ABOVE: "Nuclear weapons"... new Documentary BY BBC, 2016.
ABOVE: RUSSIA'S TSAR BOMBA, north of the Arctic Circle on October 30, 1961.
50 MEGATONS, EQUAL TO 3,800 TIMES THE HIROSHIMA BOMB.
Soviet Premiere Nikita Khrushchev originally wanted to test a 100-megaton weapon.
"The mushroom cloud reached a height of 60 kilometers [37 miles]," according to the website of the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty Organization. "Third-degree burns were possible at a distance of hundreds of kilometres.
The ring of absolute destruction had a 35 km [28-mile] radius."
The Tzar Bomba's fireball was over 5 miles in width.
The "thermal radiation radius" where there's near-certainty of receiving third-degree burns would swallow pretty much the entire New York metropolitan area
Above: "Castle Bravo" Nuclear Test, conducted by the United States at Bikini Atoll, Marshall Islands, as part of Operation Castle. Detonated on March 1, 1954, the yield of Castle Bravo was 15 megatons of TNT and was America's largest detonated bomb (but was less than 1/3rd of the destructive force of Tsar Bomba).
The yield was 2.5 times greater than American scientists expected and that, combined with shifting winds, led to the radioactive contamination of areas to the of east of Bikini Atoll. Fallout from the detonation fell on residents of Rongelap and Utirik atolls and spread around the world.
The blast created an international reaction about atmospheric thermonuclear testing.
"It was hell unleashed."
Moscow's new mobile ICBM missiles leave Washington's in the dust.
In 2015, the Strategic Missile Troops of the Russian Federation (RVSN RF) acquired twenty-four new RS-24 Yars units (NATO reporting name: SS-27 Mod 2), in both silo-based and mobile versions. This missile can carry up three or four independently targetable warheads capable of penetrating missile-defense systems.
ABOVE: 2017: Nuclear arsenal estimates are based on the amount of fissile material—highly enriched uranium and plutonium—that each of the states is estimated to have produced. Fissile material is the key element for making nuclear weapons.
India and Israel are believed to use plutonium in their weapons, while Pakistan is thought to use highly enriched uranium.
IT WOULD ONLY TAKE A FEW TO OBLITERATE ALL HUMANITY...
A recently declassified document shared by nuclear historian Alex Wellerstein gives the verdict that scientists at the Los Alamos laboratory and test site reached in 1945. They found that "it would require only in the neighborhood of 10 to 100 Supers of this type" to put the human race in peril.
They reached this conclusion at a very early point in the development of nuclear weapons, before highly destructive multi-stage or thermonuclear devices had been built. But the scientists had an idea of the technology's grim potential. "The 'Super' they had in mind was what we would now call a hydrogen bomb."
The scientists posited that "the most world-wide destruction could come from radioactive poisons" unleashed on the Earth's atmosphere by the bombs' weaponized uranium. Radiation exposure leads to skyrocketing rates of cancer, birth defects, and genetic anomalies.
THOUSANDS, OWNED BY JUST TWO NATIONS...
More than 95% of the world's nuclear weapons are in just two nations, Russia and the United States..
In 2013, Army-technology.com ranked the countries with the biggest stockpiles of nuclear weapons.
#1...Russia was in the lead by far.
The Soviet Union of Russia (USSR) tested its first nuclear weapon RDS-1 in August 1949, 4 years after America's first test, starting the race for nuclear weapons with the U.S.
The USSR detonated its largest nuclear weapon, Tsar Bomba, with a yield of 50 megatonnes (equivalent to the power of 3,800 Hiroshima bombs) in 1961.
Nuclear arms testing reached its peak in 1962 with 79 tests held during the year.
The Soviet Union retained an inventory of 45,000 nuclear warheads in 1986 but the stockpile was reduced by 50% in late 1990s.
The Russian Federation currently possesses about 8,500 nuclear warheads, including strategic nuclear weapons which can be launched by long-range delivery systems, and non-strategic nuclear weapons with lower yields and shorter ranges.
The country's current stockpile of DEPLOYED warheads stands at 1,800 and is to be limited to fewer than 1,550 under the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), enforced in February 2011.
