Biden put through an infrastructure bill.

The question is does what he put through actually address the problems? Or is it throwing a bunch of money at pie in the sky ideas that will not significantly improve our situation.

Forcing the country to E vehicles doesn’t sound like a good policy for the economy.


It’s not even a good policy for the environment unless you have a way to make the additional load completely carbon free.

I disagree that Biden effectively addressed the issues.

It’s better to not spend money on a non answer than to spend a lot on a solution that does not improve the situation.

Note I’m not saying the republicans offered a viable solution, either; they just didn’t waste the money on nothing.

quote:

As I recall, the economy was doing well under the Clinton Admin.

yeah,,,, I feel your pain.

I already told you, he said there was no out of date munitions at any place he was stationed. Korea, japan, Homestead Florida or Hollowman.
The bombs themselves were up graded on site if need be, usually only the fuse system.
You are out of your wheelhouse with some of your info.

I should have added. The fuse systems as he calls them, is replacing circuit boards. Not a hard upgrade.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Biden put through an infrastructure bill.

The question is does what he put through actually address the problems? Or is it throwing a bunch of money at pie in the sky ideas that will not significantly improve our situation.

Forcing the country to E vehicles doesn’t sound like a good policy for the economy.


It’s not even a good policy for the environment unless you have a way to make the additional load completely carbon free.

I disagree that Biden effectively addressed the issues.

It’s better to not spend money on a non answer than to spend a lot on a solution that does not improve the situation.

Note I’m not saying the republicans offered a viable solution, either; they just didn’t waste the money on nothing.

This short video is very interesting.

https://www.facebook.com/reel/628571755920034

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
DoD fails 6th audit
https://www.stripes.com/theate...unding-12064619.html

Part of it might be that the auditors couldn't read the punch cards and floppy disks...

jeff, of all the things are an apologist for, this is surprising

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
DoD fails 6th audit
https://www.stripes.com/theate...unding-12064619.html

Part of it might be that the auditors couldn't read the punch cards and floppy disks...

jeff, of all the things are an apologist for, this is surprising

I would be entirely unsurprised if there are activities within Defense that still use punch cards, and would bet there are still floppy discs in use.

They can't tell the auditors what they have and where it is because they don't know.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
DoD fails 6th audit
https://www.stripes.com/theate...unding-12064619.html

Part of it might be that the auditors couldn't read the punch cards and floppy disks...

jeff, of all the things are an apologist for, this is surprising

I would be entirely unsurprised if there are activities within Defense that still use punch cards, and would bet there are still floppy discs in use.

They can't tell the auditors what they have and where it is because they don't know.

Does Microsoft still support Windows XP because the Navy uses it? IIRC there were ATMs that used XP and maybe still do.

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
DoD fails 6th audit
https://www.stripes.com/theate...unding-12064619.html

Part of it might be that the auditors couldn't read the punch cards and floppy disks...

jeff, of all the things are an apologist for, this is surprising

I would be entirely unsurprised if there are activities within Defense that still use punch cards, and would bet there are still floppy discs in use.

They can't tell the auditors what they have and where it is because they don't know.

Does Microsoft still support Windows XP because the Navy uses it? IIRC there were ATMs that used XP and maybe still do.

Lots of ATMs used OS/2, as well...

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
DoD fails 6th audit
https://www.stripes.com/theate...unding-12064619.html

Part of it might be that the auditors couldn't read the punch cards and floppy disks...

jeff, of all the things are an apologist for, this is surprising

I would be entirely unsurprised if there are activities within Defense that still use punch cards, and would bet there are still floppy discs in use.

They can't tell the auditors what they have and where it is because they don't know.

Does Microsoft still support Windows XP because the Navy uses it? IIRC there were ATMs that used XP and maybe still do.

yes, there are many ATMs, and other kiosks that still use XP.

