow ABM system 1954-75, General Designer of the Soviet Empire's ABM systems from 1956 until the mid-1970s, and two of his colleagues; --two Soviet Military Attaches--one a military intelligence (GRU) general officer; and --various books and articles from the Russian press. The top three Russian sources--Kosygin, Votintsev, Kisun'ko--had unique access to all Soviet ABM programs. All the Russian sources are consistent on three critical points refuting CIA's position: --the SA-5 and SA-10 were designed as dual purpose SAM/ABMs from relatively low cost air defense components; --the Hen House and LPAR radars were designed to provide target tracking (battle management) data to the SAM/ABMs; and --a national ABM and space defense command-control system was installed by the mid-1970s.

--A.N. Kosygin, former Premier and Politburo member for over three decades; --Gen. Col. Yu.V. Votintsev, Commander ABM (PRO) and Space Defense (PKO) Troops, 1967-85; --G.V. Kisun'ko, Chief Designer of the Moscow ABM system 1954-75, General Designer of the Soviet Empire's ABM systems from 1956 until the mid-1970s, and two of his colleagues; --two Soviet Military Attaches--one a military intelligence (GRU) general officer; and --various books and articles from the Russian press. The top three Russian sources--Kosygin, Votintsev, Kisun'ko--had unique access to all Soviet ABM programs. All the Russian sources are consistent on three critical points refuting CIA's position: --the SA-5 and SA-10 were designed as dual purpose SAM/ABMs from relatively low cost air defense components; --the Hen House and LPAR radars were designed to provide target tracking (battle management) data to the SAM/ABMs; and --a national ABM and space defense command-control system was installed by the mid-1970s.

www.fas.org...

and the following is where the Jinsa excerpts came from:

www.fas.org...

Russia inherited most of the Soviet empire's illegal national ABM defenses. Although the Hen Houses and LPARs located in the successor states created significant gaps in coverage, Russia still controls 12 or 13 of those radars. Consequently, SAM/ABMs still defend most of the Russian Federation from U.S. ICBMs, much of the SLBM threat, and Chinese missiles. Scheduled completion of the LPAR in Belorus will restore complete threat coverage, except for the gap left by the dismantled Krasnoyarsk LPAR. Granted, the Hen Houses are old, but the United States has been operating similar radars for 40 years.

Despite its economic difficulties, Russia continued development and production of the SA-10, adding (in 1992-1993 and 1997) two models with new missiles and electronics and replacing more than 1000 SA-5 missiles with late model SA-10s having greatly improved performance against ballistic missiles of all ranges. Russia is protected by as at least as many (about 8500) SAM/ABMs as in 1991, and they are more effective. No wonder Russia shows little concern for its proliferation of missile and nuclear technology.

Even more impressively, Russia has begun flight-testing the fourth generation "S-400" ("Triumph") SAM/ABM designed not only to end the "absolute superiority" of air assault demonstrated by the United States in the 1992 Gulf War and the 1999 Kosovo operation, but also to improve Russia's illegal ABM defenses against strategic ballistic missiles. The S-400 is scheduled to begin deployment in 2000, more testimony to Russia's commitment to maintaining its national ABM defenses in violation of the ABM Treaty.

www.fas.org...

Dead link : www.security-policy.org...

Mr. Lee's analysis is complex. To vastly simplify, he says he has evidence that Russia's surface-to-air interceptor missiles carry nuclear warheads and therefore are capable of bringing down long-range ballistic missiles, not just aircraft and shorter-range missiles, which is their stated purpose. Russia has 8,000 of these missiles scattered around the country, and Mr. Lee says he has found numerous Russian sources that describe how successive generations of SAMs were in fact designed with the express intention of shooting down ballistic missiles, which is illegal under the treaty.

www.opinionjournal.com...

And this one actually worked. You would think these people have paid archivers that can keep information reliably and in one easy to reach place....

If you have any further doubts i can upload all these articles as i did originally save them all to hardrive. Where they are right now isn't so easy to determine but if you wish i can find them and upload the documents.

Stellar

They don't penetrate deeply ( unless that's what you mean by a meter or two) and as for the thick bar of led there is a reason we are talking sand and not led.

Sand would not be efficient in dealing with this kind of radiation, lead is the most efficient kind of shielding because it has a higher atomic number than sand, electrons and protons can be deflected with aluminium and sand, but you are talking about pure gamma emisions besides particles.Sand won't stop that

Feel free to discover the difference with some easy to do internet research.