#2...WHERE IT ALL BEGAN...IN AMERICA...
The United States was the first nation to develop a nuclear weapon and is the only state to deploy nuclear weapons against another country. The U.S. began nuclear weapon development during World War II and successfully tested its first nuclear weapon in July 1945.
Just one month later, the United States dropped nuclear weapons on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6 and 9, 1945, respectively.
This ended World War II but began a nuclear arms race.
America's nuclear weapon inventory reached a peak of 31,225 in 1967.
The nation currently has a stockpile of 7,700 nuclear warheads, including more than 2,000 deployed weapons, 2,650 non-deployed warheads and about 3,000 weapons awaiting disassembly.
The US is required to reduce its operational strategic warheads deployed on intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) and heavy bombers to 1,550 by 2018 under the START.
#3...SURPRISINGLY, FRANCE IS RANKED 3rd IN THE LIST OF THE TOP 5 NATIONS WITH NUCLEAR ARMS...
France became a nuclear weapons state when it successfully launched its first nuclear weapon during an atmospheric nuclear test named Gerboise Bleue in February 1960.
The nation concluded its nuclear testing with the last and 210th test in January 1996 in French Polynesia.
[MY NOTE: WHY DO THE "SUPER POWERS" ALWAYS NUKE THE HELL OUT OF ISLANDS, ISLAND NATIONS AND THEIR CITIZENS OR USE THE ARCTIC, WHERE OTHER INDIGENOUS PEOPLE LIVE? AND THEN WE WONDER, "WHY ARE THE OCEANS DYING?" RADIATION, MAYBE? ]
The French military held a peak inventory of 540 nuclear warheads during 1991-92.
France is the only NWS to shut-down and dismantle all its nuclear test sites.
The nation now holds around 300 deployed nuclear warheads, making it the third-biggest stockpile in the world.
The nuclear warheads of France are equipped onto SLBMs aboard Triomphant-Class SSBNs and ASMP medium-range air-to-ground missiles.
CHINA, NUMBER 4...
The People's Republic of China tested its first nuclear weapon in October 1964 at the Lop Nur test site in the Gobi desert of Xinjiang province.
A total of 45 tests, including 23 atmospheric and 22 underground, were conducted until the country signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) in September 1996.
[SIGNED, BUT NEVER RATIFIED BY THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT.]
China maintained a peak stockpile of 435 warheads in the early 1990s and inventory was dropped down to 200 by 2006.
The nation is now estimated to hold about 240 warheads, but this is expected to increase as the country develops new ballistic weapons.
Chinese nuclear warheads can be launched by air, land and sea-based delivery systems.
GREAT BRITAIN, THE U.K., NUMBER 5
Though the United Kingdom became the third nuclear-powered country when it tested its first nuclear weapon in October 1952, it did not develop weapons as rapidly as the other four nations did
The U.K. conducted a total of 45 tests, but participated in the US nuclear testing program amounting to more than 1,000 nuclear tests.
The UK's inventory peaked at 350 nuclear warheads during 1976-1981 and was limited to 185 warheads by 1999. The current stockpile includes 225 nuclear warheads, including 160 operational and 65 non-deployed warheads.
The active nuclear warheads in the British arsenal are delivered by Trident II submarine-launched ballistic missiles aboard four Vanguard-Class ballistic missile submarines.
NON-PROLIFERATION...REALITY OR HOAX?
WHO CAN REALLY COUNT THE NUMBER OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS?
The list of parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty encompasses the states which have signed and ratified or acceded to the international agreement limiting the spread of nuclear weapons.
NEITHER CHINA NOR FRANCE HAVE RATIFIED THEIR AGREEMENT.
THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION, THE U.S. AND THE UNITED KINGDOM HAVE ALL RATIFIED THE TREATY.
On 1 July 1968, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was opened for signature. The three depository states were the Soviet Union (and later its successor state Russia), the United Kingdom, the United States; states wishing to become a party to the NPT must deposit their instruments of ratification, accession or succession with at least one of the depositary governments.