I should clarify: Supply Sergeants and good supply officers at unit levels know exactly what they have, both the stuff that is on their TO&E and what isn't, and where it is. Getting that information transmitted up from Company/Battalion level through Brigade, Division and Army levels to Department of the Army, then over to DOD, which may involve two changes of system in the process, is where it breaks down. Storage depots are certainly on a different accountability system from everybody else.

I have no reason to think the Navy or Air Force is much different, and have no clue what the Space Farce does or doesn't do.

The simple solution, get everybody on the same system, would take years and billions.

Good cover your ass post.
I have to many I contact that said your past posts showed you had no clue.
A dozen years ago, they had to scramble to round up every bit of spare ammo they could find. They were so low on everything with the Afghan war, the supplies were short. That was when every welfare bum out there were going around collecting scrap, prices were so high.
People were stealing copper pipe and wiring out of new construction sites to sell. Stores were limiting ammo buys to one box a day.
All the stories of stockpiles waiting to be destroyed ,is not there.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:
It's our stuff Ukraine is using.
If I understand you correctly, you are saying we're learning from Ukraine how to use our own stuff. I'm having a hard time with that.

I do understand there's lessons to be drawn from most of any situations and even watching a fellow walk out on the highway in front of a speeding bus can be informative. In this case, I suspect the real enlightenment is the true capabilities of Russia, which from here don't look like to much.

The Ukrainians are using our stuff in ways not previously envisioned, like downing "hypersonic" missiles with Patriot, which it was not thought capable of.

Our troops rarely get to experiment with systems that expensive, using their rare live-fire opportunity to hone doctrinal employment. Ukrainians are protecting their families and homes, and teaching us a great deal about what some of our systems can actually do.

After 20 years of continuous war we don't know how to do it and use our stuff while doing it?

If we Americans are that inept maybe we should consider staying out of war.

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:
It's our stuff Ukraine is using.
If I understand you correctly, you are saying we're learning from Ukraine how to use our own stuff. I'm having a hard time with that.

I do understand there's lessons to be drawn from most of any situations and even watching a fellow walk out on the highway in front of a speeding bus can be informative. In this case, I suspect the real enlightenment is the true capabilities of Russia, which from here don't look like to much.

The Ukrainians are using our stuff in ways not previously envisioned, like downing "hypersonic" missiles with Patriot, which it was not thought capable of.

Our troops rarely get to experiment with systems that expensive, using their rare live-fire opportunity to hone doctrinal employment. Ukrainians are protecting their families and homes, and teaching us a great deal about what some of our systems can actually do.

After 20 years of continuous war we don't know how to do it and use our stuff while doing it?

If we Americans are that inept maybe we should consider staying out of war.

Some parts of our forces have gotten LOTS of opportunities to revise and refine weapons employment, while others, like air defense against fairly modern aircraft and missiles, have not.

We didn't know our torpedoes didn't work right until we bounced a bunch off of Japanese ships.

Actually, we should have known.

The navy had tested them and had failures that they disguised. They “knew” the magnetic trigger would work so much better and it had to be someone not using it right…

There was a big show on the history channel about it a few years ago.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Actually, we should have known.

The navy had tested them and had failures that they disguised. They “knew” the magnetic trigger would work so much better and it had to be someone not using it right…

There was a big show on the history channel about it a few years ago.

Not, "we should have known," actually we do know.

The USA in my lifetime has been fighting in El Salvador and Honduras, Greneda, Panama, Libya, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria. Apparently my nation has a military presence in half the nations on earth. I remember there was a Service Member killed by one of our own in Africa while on deployment, and I'm under the impression our dozens of submarines sail all Seven Seas.

With an annual Defense budget the size that it is, you gotta be a special stupid to think there's something more,......

Again, if after two decades of continuous war America is learning how to use the hardware on our shelves and the tactics to employ those tools, mebbe we otta just stay home.

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Actually, we should have known.

The navy had tested them and had failures that they disguised. They “knew” the magnetic trigger would work so much better and it had to be someone not using it right…

There was a big show on the history channel about it a few years ago.

Not, "we should have known," actually we do know.

