Naked Science Forum
General Science => General Science => Topic started by: smart on 20/10/2016 14:14:20
-
What are the implications of a global war scenario between the West and Russia? Do you think the elections in the US will spark a global conflict? Was the internet handover a strategic operation to repress political opinions about the risks of a nuclear war?
-
What do you think?
Is it all pure propaganda or are the risks of a global conflict looming on the horizon?
-
Wake up people!
http://www.ibtimes.com.au/world-war-iii-update-experts-say-5-russias-satan-missiles-could-destroy-us-east-coast-kill-4-million
http://canadafreepress.com/article/obamas-nuclear-war-coming-to-you-soon
-
Humanity has already survived a nuclear war. Unfortunately, so did several priests, politicans and philosphers, so there is almost certain to be another one.
The result will, in the long term, be that a small number of people will be involved in devising ever more effective weapons paid for by the taxes of the vast number of morons who listen to priests, politicains and philosophers instead of using their brains.
Even if we don't use nukes, our species seems dedicated to bombing itself back to the Stone Age, both physically and intellectually.
-
Doesn't it seem extraordinary, that since the first employment of nuclear weapons in 1945, we've made no subsequent use of these weapons?
I can't help feeling that we won't be able to restrain ourselves much longer.
-
That's largely because no major geographical state has attacked any other directly. However it is only a matter of time before a nongeographic entity such as ISIS or Al-qaeda drops a nuke on Birmingham and brings civilisation to a close.
-
Do you think the destruction of Birmingham would really bring civilisation to a close? Even a devout "Brummie", might not go that far!
-
That's largely because no major geographical state has attacked any other directly. However it is only a matter of time before a nongeographic entity such as ISIS or Al-qaeda drops a nuke on Birmingham and brings civilisation to a close.
ISIS and Al-qaeda are proxy terrorist organizations fabricated by the US in order to influence public opinions about the war propaganda. The reason theses terrorists organizations won't drop a nuke on New York is because they lack the technology for doing so. However, countries like Russia or North Korea have developed advanced ICBMs which can reach North America and create a thermonuclear apocalypse.
All I hope is that a political resolution can be achieved between the US and Russia in order to end the Syrian conflict.
-
That's largely because no major geographical state has attacked any other directly. However it is only a matter of time before a nongeographic entity such as ISIS or Al-qaeda drops a nuke on Birmingham and brings civilisation to a close.
ISIS and Al-qaeda are proxy terrorist organizations fabricated by the US in order to influence public opinions about the war propaganda. The reason theses terrorists organizations won't drop a nuke on New York is because they lack the technology for doing so. However, countries like Russia or North Korea have developed advanced ICBMs which can reach North America and create a thermonuclear apocalypse.
All I hope is that a political resolution can be achieved between the US and Russia in order to end the Syrian conflict.
Yes, the US and Russia could soon end the Syrian conflict. If they agreed to launch a joint military invasion of the region. To rapidly suppress all the tiresome, squabbling factions.
Then, a new Syrian government could be installed. Fully and forcefully backed by the US and Russia. It might be only a kind of "puppet" government, but wouldn't it be heartily welcomed by the vast majority of the long-suffering Syrian people?
-
Humanity has already survived a nuclear war. Unfortunately, so did several priests, politicans and philosphers, so there is almost certain to be another one.
The result will, in the long term, be that a small number of people will be involved in devising ever more effective weapons paid for by the taxes of the vast number of morons who listen to priests, politicains and philosophers instead of using their brains.
Even if we don't use nukes, our species seems dedicated to bombing itself back to the Stone Age, both physically and intellectually.
When you say "humanity has already survived a nuclear war", are you referring to the two A-bombs dropped on Japan in 1945, in the closing phase of WWII?
Arguably, this could be said to make WWII a "nuclear war". Because nuclear weapons were used during it. But the "nuclear war" of 1945 was very small - only two tiny 20-kiloton fission weapons were employed. And it was entirely one-sided, as Japan had no nuclear retaliatory capability of its own. So that doesn't really count as a "nuclear war". (It might've counted, if Japan had dropped a couple of A-bombs on LA and Seattle, in retaliation)
As for the future, I agree with you that our species is dedicated to bombing. We love it. And we will do it again with nuclear weapons, once we've got over the psychological inhibition of "first use since 1945".