The treaty came into force and was closed for signature on 5 March 1970 with the deposit of ratification of the three depository states and 40 others. Since then, states that did not sign the treaty may only accede to it.
FOUR OTHER NATIONS POSSESS NUCLEAR CAPABILITY...
Four other states are known or believed to possess nuclear weapons: India, Pakistan and North Korea have openly tested and declared that they possess nuclear weapons, while Israel has had a policy of opacity regarding its nuclear weapons program.
India, Israel, and Pakistan have never signed the treaty, while North Korea was a party to the treaty but announced its withdrawal on 10 January 2003, which became effective ninety days later.
However, there is disagreement among the parties to the treaty whether North Korea's withdrawal was in conformity with the terms of the treaty.
Israel has not publicly conducted a nuclear test, does not admit or deny having nuclear weapons, and states that it will not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons in the Middle East. Nevertheless, Israel is universally believed to possess nuclear arms, although it is unclear exactly how many.
AND THEN THERE'S IRAN...
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and Iran concluded an investigation into Iran’s past nuclear weapons-related activities. The agency concluded that Iran had an organized program to pursue nuclear weapons prior to 2003. Some of these activities continued through 2009, but there were no indications of weaponization activities taking place after that date.
RUSSIAN CAPABILITY VERSUS THE U.S.
Fears that Russia has surpassed the US in nuclear ferocity are not completely unfounded.
On paper, newer, more complicated, more fearsome weapons comprise Russia's nuclear arsenal.
Russia's RS-24 Yars Intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), introduced in the mid 2000s, can strike anywhere in the US with what some report to be ten independently targetable nuclear warheads.
These ten warheads would reenter the earth's atmosphere at hypersonic speeds, around 5 miles a second. China has developed a similar platform, and the US simply has no way to defend against a salvo of such devastating nukes.
In comparison, the US's Minuteman III ICBM also reenters the atmosphere at hypersonic speeds, but carries just one warhead, and was introduced in the 1970s.
According to Dr. Jeffrey Lewis, founding publisher of Arms Control Wonk, the US's arsenal, while it lacks the potential to devastate and lay waste to whole continents, much better fits the US's strategic needs.
"Russia's nuclear weapons are newer, true, but they reflect the design philosophy that says ‘No reason to make it super fancy because we’ll just rebuild it in 10 years,’" Lewis said.
"Russians love to put missiles on trucks," Lewis continued, while the U.S. prefers land-based silos, which [unfortunately for the U.S.] present a reliable target and lack mobility.
Russia's leaked Status 6 nuclear "doomsday" weapon, a “robotic mini-submarine” that can make 100 knots with a range of 6,200 miles, is a nuclear-armed dirty bomb. The bomb would not only nuke, but turn the waters around a harbor radioactive for years to come.
ABOVE: A briefing slide of the alleged Status-6 nuclear torpedo captured from Russian television.BBC
ABSOLUTELY NO DEFENSE AGAINST RUSSIA'S NUKES...
The US has the most advanced missile defenses in the world. But no missile defense systems can defend a whole continent from 1000s of hypersonic missiles. (Missile Defense Agency)
Lewis explained that the U.S. really can't defend against Russia's most advanced, diabolical nuclear weapons as "the problem is just that the math never works."
A Russian nuclear ICBM would blast into orbit, turn around, break into individual reentry vehicles, and drive towards their individual targets at Mach 23. The US simply can't afford or design a system that would destroy ten nuclear warheads traveling at those mind-bending speed toward the the US.
"[The US has] never scaled a missile defense to the size of a Russian attack. It sounds like a really great idea on paper, but when you’re looking at 1000 warheads…"
MUTUALLY ASSURED DESTRUCTION?
Instead of spending years of time, trillions of dollars, and escalating an arms race, the US relies on a doctrine known as mutually assured destruction (MAD).
Lewis explained that in the days of John F. Kennedy, the US puzzled over how to size its nuclear arsenal. The Kennedy administration decided to build enough nukes to destroy the Soviet Union if necessary. The administration named the doctrine "assured destruction," but critics pointed out that nuclear salvos would be traveling both ways, so the more apt name was "mutually assured destruction," intended as an insult to Kennedy's policy.
