> O'Regan, Emlyn wrote:
> > What I don't understand is why anyone bothers with delivery
> > systems for nukes anymore.
> Because no one wants to spend billions of dollars to commit suicide?
> > Wouldn't it be a lot cheaper to just assemble massive arsenals of bombs
> > which are exploded in-situ? After all, once you blow up enough of them,
> > whole world is stuffed, including your would-be agressor. In a decent
> > nuclear war, the effect would be exactly as devestating to all parties
> > you had dropped the bombs on your opponent.
> <WARNING! WARNING! Hollywood meme detected...> :-)
> With currently existing weapons this is not true at all. The actual kill
> zone for a nuclear device of normal size (i.e. 50KT - 1 MT) is actually
> fairly small, compared to the scale of a continent. Fallout will
> kill a lot of people, but the worst effects are still relatively
> If America set off its entire existing arsanel right where it now sits the
> net result would be a few million dead Americans, greatly elevated cancer
> rates in North America for several decades, and modestly elevated cancer
> rates over large portions of the northern hemisphere for a few years.
What about all that destroying the world 30 times over stuff? Nuclear winter? Do you mean to say that television has been lying to me?
Please be gentle in replies, I'm feeling kind of vulnerable right now.