Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 agnosto wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Magister wrote:


Far more important than Obama's heritage: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-us-nuclear-arsenal-weapons-tweets-expansion-bolster-world-senses-twitter-a7490846.html

It's almost like he wants to spark another war...

What's the problem with that statement?

Because we have roughly 1,750 operational nukes and it only takes 500 to cause a global ice age....

A 2014 report published in the journal Earth's Future found that even a regional war of 100 nuclear detonations would produce 5 teragrams of black soot (that's 5,000,000,000 kg!) that would rise up to Earth's stratosphere and block sunlight. This would produce a sudden drop in global temperatures that could last longer than 25 years and temporarily destroy much of the Earth's protective ozone layer. This could also cause as much as an 80% increase in UV radiation on Earth's surface and destroy both land and sea-based ecosystems, potentially leading to global nuclear famine.

And?

We got some powah... so what?

We ain't launching 100 nukes, much less 1750.

They're chess pieces in maintaining MAD with other nations.

 whembly wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Magister wrote:


Far more important than Obama's heritage: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-us-nuclear-arsenal-weapons-tweets-expansion-bolster-world-senses-twitter-a7490846.html

It's almost like he wants to spark another war...

What's the problem with that statement?

Because we have roughly 1,750 operational nukes and it only takes 500 to cause a global ice age....

A 2014 report published in the journal Earth's Future found that even a regional war of 100 nuclear detonations would produce 5 teragrams of black soot (that's 5,000,000,000 kg!) that would rise up to Earth's stratosphere and block sunlight. This would produce a sudden drop in global temperatures that could last longer than 25 years and temporarily destroy much of the Earth's protective ozone layer. This could also cause as much as an 80% increase in UV radiation on Earth's surface and destroy both land and sea-based ecosystems, potentially leading to global nuclear famine.

And?

We got some powah... so what?

We ain't launching 100 nukes, much less 1750.

They're chess pieces in maintaining MAD with other nations.

'Trump ain't getting elected'...

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Yea but that would counteract the global warming. An out of the box solution! BAM!*


*more like...BOOM

I dont think a Nuclear Winter is the cure to global warming Fraz

As much as you want to ride the bomb down Yeehawing and waving your cowboy hat

Oh yea. We all gotta go sometime, might as well go BIG.

"beer me bro!"
-From the Idiots Guide to the Top Ten Sayings of Immortal Buddha.

 Spinner wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Magister wrote:


Far more important than Obama's heritage: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-us-nuclear-arsenal-weapons-tweets-expansion-bolster-world-senses-twitter-a7490846.html

It's almost like he wants to spark another war...

What's the problem with that statement?

Because we have roughly 1,750 operational nukes and it only takes 500 to cause a global ice age....

A 2014 report published in the journal Earth's Future found that even a regional war of 100 nuclear detonations would produce 5 teragrams of black soot (that's 5,000,000,000 kg!) that would rise up to Earth's stratosphere and block sunlight. This would produce a sudden drop in global temperatures that could last longer than 25 years and temporarily destroy much of the Earth's protective ozone layer. This could also cause as much as an 80% increase in UV radiation on Earth's surface and destroy both land and sea-based ecosystems, potentially leading to global nuclear famine.

And?

We got some powah... so what?

We ain't launching 100 nukes, much less 1750.

They're chess pieces in maintaining MAD with other nations.

'Trump ain't getting elected'...

So Trump is nuking everyone?

Excellent.

 whembly wrote:

Then this:

Newt Gingrich ✔ @newtgingrich
I goofed. Draining the swamp is in, @realDonaldTrump is going to do it, and the alligators should be worried. #DTS http://bit.ly/2i5QMjZ
11:03 AM - 22 Dec 2016

It's going to be a fun 4-8 years.

It's almost like the right hand doesn't know what the left foot is doing, eh?

 whembly wrote:
We got some powah... so what?

We ain't launching 100 nukes, much less 1750.

They're chess pieces in maintaining MAD with other nations.

Odds of nukes being used is never a zero.

When something has >0% chance it will eventually happen.

See the problem?

tneva82 wrote:

 whembly wrote:
We got some powah... so what?

We ain't launching 100 nukes, much less 1750.