"There was no real theory of victory," said Lewis.
As Russian President Vladimir Putin once said, Russia could destroy the US in "half an hour or less," using its doomsday devices.
But the fact is that US Minutemen III rockets would vaporize the Kremlin just seconds later.
Submarines, land-based silos, and bomber planes all hold nuclear missiles.
No attack from Russia OR the U.S. could simultaneously neutralize all three in either nation.
Nothing could stop the U.S. from retaliating, and nothing would.
[DITTO FOR RUSSIA....SO, STALEMATE?]
WHILE RUSSIA BUILDS THOUSANDS OF NEW BOMB SHELTERS FOR ITS CITIZENS, THE U.S. CLOSED ALL PUBLIC SHELTERS, SOLD SOME AND HAS NOT BUILT NEW ONES. AMERICAN CITIZENS ARE ON THEIR OWN WHEN/IF A NUCLEAR ATTACK SHOULD OCCUR.
Nuclear war 'IMMINENT'. Russia tells citizens to find out where the closest bunkers are.
Russia Builds Massive NEW Bomb Shelters
Nearly 5,000 new emergency bomb shelters will be built in Moscow by 2012 .
Meanwhile, in America...
The Hidden Defect In U.S. Nuclear Strategy That Could Spell America's Doom
October 18, 2016
Russia currently has over a thousand nuclear warheads aimed at America.
Just one of those warheads could kill more Americans than died in the Vietnam War.
A dozen could collapse the nation's power grid and other vital networks.
So any kind of nuclear exchange, even a "small" one, would be a catastrophe without precedent in American history. Unfortunately, the strategy that Washington has fashioned to avert such a catastrophe is so focused on preventing a cold, calculated act of aggression that it largely ignores other ways nuclear war could unfold -- and maximizes losses the nation would suffer no matter what form the conflict took.
This is the hidden danger in our current strategic posture that policymakers seldom talk about in public, and some may not even grasp. You see, the perverse logic of nuclear deterrence that Washington crafted during the Cold War makes any effort to actually defend America "destabilizing" -- a bad thing -- and thus favors being defenseless. So aside from a very minimal collection of radars and interceptors on the West Coast designed to deal with North Korea, America has no strategic defenses.
What it does have is offenses -- about 1,500 nuclear warheads distributed in hardened silos, stealthy submarines and long-range bombers.
The assumption is that no sane leader would deliberately launch an attack knowing the retribution that would follow. That seems logical enough, but think about the other ways a nuclear exchange might occur.
What if we find ourselves facing an irrational adversary with nuclear weapons?
What if the other side is rational, but suffers a mechanical failure in its command system?
What if it misreads U.S. intentions in a crisis such as war in Eastern Europe?
What if parts of its nuclear arsenal are seized by elements intent on fomenting war?
These are not just science-fiction scenarios.
The Russian early-warning network of satellites and ground-based radars is so fragile that it could easily fail, or result in misinterpretation of threat data.
If Moscow seriously thought it was under attack, it would be strongly incentivized to launch quickly before its weapons were destroyed on the ground. That might well signal the end of American civilization, because like I said -- Washington has decided as a matter of policy to render itself defenseless to a sizable nuclear attack.
But having a survivable retaliatory force isn't enough, because at some point we will face nuclear-armed enemies who are crazy, or accident-prone, or too scared to think clearly in a crisis. Our policymakers haven't done enough to prepare for such contingencies, because they have convinced themselves that trying to do so by building strategic defenses would destabilize the nuclear balance.
After all, why engage in an arms race if it costs you more to add another warhead than it costs your adversary to negate it?
It would be a losing proposition.
If we had a two-layer defense in which each layer was 90% effective, then only 1% of attacking warheads would get through -- assuming the defense had been made survivable through mobility and other features. But the key to making strategic defenses work is that they have to be cheaper to proliferate than offensive forces.
If Washington had spent as much money over the last 15 years on protecting our homeland as it has spent on trying to fix Afghanistan, America would be well on its way to having defenses against nuclear attacks -- no matter how or where they originated. Instead, the United States remains vulnerable to the one threat that could destroy our civilization before sunset. This may be the greatest strategic miscalculation in history, and the [new] president needs to focus on correcting it.