The USA in my lifetime has been fighting in El Salvador and Honduras, Greneda, Panama, Libya, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria. Apparently my nation has a military presence in half the nations on earth. I remember there was a Service Member killed by one of our own in Africa while on deployment, and I'm under the impression our dozens of submarines sail all Seven Seas.

With an annual Defense budget the size that it is, you gotta be a special stupid to think there's something more,......

Again, if after two decades of continuous war America is learning how to use the hardware on our shelves and the tactics to employ those tools, mebbe we otta just stay home.

You know what every conflict you listed had in common?

The opposition effectively had no Air Force, no Navy and no modern Army

Employing the best main battle tank in the world against Toyota Hiluxes with machine guns in the bed offers damned little chance for innovation against a near-peer opposition. We haven't flown in a serious anti-aircraft environment in a half-century and haven't had an actual naval battle in 75 years. So yes, all our tactics and doctrine for the employment of weapons systems that haven't been used in earnest will benefit from other folks' "lessons learned", like Ukraine, when they employ them for real, and even more when we do.

We can only hypothesize and simulate how an air campaign involving fourth and fifth generation aircraft in a dense anti-aircraft environment will evolve because it hasn't happened.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Actually, we should have known.

The navy had tested them and had failures that they disguised. They “knew” the magnetic trigger would work so much better and it had to be someone not using it right…

There was a big show on the history channel about it a few years ago.

Not, "we should have known," actually we do know.

The USA in my lifetime has been fighting in El Salvador and Honduras, Greneda, Panama, Libya, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria. Apparently my nation has a military presence in half the nations on earth. I remember there was a Service Member killed by one of our own in Africa while on deployment, and I'm under the impression our dozens of submarines sail all Seven Seas.

With an annual Defense budget the size that it is, you gotta be a special stupid to think there's something more,......

Again, if after two decades of continuous war America is learning how to use the hardware on our shelves and the tactics to employ those tools, mebbe we otta just stay home.

You know what every conflict you listed had in common?

The opposition effectively had no Air Force, no Navy and no modern Army

Employing the best main battle tank in the world against Toyota Hiluxes with machine guns in the bed offers damned little chance for innovation against a near-peer opposition. We haven't flown in a serious anti-aircraft environment in a half-century and haven't had an actual naval battle in 75 years. So yes, all our tactics and doctrine for the employment of weapons systems that haven't been used in earnest will benefit from other folks' "lessons learned", like Ukraine, when they employ them for real, and even more when we do.

We can only hypothesize and simulate how an air campaign involving fourth and fifth generation aircraft in a dense anti-aircraft environment will evolve because it hasn't happened.

The Russians are buying Cabela's gps's and taping them to the dashboard of their aircraft. The Russian Navy has a single aircraft carrier that burns bunker fuel and requires full time tug boat assistance.

Dude,......what is it you don't understand?

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Actually, we should have known.

The navy had tested them and had failures that they disguised. They “knew” the magnetic trigger would work so much better and it had to be someone not using it right…

There was a big show on the history channel about it a few years ago.

Not, "we should have known," actually we do know.

The USA in my lifetime has been fighting in El Salvador and Honduras, Greneda, Panama, Libya, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria. Apparently my nation has a military presence in half the nations on earth. I remember there was a Service Member killed by one of our own in Africa while on deployment, and I'm under the impression our dozens of submarines sail all Seven Seas.

With an annual Defense budget the size that it is, you gotta be a special stupid to think there's something more,......

Again, if after two decades of continuous war America is learning how to use the hardware on our shelves and the tactics to employ those tools, mebbe we otta just stay home.

You know what every conflict you listed had in common?

The opposition effectively had no Air Force, no Navy and no modern Army

Employing the best main battle tank in the world against Toyota Hiluxes with machine guns in the bed offers damned little chance for innovation against a near-peer opposition. We haven't flown in a serious anti-aircraft environment in a half-century and haven't had an actual naval battle in 75 years. So yes, all our tactics and doctrine for the employment of weapons systems that haven't been used in earnest will benefit from other folks' "lessons learned", like Ukraine, when they employ them for real, and even more when we do.