They're chess pieces in maintaining MAD with other nations.

Odds of nukes being used is never a zero.

When something has >0% chance it will eventually happen.

See the problem?

The Isle of Man don't start nuttin there won't be nuttin.

 Frazzled wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 whembly wrote:


I think it's more likely that he claimed he was Kenyan/Indonesian during his professorship days, ala Elizabeth Fauxcahontas Warren.

Any proof of that or just in the mood for some Obama bashing on a cold, Thursday morn?

The questions was made about the birther thing. He was responding to it, as I did. If you don't like the topic take it up with the person that brought it up in the thread.

Or I can call you on the unsubstantiated backhand of the President.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 whembly wrote:


I think it's more likely that he claimed he was Kenyan/Indonesian during his professorship days, ala Elizabeth Fauxcahontas Warren.

Any proof of that or just in the mood for some Obama bashing on a cold, Thursday morn?

The questions was made about the birther thing. He was responding to it, as I did. If you don't like the topic take it up with the person that brought it up in the thread.

Or I can call you on the unsubstantiated backhand of the President.

Its not unsubstantiated. Have you see his hair?

 Frazzled wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 whembly wrote:


I think it's more likely that he claimed he was Kenyan/Indonesian during his professorship days, ala Elizabeth Fauxcahontas Warren.

Any proof of that or just in the mood for some Obama bashing on a cold, Thursday morn?

The questions was made about the birther thing. He was responding to it, as I did. If you don't like the topic take it up with the person that brought it up in the thread.

Or I can call you on the unsubstantiated backhand of the President.

Its not unsubstantiated. Have you see his hair?

Have no idea where that comment is going, but I'll bite. Please, elaborate on the follicles.

 agnosto wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Magister wrote:


Far more important than Obama's heritage: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-us-nuclear-arsenal-weapons-tweets-expansion-bolster-world-senses-twitter-a7490846.html

It's almost like he wants to spark another war...

What's the problem with that statement?

Because we have roughly 1,750 operational nukes and it only takes 100 to cause a global ice age....

A 2014 report published in the journal Earth's Future found that even a regional war of 100 nuclear detonations would produce 5 teragrams of black soot (that's 5,000,000,000 kg!) that would rise up to Earth's stratosphere and block sunlight. This would produce a sudden drop in global temperatures that could last longer than 25 years and temporarily destroy much of the Earth's protective ozone layer. This could also cause as much as an 80% increase in UV radiation on Earth's surface and destroy both land and sea-based ecosystems, potentially leading to global nuclear famine.

Doubt it. They set off WAY more than 100 nukes during the Cold War.

 Pouncey wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Magister wrote:


Far more important than Obama's heritage: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-us-nuclear-arsenal-weapons-tweets-expansion-bolster-world-senses-twitter-a7490846.html

It's almost like he wants to spark another war...

What's the problem with that statement?

Because we have roughly 1,750 operational nukes and it only takes 100 to cause a global ice age....

A 2014 report published in the journal Earth's Future found that even a regional war of 100 nuclear detonations would produce 5 teragrams of black soot (that's 5,000,000,000 kg!) that would rise up to Earth's stratosphere and block sunlight. This would produce a sudden drop in global temperatures that could last longer than 25 years and temporarily destroy much of the Earth's protective ozone layer. This could also cause as much as an 80% increase in UV radiation on Earth's surface and destroy both land and sea-based ecosystems, potentially leading to global nuclear famine.

Doubt it. They set off WAY more than 100 nukes during the Cold War.

Not at the same time.

 Pouncey wrote:
Doubt it. They set off WAY more than 100 nukes during the Cold War.

Simultaneously? And they haven't made any improvements of size of nukes? Come to think of were the nukes set off even biggest ones they have? Bit different if like 99% of nukes you fire are small ones and spread over large time period to firing lots of big nukes simultaneously.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 whembly wrote:


I think it's more likely that he claimed he was Kenyan/Indonesian during his professorship days, ala Elizabeth Fauxcahontas Warren.

Any proof of that or just in the mood for some Obama bashing on a cold, Thursday morn?

The questions was made about the birther thing. He was responding to it, as I did. If you don't like the topic take it up with the person that brought it up in the thread.