U.S. Land-Based ICBMs Are Stuck in the 1970s
April 25, 2016
The only land-based ICBM in service with the United Stated is the LGM-30G Minuteman III. Each missile carries one W87 warhead with a capacity of up to three hundred kilotons (though it can carry up to three warheads). The last missile was produced back in 1978, meaning that the “youngest” is thirty-eight years old. The missiles have been upgraded many times, and are intended to be used until 2030.
The United States’ new ICBM system, the GBSD (Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent), appears to be at a stalemate in the discussion phase.
The U.S. Air Force is requesting $62.3 billion for the development and the production of new missiles, and hopes to receive $113.9 million in 2017. However, the [OBAMA] White House does not support this request. In fact, many are opposed to this idea.
The actual development was moved up a year, and the prospects may depend on the outcome of the 2016 presidential election.
[TRUMP ALREADY SAID BACK IN DECEMBER, 2016, THAT WE NEED TO BUILD A STRONGER NUCLEAR ARSENAL.]
It is worth noting that the U.S. government is going to spend an astonishing amount of money on nuclear weapons: around $348 billion by 2024
FROM 'THE MIRROR', UK
3 OCT 2016
Russia has started preparing its citizens for a 'nuclear war' with the West as tensions mount over Syria.
The country’s media and officials have claimed the West wants to launch an attack on Russia because of its intervention in Syria.
[An} enraged {TV} host, Evgeny Kiselyov, blasted America's "impudent behaviour" and spent two hours warning that a conflict could take "nuclear dimensions".
Russia warned at the weekend that the US would face "terrible, tectonic" consequences if it took military action against the Syrian regime, The Times reported.
Russia has the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world with 8,400 warheads compared to 7,500 in America.
THOSE NUMBERS ALWAYS CHANGE BECAUSE, AFTER ALL, WHO CAN REALLY GO COUNT ALL THE NUCLEAR WARHEADS?
HOW MANY ARE HIDDEN?
HOW MANY WERE BUILT BUT NEVER LISTED?
WE JUST DON'T KNOW.
SEE Trinity and Beyond: A Movie of the Nuclear Bomb.
FEWER THAN 100 MODERN-DAY BOMBS COULD CAUSE HUMAN EXTINCTION.
We have the power to exterminate humanity many times over.
But it wouldn't take a full-scale nuclear war to make Earth uninhabitable.
World MORE dangerous now than during Cold War, former MI6 chief warns.
Even a relatively small regional nuclear war, like a conflict between India and Pakistan, could spark a global environmental catastrophe, says a new study.
“Most people would be surprised to know that even a very small regional nuclear war on the other side of the planet could disrupt global climate for at least a decade and wipe out the ozone layer for a decade,” said lead author Michael Mills, an atmospheric scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado.
Researchers developed a computer model of the Earth’s atmosphere and ran simulations to find out what would happen if there was a nuclear war with just a fraction of the world’s arsenal.
What they saw was the stuff of nightmares:
Firestorms would belch over 5 million tons of ash into the sky.
The ash would absorb the sun’s rays, causing deadly cooling on the surface.
Global temperatures would plummet by nearly 3 degrees Fahrenheit on average, with most of North America experiencing winters that would be colder by 4 to 10 degrees.
Lethal frosts would cover the Earth and reduce the growing seasons for several years.
Rainfall and other precipitation would be reduced by about 10 percent, triggering worldwide droughts.
The sky ash would heat the stratosphere and accelerate the chemical reactions that destroy the ozone layer.
The intense ultraviolet radiation that would get through to the surface would be a dramatic threat to human health and damage fragile ecosystems on land and sea.
“All in all, these effects would be very detrimental to food production and to ecosystems,” Mills said.
The findings are published in the journal Earth’s Future.
SINCE THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A NUCLEAR EXCHANGE, AN ALL-OUT "BOMB EACH OTHER INTO OBLIVION" SCENARIO, SCIENTISTS JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT EFFECTS SUCH A NUCLEAR WAR WOULD HAVE ON PLANET EARTH.