We can only hypothesize and simulate how an air campaign involving fourth and fifth generation aircraft in a dense anti-aircraft environment will evolve because it hasn't happened.

The Russians are buying Cabela's gps's and taping them to the dashboard of their aircraft. The Russian Navy has a single aircraft carrier that burns bunker fuel and requires full time tug boat assistance.

Dude,......what is it you don't understand?

The Chinese aren't.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Actually, we should have known.

The navy had tested them and had failures that they disguised. They “knew” the magnetic trigger would work so much better and it had to be someone not using it right…

There was a big show on the history channel about it a few years ago.

Not, "we should have known," actually we do know.

The USA in my lifetime has been fighting in El Salvador and Honduras, Greneda, Panama, Libya, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria. Apparently my nation has a military presence in half the nations on earth. I remember there was a Service Member killed by one of our own in Africa while on deployment, and I'm under the impression our dozens of submarines sail all Seven Seas.

With an annual Defense budget the size that it is, you gotta be a special stupid to think there's something more,......

Again, if after two decades of continuous war America is learning how to use the hardware on our shelves and the tactics to employ those tools, mebbe we otta just stay home.

You know what every conflict you listed had in common?

The opposition effectively had no Air Force, no Navy and no modern Army

Employing the best main battle tank in the world against Toyota Hiluxes with machine guns in the bed offers damned little chance for innovation against a near-peer opposition. We haven't flown in a serious anti-aircraft environment in a half-century and haven't had an actual naval battle in 75 years. So yes, all our tactics and doctrine for the employment of weapons systems that haven't been used in earnest will benefit from other folks' "lessons learned", like Ukraine, when they employ them for real, and even more when we do.

We can only hypothesize and simulate how an air campaign involving fourth and fifth generation aircraft in a dense anti-aircraft environment will evolve because it hasn't happened.

The Russians are buying Cabela's gps's and taping them to the dashboard of their aircraft. The Russian Navy has a single aircraft carrier that burns bunker fuel and requires full time tug boat assistance.

Dude,......what is it you don't understand?

The Chinese aren't.

I'm gonna give up here directly because, a) this is the Internet and there is no winning here, and b) I'm not a last word freak so I'm way happy to cede the floor to you, mebbe you've noticed.

No, "the Chinese aren't," as they haven't fired a shot in anger since 1950. Correct me if I'm wrong please, but I don't recall the Chinese being at war since Truman was president of the USA.

In the late 20th century Iraq was purported to be the 4th strongest military in the world. Whoopsie.

You and I have feared Russia for generations but it seems Maximum Magazines Top Ten Most Corrupt Fifedom, ( Ukraine!) can handily keep Vlad at bay.

What is this my nation is exactly supposed to learn?

I am lead to understand that my nation still has a military presence in Iraq/ Syria/ the M.E., I gather my navy is currently playing aerial target practice in The Red Sea.

It still looks to me like I and we need to learn what not to do, not more what to do.

The Chicoms have fought Vietnam more recently.

They took over Tibet.

They got into a shooting fracas in Sudan.

They have had a number of deployments and probably have been taking notes from their allies on how we fight.

While I’m not sure how well their clone of our equipment will work, Beijing has a history of shooting corrupt officers who pocket government money.

Somehow I expect they will be more competent than Russia, and also much more numerous.

Our strategic forces would not be used without a direct WMD attack on us.

While I agree we are spending way too much time and treasure on being the world’s policeman (when we feel like it), Taiwan is an ally, and we have given assurances of support.

An entire retreat to fortress america would likely result in a nuclear armed WWIII.

We learned our lesson from WWI/WW II. What we have t learned is what is the balance.

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:
It's our stuff Ukraine is using.
If I understand you correctly, you are saying we're learning from Ukraine how to use our own stuff. I'm having a hard time with that.

I do understand there's lessons to be drawn from most of any situations and even watching a fellow walk out on the highway in front of a speeding bus can be informative. In this case, I suspect the real enlightenment is the true capabilities of Russia, which from here don't look like to much.