Or I can call you on the unsubstantiated backhand of the President.

Its not unsubstantiated. Have you see his hair?

Have no idea where that comment is going, but I'll bite. Please, elaborate on the follicles.

Its like a bad toupee and troll doll got together while in a tanning bed. Dude quit with the bad 70's style already.

EDIT: I just realized, you know I'm talking about Trump right? I'm not sure what you're talking about.

tneva82 wrote:

 whembly wrote:
We got some powah... so what?

We ain't launching 100 nukes, much less 1750.

They're chess pieces in maintaining MAD with other nations.

Odds of nukes being used is never a zero.

When something has >0% chance it will eventually happen.

See the problem?

Yes, I see the problem with your argument. That probability being rolled over and over again does not ever equal 1. There is always the possibility that it will never happen, regardless of how likely or unlikely it is.

Depending on how unlikely it is, we face new problems with this theory. If those nukes wait too long, the radioactive material will have decayed enough that the weapon no longer functions, as it lacks the capacity to cause a nuclear detonation even if it is armed and detonated.

You also run into the problems of increasing technology during the time we wait to use those nukes. We may eventually create even more destructive weapons than nuclear bombs. We may invent technology capable of creating a nuclear explosion without nuclear material.

Should we discover a way to accelerate a literal baseball to 90% of lightspeed, we simply could not ever do that in our own atmosphere, as it would result in a nuclear explosion that destroys a city due to the velocities causing the baseball and the air it moves through to undergo nuclear fusion in an incredibly destructive manner.

Once we invent the ability to start going fast enough, and we get out into space, we could simply grab an asteroid from our solar system, attach a spaceship engine to it that is capable of propelling it to nearly the speed of light, and now we just created a torpedo that can end all life on our planet. At the very least, we could cause a mass extinction by recreating the meteorite impact that wiped out the dinosaurs, and we wouldn't have to propel an asteroid to the speed of light to do it.

However, if we accelerated an asteroid to the speed of an "Oh My God Particle" (so named because the scientist read their monitor, which had just recorded a proton slamming into Earth's atmosphere with the kinetic energy of a baseball), and hit the Earth with it, the destructive force would make the Death Star look wimpy. Earth would not be shattered into a loose cloud of rocks, the entire planet would instead literally explode into a cloud of plasma that scours the surfaces of Venus and Mars clean when it reaches them.

They're chess pieces in maintaining MAD with other nations.

The moment you spout MAD as reasonable way of keeping global peace is the moment a civilization shouldn't be allowed to hold onto world ending devices.

It's actually quite depressing really.


EDIT: for anyone interested, this website: http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

shows what happens when you drop nukes on cities and the likelyhood you dying a very hot death.

cool use of GIS though.

 Pouncey wrote:
Yes, I see the problem with your argument. That probability being rolled over and over again does not ever equal 1. There is always the possibility that it will never happen, regardless of how likely or unlikely it is.

You want to bet life of humans on THAT slim chance?-)

Depending on how unlikely it is, we face new problems with this theory. If those nukes wait too long, the radioactive material will have decayed enough that the weapon no longer functions, as it lacks the capacity to cause a nuclear detonation even if it is armed and detonated.

Problem being nukes aren't "what we have now is all we ever have". Last time I checked humans haven't lost ability to produce more. Aren't republicans all anger about deal with Iran who's supposedly creating new nukes? Why be angry about Iran's nuclear program if humans can't produce any more nukes resulting eventually nukes being non-functional?

Or maybe humans can build nukes to replace those that have lost their functionality so that's no help whatsoever...Nuke gets too old, it gets replaced by brand new(and likely bigger and better).

Hell Trump is planning increasing stockpile of nukes. Though maybe Trump doesn't know humans have lost ability to produce new nukes!

 Frazzled wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 whembly wrote:


I think it's more likely that he claimed he was Kenyan/Indonesian during his professorship days, ala Elizabeth Fauxcahontas Warren.

Any proof of that or just in the mood for some Obama bashing on a cold, Thursday morn?

The questions was made about the birther thing. He was responding to it, as I did. If you don't like the topic take it up with the person that brought it up in the thread.

