Massive Russian Build Up at North Korean Border
Posted: April 20th, 2017, 9:17 pm
I was actually born in Vladivostok. So much for visiting there...
Your home for discussing politics, the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, and the principles of liberty.
https://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/
Dasvidaniya Zhirnyy Kim!
Жирный is fat, no?
Ха-ха
Just because you destroy a "nuke site" doesn't mean you get a massive radiation release. When you take out a nuke site, whether it b3e a weapon, weapon facility, or power plant, you are essentially blowing up the components of the nuclear equation, not creating a nuclear explosion itself. In order to achieve a nuclear explosion with the accompanying radiation release you have to have a very carefully timed sequence of events and actions. That's why most nations do not have nuclear weapons; the technology to build them is beyond their reach. Destroying a power plant, weapons factory, or weapon itself may result in a conventional explosion and the spreading around of nuclear fuel/weapon components which are radioactive, but not a nuclear reaction. You may get a small amount of radiation similar to what happen at Chernobyl when that went sown, bit it is relatively localized and won't spread like the radiation released by a nuclear explosion/reaction in the atmosphere.Z2100 wrote: ↑April 21st, 2017, 7:07 am
1. The Russian buildup on the North Korean border is very serious (and very scary).
2. If nuke sites are destroyed, then radiation will Reach Vladivostok and cause a mass evacuation.
3. The radiation cloud could stay in Vladivostok for a long time (3 years, perhaps? I hope not).
4. It's safe to say that another Korean war is coming our way, and millions of innocent people will die.
5. I don't think anyone would want to travel to the general area of North Korea/China/Russia to avoid hardships
Indeed it is!Silver wrote: ↑April 21st, 2017, 5:56 amЖирный is fat, no?
Chernobyl and Fukushima were/ are hardly "a small amount of radiation", and that's just one site each.Sandinista wrote: ↑April 21st, 2017, 2:18 pmJust because you destroy a "nuke site" doesn't mean you get a massive radiation release. When you take out a nuke site, whether it b3e a weapon, weapon facility, or power plant, you are essentially blowing up the components of the nuclear equation, not creating a nuclear explosion itself. In order to achieve a nuclear explosion with the accompanying radiation release you have to have a very carefully timed sequence of events and actions. That's why most nations do not have nuclear weapons; the technology to build them is beyond their reach. Destroying a power plant, weapons factory, or weapon itself may result in a conventional explosion and the spreading around of nuclear fuel/weapon components which are radioactive, but not a nuclear reaction. You may get a small amount of radiation similar to what happen at Chernobyl when that went sown, bit it is relatively localized and won't spread like the radiation released by a nuclear explosion/reaction in the atmosphere.Z2100 wrote: ↑April 21st, 2017, 7:07 am
1. The Russian buildup on the North Korean border is very serious (and very scary).
2. If nuke sites are destroyed, then radiation will Reach Vladivostok and cause a mass evacuation.
3. The radiation cloud could stay in Vladivostok for a long time (3 years, perhaps? I hope not).
4. It's safe to say that another Korean war is coming our way, and millions of innocent people will die.
5. I don't think anyone would want to travel to the general area of North Korea/China/Russia to avoid hardships
Totally different scenario. I've been involved in the manufacturer, delivery, destruction, and management of nuclear weapons for 45 years. What was posted about the dangers of taking out North Korea's nuclear capability, if indeed they do have one, is simply not true.JohnnyL wrote: ↑April 23rd, 2017, 1:40 pmChernobyl and Fukushima were/ are hardly "a small amount of radiation", and that's just one site each.Sandinista wrote: ↑April 21st, 2017, 2:18 pmJust because you destroy a "nuke site" doesn't mean you get a massive radiation release. When you take out a nuke site, whether it b3e a weapon, weapon facility, or power plant, you are essentially blowing up the components of the nuclear equation, not creating a nuclear explosion itself. In order to achieve a nuclear explosion with the accompanying radiation release you have to have a very carefully timed sequence of events and actions. That's why most nations do not have nuclear weapons; the technology to build them is beyond their reach. Destroying a power plant, weapons factory, or weapon itself may result in a conventional explosion and the spreading around of nuclear fuel/weapon components which are radioactive, but not a nuclear reaction. You may get a small amount of radiation similar to what happen at Chernobyl when that went sown, bit it is relatively localized and won't spread like the radiation released by a nuclear explosion/reaction in the atmosphere.Z2100 wrote: ↑April 21st, 2017, 7:07 am
1. The Russian buildup on the North Korean border is very serious (and very scary).
2. If nuke sites are destroyed, then radiation will Reach Vladivostok and cause a mass evacuation.
3. The radiation cloud could stay in Vladivostok for a long time (3 years, perhaps? I hope not).
4. It's safe to say that another Korean war is coming our way, and millions of innocent people will die.
5. I don't think anyone would want to travel to the general area of North Korea/China/Russia to avoid hardships
If it's meant that destroying a nuke site means the warheads will blow up, his/ her comment would be incorrect. If it meant setting off a non-explosive reaction/ melt-down, like Chernobyl or Fukushima, but on a much larger scale with lots of radioactive material?Sandinista wrote: ↑April 24th, 2017, 11:02 amTotally different scenario. I've been involved in the manufacturer, delivery, destruction, and management of nuclear weapons for 45 years. What was posted about the dangers of taking out North Korea's nuclear capability, if indeed they do have one, is simply not true.JohnnyL wrote: ↑April 23rd, 2017, 1:40 pmChernobyl and Fukushima were/ are hardly "a small amount of radiation", and that's just one site each.Sandinista wrote: ↑April 21st, 2017, 2:18 pmJust because you destroy a "nuke site" doesn't mean you get a massive radiation release. When you take out a nuke site, whether it b3e a weapon, weapon facility, or power plant, you are essentially blowing up the components of the nuclear equation, not creating a nuclear explosion itself. In order to achieve a nuclear explosion with the accompanying radiation release you have to have a very carefully timed sequence of events and actions. That's why most nations do not have nuclear weapons; the technology to build them is beyond their reach. Destroying a power plant, weapons factory, or weapon itself may result in a conventional explosion and the spreading around of nuclear fuel/weapon components which are radioactive, but not a nuclear reaction. You may get a small amount of radiation similar to what happen at Chernobyl when that went sown, bit it is relatively localized and won't spread like the radiation released by a nuclear explosion/reaction in the atmosphere.Z2100 wrote: ↑April 21st, 2017, 7:07 am
1. The Russian buildup on the North Korean border is very serious (and very scary).
2. If nuke sites are destroyed, then radiation will Reach Vladivostok and cause a mass evacuation.
3. The radiation cloud could stay in Vladivostok for a long time (3 years, perhaps? I hope not).
4. It's safe to say that another Korean war is coming our way, and millions of innocent people will die.
5. I don't think anyone would want to travel to the general area of North Korea/China/Russia to avoid hardships
