From: Noddy on

"Clocky" <notgonn(a)happen.com> wrote in message
news:4c6431e9$0$11098$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com...

> I'm not sure what you would call 1000-2000 tonnes of nuclear armanents
> dumped in one area, but it's largely irrelevant what it is called when the
> net result is the same as dropping an A-bomb.

It's not the slightest bit similar unless you're talking about a nuclear
bomb the size of a box of matches :)

> No it isn't, ground burst and air burst explosions are quite different.

The Chernobyl disaster was an explosion. Not a massive nuclear weapon type
of explosion, but one that released a massive cloud of radioactive fallout
over a huge area.

> Nope.

Okay. So, what's the difference between fallout from a nuclear weapon that
is fused for an air burst at 10000 feet and fallout from a ground based
explosion that rises 10000 feet into the air?

> You should really read up on the different kind of explosions and the
> dynamics of fallout, volatility, half-lifes and their long term and short
> term effects etc.

Instead of telling me I'm wrong, why don't you offer a few examples of how
you're right?

> There was a team of scientists that sacrificed themselves also, I remember
> there was a doco about it and they sent in remote control robots vehicles
> to look at the core. They all dropped off one by one too but I can't find
> that doco.

I think I saw the same one. It was quite interesting and appalling at the
same time.

--
Regards,
Noddy.


From: Noddy on

"D Walford" <dwalford(a)internode.on.net> wrote in message
news:4c651d71$0$28666$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com...

> I'd make myself popular with most of the world and nuke the entire Middle
> East including Israel and I'd make sure no one survived to complain:-)

As long as the oil was still gettable, that'd be fine with me :)

--
Regards,
Noddy.


From: Noddy on

"Clocky" <notgonn(a)happen.com> wrote in message
news:4c6532db$0$11114$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com...

> You haven't thought this through, the ones here will complain the loudest!

Fine.

Announce the plan a few weeks in advance, round up everyone who complains,
ship them over there and *then* nuke the joint :)

--
Regards,
Noddy.


From: Noddy on

"Clocky" <notgonn(a)happen.com> wrote in message
news:4c64c974$0$11090$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com...

> I'm not so sure they wouldn't be capable of it again given the way they
> treat animals which is usually a pretty good indicator.

One could only hope.

--
Regards,
Noddy.


From: Hiroshima Facts on
On Aug 12, 1:39 pm, "Clocky" <notg...(a)happen.com> wrote:
> "Noddy" <m...(a)home.com> wrote in message
> news:4c63d010$0$56728$c30e37c6(a)exi-reader.telstra.net...
> > "Clocky" <notg...(a)happen.com> wrote in message
> >news:4c639d9f$0$11117$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com...
>
> >> Not true, Fallujah was exposed to the same or more nuclear "fallout"
> >> then Hiroshima through the use of depleted Uranium weapons during
> >> operation Phantom Fury and causing all sorts of health problems with a 4x
> >> increase in all cancers and a 12x increase in childhood cancers since
> >> 2004. I think the Yanks needed a testing ground for their nastiest of
> >> weapons on people and found (manufactured?) an excuse to do it.
>
> > The use of depleted uranium in "convention weapons" isn't generally
> > considered a nuclear attack.
>
> I'm not sure what you would call 1000-2000 tonnes of nuclear armanents
> dumped in one area, but it's largely irrelevant what it is called when the
> net result is the same as dropping an A-bomb.

DU shells are not "nuclear armaments" in any sense of the word.

And if that much DU ammo had been used, it would not have even
remotely had the same result as a nuclear bomb.

And most importantly of all, DU shells are used against tanks. Due to
the fact that the insurgents had no tanks, no DU ammo was used in
Fallujah.