Leaderboard

Today at GHS- Senior WR/ CB Braden Watkins signs with Emory and Henry Football and Senior LB Gage Sawyers signed with Old Dominion University. both were All SW District , All Region and All State first teamers. That is now 4 players off the 2022 state champs going to play at the next level.

In the 80's, there was a push by many experts and so called experts in the nuclear field in an attempt to scare the world into one in which nuclear missiles didn't exist. Many of these people were on the left and were environmentalists. Many of them literally wanted the world to be free of nuclear missiles. Regardless of the intentions, the outcome of a world where nuclear missiles does not exist would be a good one. These people came up with concept of "Nuclear Winter.' They based their conclusions that a nuclear winter would occur even with a somewhat limited nuclear exchange, for example, 10 missiles fired from Pakistan and 10 fired from India. Their science was shaky. They talked about the concept of dust and radiation being taking up into high levels of the atmosphere and blocking the sun, thus cooling the earth's temperature so dramatically that we could be left with 5 or 7 years of "winter," and dramatic temperature drops to where Florida basically becomes like the North Pole. Thus, growing season is shortened and the world starves to death. Regardless of some of those 1980 scientists who were heavy environmentalists, and even if the data was shaky, the intent was good. Their intended outcome, even if through fear, is and was a good thing in my opinion. The outcome was to rid the world of nuclear weapons. The above has largely been disproved. So, because it has largely been disproved, or at least heavily counter-weighted by scientists who suggests even a large nuclear exchange will not produce a nuclear winter, does this mean nuclear war is survivable? I submit to you, the answer is no. The pendulum has swung. In the 80's up until the last 5 to 10 years, most of the world (even many today) believe that nuclear war was automatic 100 percent death, and if you were Unlucky enough to survive the initial blast, then certainly you would die within a few months or a year from the food supplies that would have dried up. Because nuclear winter has largely been unsupported and many scientists are arguing against it, the pendulum has swung in many circles, such as with preppers, that nuclear war is survivable. This theory is equally as wrong as the previous one saying nuclear winter was a certain. The answers rest in Ground Bursts vs Air Bursts. We now know that a large (50 times the size of Hiroshima) nuclear missile that lands as an Air burst has massive radiation, but 98% of the radiation gone within 1 week. That's a far cry from nuclear winter. Here is the problem, many stating nuclear war is survivable are basing their calculations on strictly AIR Bursts. In a nuclear war, Air bursts are used to destroy People and Objects on the ground or above the ground such as city buildings and killing as many people as possible very quickly. An Air Burst also produces an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) that fries all circuitry, or most of it in that area, so an Air burst basically destroys New York City. You can figure very few buildings left standing, if any, in NYC from one Large Air burst, and all cell phones, communications, TV, Radio and communications gone, and roughly 10 million dead immediately. A GROUND Burst is designed to do 2 things. It's designed to Penetrate Underground and to Cause Massive Radiation. A ground burst would be used for submarine bases, military targets, missile silos, the underground bunkers used by military and government officials, etc. Most that think nuclear war is survivable believe or simply don't account for Ground Bursts in a nuclear war. They are simply Air Burst focused. A Ground Burst doesn't kill many people when it hits immediately. The problem is, with a common size missile about 50 times the size of Hiroshima, which is what Russia has and what the US has, nothing grows in that area for about 25 to 30 years, and that area is about 1000 miles in circumference or area. The US knows this and Russia know this. They aren't simply going to fire all Air Bursts in a nuclear exchange, nor would we. We would scatter their country and they would scatter ours with exactly placed Large Ground Bursts which contaminates the water supply for decades and the soil is contaminated for decades. Place about 150 to 200 of those in the right areas of the US, and you have destroyed the country with certainty. So, a nuclear war is not survivable, but it's not because of why you may think. Many think "nuclear winter" and blocking of the sun and temperature changes for 7 years like we were taught in the 80's. That's largely been disproved at this point, or the concept of nuclear winter is now heavily debated and lots of data suggesting that we certainly don't know for sure. But, the reason nuclear war isn't survivable is due to ground burst nuclear radiation. Remember Chernobyl? It's over 35ish years now. That meltdown is similar to a ground burst from one missile. You still can't grow food there or drink the water, and I think the exclusion zone is 30 x 30ish, almost 1000 square miles. If we had a nuclear war where every bomb that hits is strictly an Air Burst, then it is certainly survivable if you have a years worth of food and water and a fallout shelter, and you have seeds and land to regrow food in one year because the radiation would be long gone. The problem is, a nuclear war will not work that way. We would have as many Ground Bursts as we would Air Bursts, and that's the death sentence. The Ground Burst is also the part that someone who argues nuclear war is survivable will never mention. Will there be "Non Chernobyl" areas in the US that are left from a nuclear war that are unscathed by the Ground Bursts in Nuclear War? Sure, there would be some, but you can guarantee those that survived in bunkers in the contaminated areas quickly make there was to the very few non contaminated areas, and that 100 acre farm in the middle of West Kansas is very soon saturated with hungry survivors who want some of that corn and wheat, and will take it at gunpoint, until someone takes it from them, and then that process is rinsed and repeated until you have a handful of people left. I call that Not Survivable. Just my opinions above, with a few facts in there to support the opinions. I am not a nuclear expert and don't claim to be. I've done some reading on the subject the past 6 months just out of curiosity and the above in just one guy's interpretation of what I've read and each person has their own take. I'm just giving mine.