Or I can call you on the unsubstantiated backhand of the President.

Its not unsubstantiated. Have you see his hair?

Have no idea where that comment is going, but I'll bite. Please, elaborate on the follicles.

Its like a bad toupee and troll doll got together while in a tanning bed. Dude quit with the bad 70's style already.

EDIT: I just realized, you know I'm talking about Trump right? I'm not sure what you're talking about.

I didn't because I made a comment to Whembs about a perceived unsubstantiated backhand to Obama and you've gone down a response path regarding Trump, his hair, etc. I don't know how or why you took it there or what the disconnect is in this tete-a-tete at this point.

tneva82 wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
Yes, I see the problem with your argument. That probability being rolled over and over again does not ever equal 1. There is always the possibility that it will never happen, regardless of how likely or unlikely it is.

You want to bet life of humans on THAT slim chance?-)

Well... it's been a winning bet for the last 70ish years, hasn't it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
Doubt it. They set off WAY more than 100 nukes during the Cold War.

Simultaneously? And they haven't made any improvements of size of nukes? Come to think of were the nukes set off even biggest ones they have? Bit different if like 99% of nukes you fire are small ones and spread over large time period to firing lots of big nukes simultaneously.

Most average US weapons are in the 50-75 kiloton range. Russians were testing weapons in the 50 MEGATON range.

tneva82 wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
Doubt it. They set off WAY more than 100 nukes during the Cold War.

Simultaneously? And they haven't made any improvements of size of nukes? Come to think of were the nukes set off even biggest ones they have? Bit different if like 99% of nukes you fire are small ones and spread over large time period to firing lots of big nukes simultaneously.

Does it have to be simultaneously? Wouldn't the cumulative effects be the same?

Modern nuclear weapons would actually be smaller than old ones. The biggest one set off was the Tsar Bomba at 55MT or so, and there's no sense in ever building anything that big again. Modern nuclear weapons stick to around 1MT.

With old ones, their guidance systems weren't so good, so they needed a larger explosion to ensure they hit their targets. As guidance systems got better, nukes got more precise, so they started scaling back the megatonnage since they weren't possibly missing by as much. We now have guidance systems that can let us decide which window of a house to put a cruise missile in. The people who design our nuclear weapons aren't interested in simply ramping up the destructiveness as high as possible, they just want to destroy their target with as little force as necessary.

However, the reality of MAD still applies. Many countries still have nukes, and they will use them in a fight for survival. The end of the Cold War merely meant that the USA and Russia were no longer on the constant verge of going to war, so things calmed down since no one wanted to fight.

However, the USA and Russia will STILL not go to war, because the horrors of nuclear war are still a thing, and both countries absolutely would use their nukes if they were getting invaded and losing. Essentially any country with nuclear weapons is safe from being invaded, because the destruction they could wreak on the people in the attacking army's country is horrific enough no one is willing to invade them.

If we're firing off nukes in an actual war, the only possible conclusion is that in one of the countries with nukes in it has begun doing stuff worse than Hitler, because the world is willing to sacrifice hundreds of millions of civilians to stop them.

Magister wrote:

They're chess pieces in maintaining MAD with other nations.

The moment you spout MAD as reasonable way of keeping global peace is the moment a civilization shouldn't be allowed to hold onto world ending devices.

It's actually quite depressing really.


EDIT: for anyone interested, this website: http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

shows what happens when you drop nukes on cities and the likelyhood you dying a very hot death.

cool use of GIS though.

Horse gak. The reality is peace will always be temporary.

Carry the biggest fething stick in your neighborhood... the less likely you'll get whacked.

tneva82 wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
Yes, I see the problem with your argument. That probability being rolled over and over again does not ever equal 1. There is always the possibility that it will never happen, regardless of how likely or unlikely it is.

You want to bet life of humans on THAT slim chance?-)

No. I want to assume that no country is willing to sacrifice millions of their own civilians to start a war over anything that is not worth that loss of life.

I also read the name of the website it came from, and I am 100% sure they did not base that on any sort of actual physics calculations.

 Pouncey wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
Doubt it. They set off WAY more than 100 nukes during the Cold War.