Yes I expected that since you did not know what to imput here.
trshare.triumf.ca...
" target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>
In an nuclear explosion you have gamma emisions ranging from 1 to 7 MeV

For 7 mev gamma emmisions you would need around 10 cm of lead shielding to reduce the dosage to half life, and that would only cut the radiation in half.For other materials such as concrete you would need to almost double that amound to shield from that type of radiation.
You would die after a few days.It's simply enough to be exposed to 10 rem per hour since radiation is a cumulative factor it would add up and in a few days you would acumulate above 1000 rem because you would be constantly exposed, since gamma radiation is very persistant it can even last off for 100 years or more.

Why? As long as particle's can't and don't get in there is no ionizing effect that i am aware of.

Particles similar to the charged electrons may be easyer to block, but not a direct gamma emission, because we are not talking about particles that may produce radiation, we are talking about pure emisions of gamma radiation resulting from a nuclear fallout, not particles coliding and producing radiation, there is also that, but the most important factor is the high type of radiation in the spectrum of radiation mejurment.

One nuke would insure total anihilation of any city, it would mostly wipe out any sign of life, you would simply glow in the dark for sure.If you manage to survive underground the radiation would get to you in a few days, you would first start to vomit, then your hair would fall off, after than you would pass out and die.

To survive you need a very deep hole, make it 10 meeters or more.





[edit on 1-11-2008 by pepsi78]

Well done I'm now a non-doubter although what I was doubting was the non-"FAS.org/Globalsecurity.org" sources, thanx, my apologies.

[edit on 1-11-2008 by 1000hanz]

Originally posted by pepsi78
Sand would not be efficient in dealing with this kind of radiation, lead is the most efficient kind of shielding because it has a higher atomic number than sand, electrons and protons can be deflected with aluminium and sand, but you are talking about pure gamma emisions besides particles.

It is quite efficient but it's not cheap and have it's own associated health risk. I have never seen a source that does not say that a few feet/meters of concrete does not entirely defeat prompt radiation from even the largest weapons ever exploded. Either way feel free to bring me the sources your basing your disagreement on as i have already posted mine earlier.

Sand won't stop that

Yes I expected that since you did not know what to imput here.

I already did and much earlier in the thread. Please go back and read the entire thread and associated links before pointing so many fingers.

In an nuclear explosion you have gamma emisions ranging from 1 to 7 MeV

Source please.

For 7 mev gamma emmisions you would need around 10 cm of lead shielding to reduce the dosage to half life, and that would only cut the radiation in half.

Gamma emmision is only lethal or induce lethal effects in open air for less distance than blast and thermal damage is going to kill for weapons above 100 Kt. Prompt Gamma emissions are not a serious threat to those who are either underground or far way enough to escape blast and thermal effects.

For other materials such as concrete you would need to almost double that amound to shield from that type of radiation.
You would die after a few days.

Why would you die if your shielded? Being a few Km's away are protection in itself but to introduce any substansial volume of sand or concrete even one Km from the explosion is going to allow for survival with blast effects very probably being the larger threat. Basically you should pick another source or introduce your graph with source.

It's simply enough to be exposed to 10 rem per hour since radiation is a cumulative factor it would add up and in a few days you would acumulate above 1000 rem because you would be constantly exposed, since gamma radiation is very persistant it can even last off for 100 years or more.

Prompt Gamma radiation is called for that for a reason and it does not persist to induce damage. Particle fallout on the surface have absolutely no chance of penetrating either meters of sand or a few ten's of cm's of concrete. Why do you all insist on placing everyone above ground during the explosion?

Particles similar to the charged electrons may be easyer to block, but not a direct gamma emission, because we are not talking about particles that may produce radiation, we are talking about pure emisions of gamma radiation resulting from a nuclear fallout, not particles coliding and producing radiation, there is also that, but the most important factor is the high type of radiation in the spectrum of radiation mejurment.

The direct massive gamma emission during a nuclear explosion is gone very fast and until someone can give me numbers with respect to gamma emitting particle fallout there is very little point to this discussion.

One nuke would insure total anihilation of any city, it would mostly wipe out any sign of life, you would simply glow in the dark for sure.

Your kidding, right? Total annihilation? Wipe away any sign of life? Glow in the dark? Did you go to school?

If you manage to survive underground the radiation would get to you in a few days, you would first start to vomit, then your hair would fall off, after than you would pass out and die.

How would the radiation 'get you'? Like Osama and his terrorist will? You MUST be joking?

To survive you need a very deep hole, make it 10 meeters or more.

And we all know that it's impossible to dig that deep ( it's just too expensive and all that's why no one drills water wells or builds mines) because God made the Earth six thousand years ago and didn't have time for a thicker crust.

bah.

I shouldn't dignify these posts with responses but then dignity isn't something you really can retain while trying to inform the desperately ignorant.

Stellar