Know your enemy, and then what?

[Greg Hermann]

At 11:04 AM 9/17/01, Gary Heuston wrote:
>seriously doubt the US will go to a nuclear strike here...while it could easily
>be done and it would pretty much end the problem in a few minutes, the fallout
>would affect the neigboring countries and they would be a bit less than pleased
>with that...
>The biggest worry when it comes to Nuclear weapons is a Nuclear Winter...thats
>when so many Nuclear weapons have been detonated that the ash and dust
>thrown up
>actually obscures the sun and causes a blackout condition on Earth, essentially
>killing off all life...I don't remember how many would have to be thrown for
>this to happen, but it is a lot.
>
>More than likely we are looking at a conventional weapon strike or a ground
>attack.
>
>Gary

Modern nukes have a radioactive yield orders of magnitude lower than what
the old stuff had. Plus, because of accuracy--something like 98%
probability of hitting with a 12 FOOT diameter circle--the newer ones are a
lot smaller--170 KT for a strategic MIRV type warhead is typical.

Can be done so that the fireball neither touches the ground nor blows a
hole in the atmosphere. Thus minimizing dust and fallout. Just a nice neat
coating of glass where a terrorist camp and sand used to be, along with
shadow images of terrorists burned into the glass!

Truth is--the projected reduction in air-liner traffic may do far more for
the purported "global warming" than anything else that could have been
done! H2O vapor at high altitude (as in con-trails) is something on the
order of 250 times as powerful a greenhouse gas as CO2 is!

Greg


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from gmecm, send "unsubscribe gmecm" (without the quotes)
in the body of a message (not the subject) to majordomo at lists.diy-efi.org