The Ukrainians are using our stuff in ways not previously envisioned, like downing "hypersonic" missiles with Patriot, which it was not thought capable of.

Our troops rarely get to experiment with systems that expensive, using their rare live-fire opportunity to hone doctrinal employment. Ukrainians are protecting their families and homes, and teaching us a great deal about what some of our systems can actually do.

After 20 years of continuous war we don't know how to do it and use our stuff while doing it?

If we Americans are that inept maybe we should consider staying out of war.

Maybe you should follow the Ukraine war a little closer. The ukrainians have taken nato and US weapons and used them outside of usual practice and intended scope, They improved accuracy in some cases, added their own I.T. , Experimented with combining these weapons with drones etc. There is quite a list. Some of the top NATO leaders are on record as saying they have learnt alot from the real war experiences of Ukraine.
There have also been failures and surprises. One of the big ones has been how relatively easy its been to limit air superiority and also with Ukraine not having A.S. as well, that US ground operations doctrine is very susceptible if thier planes cant control the air and drones etc are used.
If w see the f 16s over there, NATO will learn one hell of a lot more and in that regard alone that info will be priceless.

I don’t think that the F16’s will teach us much, because gaining air superiority involves (under current doctrine anyhow) multilevel command control communications and intelligence gathering and extensive use of stealth aircraft. We are not giving Ukraine F117’s, F22’s, or F35’s.

The F16’s, F15’s, and to a lesser extent F18’s are not really intended for main line air superiority gain, but rather attack roles and more maintenance of airspace control.

The Russians supposedly have some stealth aircraft, but either aren’t using them or can’t use them…

I think if the f16s do well, then there is alot of info gained on what really russia has too offer. if they get shot down then its par for the course. Speculation really, but the fact the russians wont put thier 5g fighter across the border tends to say they have doubts about its effectiveness in the same way we have not seen thier Armata tank.

If two three generations don’t fight war, they will loose next one as wars are experience first
Unfortunate but reality

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
I think if the f16s do well, then there is alot of info gained on what really russia has too offer. if they get shot down then its par for the course. Speculation really, but the fact the russians wont put thier 5g fighter across the border tends to say they have doubts about its effectiveness in the same way we have not seen thier Armata tank.

The American made f16 went into service in 1980.

So that's like what? 40 years ago? So the question is and were supposed to learn about how Russia can or cannot knock down 40$ year old airplanes?

Riveting stuff, and again, mebbe America should just stay home.

False equivalence. For sure they could knock down a 40 year old f16. But the f16 of 1980 is not the same as one flying today. And because you miss the point, America and the west does not actually know how good russian air defence systems are. But they do know how good yours are.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
False equivalence. For sure they could knock down a 40 year old f16. But the f16 of 1980 is not the same as one flying today. And because you miss the point, America and the west does not actually know how good russian air defence systems are. But they do know how good yours are.

If russian air defense systems are on par with their most modern tanks and artillery, the f16s don't have much to worry about. Their "5th gen" aircraft aren't likely to be the same as American 5th gen

Yep the key word is If.

The west was saying they were almost impenetrable until a few months back when Ukraine destroyed a couple or 3.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
False equivalence. For sure they could knock down a 40 year old f16. But the f16 of 1980 is not the same as one flying today. And because you miss the point, America and the west does not actually know how good russian air defence systems are. But they do know how good yours are.

If russian air defense systems are on par with their most modern tanks and artillery, the f16s don't have much to worry about. Their "5th gen" aircraft aren't likely to be the same as American 5th gen

I do think that's what the civilians have learned, how inept Russia is. I have been made to understand that at least the American military hasn't taken Russia very seriously for a while. Using nuke submarines to power towns, bunker fuel aircraft carrier, AK-47 "sniper" rifles. A nation with no exports outside of natural resources.

When I asked someone in the know, they said Russia was a regional threat not a global threat. That seems demonstrable.

