Wow! I have to agree with most of that.
I can't see a rain of nukes in my lifetime. Russia is less aggressive than they look at first glance. Russian leaders have to appear very strong to stay in power, because of the way politics work over there. This easily misleads the west, whose political systems work very differently. China will not nuke anyone, unless nuked first. PERIOD! Anything else is simply not good economics. Again, the system is different and over there it is driven by money first, money last, and money alone.
Most of the other nuclear armed countries are either non-aggressive, like us or wrapped up in their own struggles, like Pakistan and India. So they amount to no credible threat.
The only risk worth considering is North Korea; they do not have many nukes (YET!!!) and as such will not rain them on anyone.
That is my only counter argument. One single nuke from NK would change America's world. In this world of washing machines, cars, tractors and factory farming, television, vacuum cleaners, ride on lawnmowers and beauty parlors, the Kardashians, "street culture", fridges, freezers, flushing toilets, running water, air conditioning, drug stores and functional hospitals not only are people unused to the rigors of a third world life but also they have no concept of it.
People (at least some of them) will work for free. They will be the survivors. Communism is a repressive horror! But commune-ism is how our ancestors survived in tribal days when life was so much harder. Post nuke, it would be the only functional survival option. Those who maintain an "I'm alright Jack so F*** you!" attitude are statistically shown in disasters to be far less likely to survive. Mutual self help groups are the most resilient.
The length of time things remain radioactive for is dependent on many factors. Amazingly the half life of fallout is usually only about 30 minutes. This means the radiation levels drop from "lethal even to cockroaches" to "fairly safe for short periods" within about 2 weeks, at least everywhere except ground zero itself. There are exceptions. If a nuke falls on chalk, gypsum or limestone. half a million years of non-survivability ensues, as the reaction transmutes strontium in the rock into a really, really nasty isotope. So move away from the areas which produce sinkholes! They are dangerous even without the nukes, With nukes, in those places there is no hope.
I do not know the results of a nuke on a nuclear reactor. Understandably, no one wants to do that experiment! ....................... I imagine it would be quite nasty......................
Disease is the biggest worry post nuke. In addition to the damage to the medical services and the piles of rotting bodies, millions will be displaced and two uniquely nuclear problems will arise #1 mild, non-fatal radiation poisoning damages people's immune systems and #2 radiation makes "bugs" mutate faster - not a nice combination in areas with no running water or functioning sewage systems.
Medical systems already have triage plans, as do the military and other defense agencies. Smart phone addicted idiots often do not even have an asprin in the medical cupboard and no concept of the possibilities they would face. The culture shock alone could kill millions.
------------- How do you tell if a politician is lying? His lips or pen are moving.
|