That’s a concession that I was right.
When he said a nuclear explosion would require a very long exclusion zone (like Chernobyl, which is very different) he was wrong. A correction should be no big deal.
You think he said something wrong and knew it was wrong at the time? That makes no sense. But then making sense has nothing to do with what you are trying to do.
i’ll concede that i should have said “could” not “would”.
fwiw, we don’t even know if russia would use as many kT as hiroshima, or use a “low-yield” 5x of that. majority of radiation would be gone within days, but contamination "C"ould spread based on many factors, including whether the weapon detonated as intended or not (e.g. air or surface blast). russia hasn’t tested any of its weapons since early nineties.
pray tell who do you mean.
Yes and fine. It did not seem unreasonable to me that someone might think a nuclear weapon necessarily meant decades of high radiation. I expect a lot of people would think that. I don’t even think the picture of Hiroshima was a very snarky way of saying it isn’t necessarily the case. But then Wookie was a stupid asshole and Trolly did his usual thing.
ok, now do this statement “escalation arguably benefits ukraine. for example, tactical nukes used in ukraine…” everyone here knows that it was wrong, approximately since we’ve been alive. you bringing up hiroshima which produced little contamination at the site (released most of its materials into the air), while being the best kind of correct, does not accurately address the concerns.
Friendly reminder that just because you may have a disagreement with someone doesn’t mean you need to insult their intelligence or call them dicks/assholes.
Concerns of what? It was a correction. People could have let it go, but they didn’t.
I don’t think it would benefit Ukraine and I think any nuclear explosion at all would be an insane risk (even if a low number like 1%) to lead to global nuclear war.
But, so what? I’m not in charge. People are posting stuff and if someone puts a fucking comma in the wrong place sometimes it gets corrected around here. The only reason people got bent out of shape is because that correction was taken as treason/blasphemy.
Even groundbursts of normal nuclear weapons wouldn’t result in years-long exclusion zones. I think I recall reading that it’d be close to normal after six or twelve months. The acutely dangerous fallout has pretty short half lives.
What the fuck is your point? Normal nuclear weapons aren’t seeded with cobalt.
Like, maybe spend two seconds reading your dumb link
No country is known to have done any serious development of this type of weapon.
Lol and y’all like to say I’m pedantic. Good fucking god what a terrible set of posts. Might want to look into the differences between little boy and fat man compared to modern nukes
In 2015, information emerged that Russia may be developing a new nuclear torpedo, the Status-6 Ocean Multipurpose System,[32][33][34] codenamed “Kanyon” by Pentagon officials.[35][36] This weapon is designed to create a tsunami wave up to 500m tall that will radioactively contaminate a wide area on an enemy coasts with cobalt-60, and to be immune to anti-missile defense systems such as laser weapons and railguns that might disable an ICBM.[33][34][36][37][38] Two potential carrier submarines, the Project 09852 Belgorod , and the Project 09851 Khabarovsk , are new boats laid down in 2012 and 2014 respectively.[35][36][39]
lol ?
oh man you erased the other one?
Googling too furiously, this was interesting but not quite what you were looking for
The most ambitious peaceful application of nuclear explosions was pursued by the USSR with the aim of creating a 112 km long canal between the Pechora river basin and the Kama river basin, about half of which was to be constructed through a series of underground nuclear explosions. It was reported that about 250 nuclear devices might be used to get the final goal. The Taiga test was to demonstrate the feasibility of the project. Three of these “clean” devices of 15 kiloton yield each were placed in separate boreholes spaced about 165 m apart at depths of 127 m. They were simultaneously detonated on March 23, 1971, catapulting radioactive plume into the air that was carried eastward by wind. The resulting trench was around 700 m long and 340 m wide, with an unimpressive depth of just 10–15m.[43] Despite their “clean” nature, the area still exhibits a noticeably higher (albeit mostly harmless) concentration of fission products, the intense neutron bombardment of the soil, the device itself and the support structures also activated their stable elements to create a significant amount of man-made radioactive elements like 60Co. The overall danger posed by the concentration of radioactive elements present at the site created by these three devices is still negligible, but a larger scale project as was envisioned would have had significant consequences both from the fallout of radioactive plume and the radioactive elements created by the neutron bombardment.[44]
we have too small a sample size to conclude that. besides hiroshima and nagasaki, only test sites exist, some of which absorbed megatons of blasts, and are now kept as buffer zones, excluded for humans due to contamination, or due to people not wanting to live at the site of a blast. some are habitable by wildlife (like chernobyl), but cancer risk is a big concern for societies.
I give the proposal that escalation, possibly nuclear, benefits Ukraine the charitable interpretation that what was meant was that Russian escalation increases the probability of Ukraine winning the war.
Of course Chris did not suggest that escalation necessarily benefits Ukraine. He was just submitting something as a possibility. But the purpose of this thread is to determine whether he is or isn’t a heretic, so it was dangerous of him to just speculate about such things.
I’m replying to Ikes’ post, but not talking to him.
This is not an argument. There are also tactical nukes, which are far more likely to be deployed than Tsar Bomba. Even Ikes knows this. His post was just a pledge of allegiance.
Lololol
Your entire argument is to correct that it’s literally possible to have a nuke be used but not have an exclusion zone, which changes absolutely nothing about any conclusion. It’s well ackshully horseshit