Simultaneously? And they haven't made any improvements of size of nukes? Come to think of were the nukes set off even biggest ones they have? Bit different if like 99% of nukes you fire are small ones and spread over large time period to firing lots of big nukes simultaneously.

Does it have to be simultaneously? Wouldn't the cumulative effects be the same?

Modern nuclear weapons would actually be smaller than old ones. The biggest one set off was the Tsar Bomba at 55MT or so, and there's no sense in ever building anything that big again. Modern nuclear weapons stick to around 1MT.

With old ones, their guidance systems weren't so good, so they needed a larger explosion to ensure they hit their targets. As guidance systems got better, nukes got more precise, so they started scaling back the megatonnage since they weren't possibly missing by as much. We now have guidance systems that can let us decide which window of a house to put a cruise missile in. The people who design our nuclear weapons aren't interested in simply ramping up the destructiveness as high as possible, they just want to destroy their target with as little force as necessary.

However, the reality of MAD still applies. Many countries still have nukes, and they will use them in a fight for survival. The end of the Cold War merely meant that the USA and Russia were no longer on the constant verge of going to war, so things calmed down since no one wanted to fight.

However, the USA and Russia will STILL not go to war, because the horrors of nuclear war are still a thing, and both countries absolutely would use their nukes if they were getting invaded and losing. Essentially any country with nuclear weapons is safe from being invaded, because the destruction they could wreak on the people in the attacking army's country is horrific enough no one is willing to invade them.

If we're firing off nukes in an actual war, the only possible conclusion is that in one of the countries with nukes in it has begun doing stuff worse than Hitler, because the world is willing to sacrifice hundreds of millions of civilians to stop them.

No, being detonated separately gave time for the pollutants to be diluted out of the atmosphere. They don't stay in the sky forever. Rain cleans the lower atmosphere out pretty well.

Or because the hypotheticals leaders of those country's with the nukes are so self involved and self obsessed that they don't have the capability to care about the aforementioned hundreds of millions of civilians.

 Pouncey wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
Yes, I see the problem with your argument. That probability being rolled over and over again does not ever equal 1. There is always the possibility that it will never happen, regardless of how likely or unlikely it is.

You want to bet life of humans on THAT slim chance?-)

No. I want to assume that no country is willing to sacrifice millions of their own civilians to start a war over anything that is not worth that loss of life.

Dictatorships don't mind it:

tneva82 wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
Yes, I see the problem with your argument. That probability being rolled over and over again does not ever equal 1. There is always the possibility that it will never happen, regardless of how likely or unlikely it is.

You want to bet life of humans on THAT slim chance?-)

Depending on how unlikely it is, we face new problems with this theory. If those nukes wait too long, the radioactive material will have decayed enough that the weapon no longer functions, as it lacks the capacity to cause a nuclear detonation even if it is armed and detonated.

Problem being nukes aren't "what we have now is all we ever have". Last time I checked humans haven't lost ability to produce more. Aren't republicans all anger about deal with Iran who's supposedly creating new nukes? Why be angry about Iran's nuclear program if humans can't produce any more nukes resulting eventually nukes being non-functional?

Or maybe humans can build nukes to replace those that have lost their functionality so that's no help whatsoever...Nuke gets too old, it gets replaced by brand new(and likely bigger and better).

Hell Trump is planning increasing stockpile of nukes. Though maybe Trump doesn't know humans have lost ability to produce new nukes!

A) we have not lost the ability to make nukes.

B) we will always find new ways to kill each other.

C) Frick'n lazor beams on warships/fighter planes is coming.

Horse gak. The reality is peace will always be temporary.

Carry the biggest fething stick in your neighborhood... the less likely you'll get whacked

That's a great reality until someone comes up with a bigger stick. Or better yet, more people with bigger sticks.

That point aside, I feel it's all a bit pathetic that various segments of the species are still trying to kill one other because they believe in different religious* fairy tales.

It's almost like no one reads a history book anymore...


*Religion/Politics/Economics etc

 djones520 wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
Doubt it. They set off WAY more than 100 nukes during the Cold War.

Simultaneously? And they haven't made any improvements of size of nukes? Come to think of were the nukes set off even biggest ones they have? Bit different if like 99% of nukes you fire are small ones and spread over large time period to firing lots of big nukes simultaneously.