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
False equivalence. For sure they could knock down a 40 year old f16. But the f16 of 1980 is not the same as one flying today. And because you miss the point, America and the west does not actually know how good russian air defence systems are. But they do know how good yours are.

If russian air defense systems are on par with their most modern tanks and artillery, the f16s don't have much to worry about. Their "5th gen" aircraft aren't likely to be the same as American 5th gen

I do think that's what the civilians have learned, how inept Russia is. I have been made to understand that at least the American military hasn't taken Russia very seriously for a while. Using nuke submarines to power towns, bunker fuel aircraft carrier, AK-47 "sniper" rifles. A nation with no exports outside of natural resources.

When I asked someone in the know, they said Russia was a regional threat not a global threat. That seems demonstrable.

Except their nuclear arsenal, if it actually works better that all the other crap they build.

Even if their strategic arsenal only works 10% as well as expected, they can devastate the planet.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Even if their strategic arsenal only works 10% as well as expected, they can devastate the planet.

No, they can't. They likely have about 1,600 strategic warheads, 160 would amount to less than a fifth of the weapons detonated worldwide for testing purposes, and last I checked the planet is still here.

And we can guess and guess but nobody ( West and US) is going to invade Russia so all this is moot point

And how many were detonated at the same time over land?

The vast majority of testing was done underground.

Also look up devastate. It’s not a synonym for destroy.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Even if their strategic arsenal only works 10% as well as expected, they can devastate the planet.

No, they can't. They likely have about 1,600 strategic warheads, 160 would amount to less than a fifth of the weapons detonated worldwide for testing purposes, and last I checked the planet is still here.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
And how many were detonated at the same time over land?

The vast majority of testing was done underground.

Also look up devastate. It’s not a synonym for destroy.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Even if their strategic arsenal only works 10% as well as expected, they can devastate the planet.

No, they can't. They likely have about 1,600 strategic warheads, 160 would amount to less than a fifth of the weapons detonated worldwide for testing purposes, and last I checked the planet is still here.

There were just over 500 "atmospheric" tests with a cumulative yield of about 1.2 megatons each, on average.

I'm not sure what simultaneity has to do with anything. The effects of a given weapon are not magnified by a nearby detonation, it's merely cumulative.

Warhead sizes have shrunk, on average, since above-ground testing was the norm, with most being in the 500 kt range for strategic weapons. If Russia got 160 to work that would amount to 80 megatons, compared to the corrected estimated yield of a single weapon, the Tsar Bomba, detonated by the Soviet Union in 1961, of 50 mt.

80 mts is not a "planet devastating" event, no matter how it's distributed. Damned unfortunate for those in close proximity, damned inconvenient for those immediately downwind and somewhat annoying for the neighbors further out, but not devastating beyond local effects.

They are just big bombs with some dirty byproducts, not magical spells cast over a countryside, Doctor.

You undoubtedly have vastly superior knowledge of medical matters than I but I seriously doubt that you have plotted, in a technical sense, nuclear strikes on every city and transportation hub in Europe, east and west. I have, with most being a series of varying scenarios.

I probably laid out a dozen different options for Stuttgart, just because the terrain makes it the perfect target where if you get your airbursts at the right height and positions you could have the dynamic shock waves arrive everywhere simultaneously instead of the messy radiating pattern you usually get. Just smash everything flat at the same time, high ground and low.

I was thinking more the particulate dispersion in the upper atmosphere along with all the combustion products damaging agriculture for a few years.

The EMP affects stopping electronics and the electrical grid.

The damage to transportation.

And you neglect that a Russian mass launch would result in us launching everything as well… even if we just responded a blast for a blast.


The planet would still be here.

Some people would also.

The US and Western Europe? Shadows of themselves.

Again devastate is not destroy.


I have sat in on civil defense planning. It wasn’t very pretty.

I was shocked by the relatively small number of deaths initially… and the number in 3 months- especially if it occurs in the cold weather months.

I idly wonder about Novya Zemlya, site of more than a few nuclear tests.