WOULD SUCH A WAR SET OFF WORLDWIDE EARTHQUAKES, AFFECT EARTH'S CORE, CHANGE THE SPIN OF THE PLANET, COMPLETELY DESTROY OUR ATMOSPHERE?
NO ONE KNOWS.
AND WE CAN HOPE AND PRAY THAT NO ONE WILL EVER HAVE TO FIND OUT.
THE NATO NATIONS HAVE PRESSED RUSSIA AGAINST A WALL BY CONTINUOUSLY BRINGING MORE NUCLEAR WEAPONS TO THE RUSSIAN BORDER.
SO FAR, PRESIDENT PUTIN HAS EXHIBITED CONSIDERABLE RESTRAINTIN THE FACE OF ALL THIS, BUT LET US REMEMBER THAT HE IS EX-KGB ... HE WOULD NOT HESITATE TO GO TO "FIRST-STRIKE" IF NATO CORNERS HIM AND MOVES IN.
CHINA'S RECENT SABER-RATTLING IN THE SOUTH CHINA SEA PROVES THAT IT HAS CONSIDERED NUCLEAR WAR.
IF NORTH KOREA CAN GET ITS PATHETIC NUCLEAR 'ACT' TOGETHER, I'M SURE KIM WOULD LOVE TO START A NUCLEAR WAR.
NOTHING WOULD PLEASE HIM MORE THAN TO HIT JAPAN AND SOUTH KOREA.
HERE, TRUMP SEEMS TO BE THE MOST VOLATILE, UNPREDICTABLE PRESIDENT WE'VE HAD SINCE THE BAT-GUANO INSANE ANDY JACKSON.
THOUGH HE SEEMS TO LIKE RUSSIA ENOUGH TO CONSIDER REPAIRING THE DAMAGE DONE BY THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION THERE, HE IS NOT FOND OF KOREA, IRAN OR CHINA.
IS HE THE "BUTTON-PUSHING LUNATIC" THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA LIKES TO PORTRAY HIM AS?
WHO KNOWS?
WE HAVE BEEN "AT THE BRINK" BEFORE AND PULLED BACK.
I HOPE THAT CONTINUES TO BE THE CASE.
THERE WILL BE NO WINNERS OF WORLD WAR III, AND WORLD WAR IV WOULD BE FOUGHT WITH STONES AND STICKS... IF ANY SURVIVED WWIII.
_________________________________
A BIT OF A SCARY THOUGHT... HOW SIMPLE IT IS TO BUILD A NUCLEAR BOMB...
How to Build an Atomic Bomb
"With a few parts from a hardware store and some know-how, it is possible to build a weapon of mass destruction."
States That Had Nuclear Weapons or Nuclear Weapons Programs at One Time:
Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine inherited nuclear weapons following the Soviet Union’s 1991 collapse, but returned them to Russia and joined the NPT as non-nuclear-weapon states.
South Africa secretly developed but subsequently dismantled its small number of nuclear warheads and also joined the NPT in 1991.
Iraq had an active nuclear weapons program prior to the 1991 Persian Gulf War, but was forced to verifiably dismantle it under the supervision of UN inspectors. The U.S.-led March 2003 invasion of Iraq and subsequent capture of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein definitively ended his regime’s pursuit of nuclear weapons.
[MY NOTE: "Pursuit of" is used because we now know there were no "weapons of mass destruction" built in Iraq...that was a Bush2 lie. Anything and everything Iraq had was handed to it by the USA for use against Iran during the Reagan and Bush1 regimes.]
Libya voluntarily renounced its secret nuclear weapons efforts in December 2003.
Argentina, Brazil, South Korea, and Taiwan also shelved nuclear weapons programs.
BUT WHERE ARE ALL THOSE WEAPONS NOW?
WHO REALLY KNOWS?
[Sources: Arms Control Association, Federation of American Scientists, International Panel on Fissile Materials, U.S. Department of Defense, and U.S. Department of State.]
//WW
No comments:
Post a Comment