Does it have to be simultaneously? Wouldn't the cumulative effects be the same?

Modern nuclear weapons would actually be smaller than old ones. The biggest one set off was the Tsar Bomba at 55MT or so, and there's no sense in ever building anything that big again. Modern nuclear weapons stick to around 1MT.

With old ones, their guidance systems weren't so good, so they needed a larger explosion to ensure they hit their targets. As guidance systems got better, nukes got more precise, so they started scaling back the megatonnage since they weren't possibly missing by as much. We now have guidance systems that can let us decide which window of a house to put a cruise missile in. The people who design our nuclear weapons aren't interested in simply ramping up the destructiveness as high as possible, they just want to destroy their target with as little force as necessary.

However, the reality of MAD still applies. Many countries still have nukes, and they will use them in a fight for survival. The end of the Cold War merely meant that the USA and Russia were no longer on the constant verge of going to war, so things calmed down since no one wanted to fight.

However, the USA and Russia will STILL not go to war, because the horrors of nuclear war are still a thing, and both countries absolutely would use their nukes if they were getting invaded and losing. Essentially any country with nuclear weapons is safe from being invaded, because the destruction they could wreak on the people in the attacking army's country is horrific enough no one is willing to invade them.

If we're firing off nukes in an actual war, the only possible conclusion is that in one of the countries with nukes in it has begun doing stuff worse than Hitler, because the world is willing to sacrifice hundreds of millions of civilians to stop them.

No, being detonated separately gave time for the pollutants to be diluted out of the atmosphere. They don't stay in the sky forever. Rain cleans the lower atmosphere out pretty well.

Actually, no, that's not quite it.

See, the big nukes actually have zero danger to the ground from radioactive fallout, because the fallout goes high enough up into the atmosphere it just gets carried around the planet for long enough that by the time it finally comes back down, it is no longer dangerous.

I think the best example of why the link was BS was that it was worried about wiping out most of the ozone layer.

Nukes aren't powerful enough to do that. For that kind of damage you need a gamma ray burst that wipes out half of the planet instantly..

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 whembly wrote:


I think it's more likely that he claimed he was Kenyan/Indonesian during his professorship days, ala Elizabeth Fauxcahontas Warren.

Any proof of that or just in the mood for some Obama bashing on a cold, Thursday morn?

The questions was made about the birther thing. He was responding to it, as I did. If you don't like the topic take it up with the person that brought it up in the thread.

Or I can call you on the unsubstantiated backhand of the President.

Its not unsubstantiated. Have you see his hair?

Have no idea where that comment is going, but I'll bite. Please, elaborate on the follicles.

Its like a bad toupee and troll doll got together while in a tanning bed. Dude quit with the bad 70's style already.

EDIT: I just realized, you know I'm talking about Trump right? I'm not sure what you're talking about.

I didn't because I made a comment to Whembs about a perceived unsubstantiated backhand to Obama and you've gone down a response path regarding Trump, his hair, etc. I don't know how or why you took it there or what the disconnect is in this tete-a-tete at this point.

It's not unsubstantiated... when he was in Harvard, a promotional doo-dad stated that he was born in Kenya and raised in Hawaii and Indonesia. I remember a NYT article (can't seem to find it now) that investigated that publication, which was indeed a fact-cheking error. My "backhand" to Obama is merely the fact that his public persona as a professor at Harvard may have been presented differently at different times. Like Elizabeth Warren.

 Pouncey wrote:

Actually, no, that's not quite it.

See, the big nukes actually have zero danger to the ground from radioactive fallout, because the fallout goes high enough up into the atmosphere it just gets carried around the planet for long enough that by the time it finally comes back down, it is no longer dangerous.

I think the best example of why the link was BS was that it was worried about wiping out most of the ozone layer.

Nukes aren't powerful enough to do that. For that kind of damage you need a gamma ray burst that wipes out half of the planet instantly..

Or CFCs.

Nukes don't have to blow away the ozone layer if they throw up enough molecules into the atmosphere that can break down Ozone.

A nuclear detonation can produce Nitric Oxide, which can break down Ozone in a self-repeating chemical reaction.