But once that inhibition has been broken, the weapons will be used exuberantly. Like, we've been freed to kill ourselves on a really massive scale!
That need not be a cause for pessimism. Our present global population is 7+ billion. So even if we kill 5 billion people in a global nuclear war, that'll leave still leave 2+ billion. Which is close to what the world population was in 1950.
-
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.
-
You and Einstein are too pessimistic.
World War IV might not be fought with with sophisticated weapons like ICBMS. But surely guns would still be around, even if they were only flintlock muskets.
A primitive retrogression to "sticks and stones" might take a few World Wars longer, don't you think?
-
The reason theses terrorists organizations won't drop a nuke on New York is because they lack the technology for doing so.
You can rent an utterly reliable airborne delivery system for $150 per hour. Having seen what happens to civilisation when you blow up one big building in New York, I suspect the scum are encouraged to try a bigger bang. It's only a matter of time before Iran, North Korea or some other nuclear-capable entity stops playing with pointless megaton bombs and starts selling useful kiloton devices to a well-funded group of religious vermin.
A primitive retrogression to "sticks and stones" might take a few World Wars longer, don't you think?
No. The most sophisticated military machine in history was defeated in Vietnam by a bunch of little guys with sharp sticks. Al-qaeda used Stanley knives to ensure the re-election of Bush and Blair, and make the western world cower in panic. Russia and Syria are demolishing entire cities to get rid of a few morons with Kalashnikovs. All future wars will be highly asymmetric, with no clear outcome apart from the destruction of all we have built over the last 20,000 years.
-
Alan, I like your style. A perfect blend of solid fact, and outrageous swivel-eyed fruit-loopery.
That's meant as a compliment, by the way. Well, partially.
-
Please point to the fruit-loops in reply #12.
Inicidentally and apropos the Birmingham scenario, you wouldn't even need a nuclear device to completely disrupt British society. Here's a true story
A few years ago I was concurrently chairman of a local Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament branch and Scientific Adviser to the Civil Defence organisation in the same region (it's called "hedging your bets", or "knowing what you are talking about"). I attended a Transition to War conference along with various other worthies charged with restoring order after World War III, including the other Scientific Adviser, a chemist of Polish extraction, with whom I had previously worked.
The Chief Constable outlined his orders for the week leading up to a gentlemanly nuclear conflict with the USSR. He was to empty the police cells of all minor villains ("minor" being defined as theft, assault, rape or murder) and to lock up a list of Fifth Columnists. Who, he was asked, is on that list? "Members of leftwing organisations, and people with foreign names". My colleague stood up and said "So you are going to imprison and hold incommunicado the only two blokes who can save the lives of the survivors. I am sure everyone will applaud your patriotic act."
Terrorism, at its best, is the apex of asymmetric warfare. I've rather lost touch with our beloved Home Office since that conference, but my guess is that national suicide is still considered to be the only alternative to surrender.
The War on Terror seems to consist of sending uniformed soldiers to become targets for snipers and bombers in Afghanistan, and until recently, prosecuting any British soldier who fails to respect the dignity and human rights of the bastard who has sworn to kill him. There will not be a WWIII: the west has already surrendered.
-
I think people like tkadm30 wish for it to happen. You know? To "pay for our sins" or whatever. It's a fantasy.
-
I think people like tkadm30 wish for it to happen. You know? To "pay for our sins" or whatever. It's a fantasy.
Actually, I'm an atheist. However, perhaps world war III may be the solution for getting rid of chemtrails.
-
It is an unfortunate fact that we can secure peace only by preparing for war.
-
Please point to the fruit-loops in reply #12.
What disturbed me in your reply#12, was your reference to: "scum encouraged to try a bigger bang......religious vermin".
And in your earlier#3: "morons who listen to priests, politicians and philosophers".
Using terms like "scum", "vermin" and ""morons", does sound indicative of a kind of intemperance of attitude, which is associated with the fruit-loop crowd.
That's all I was getting at. I just wish you wouldn't use such terms, as IMHO, they spoil your otherwise excellent and admirable posts. No offensive intended!
-
It is an unfortunate fact that we can secure peace only by preparing for war.
JFK's quote is only a rehash of the old Roman maxim "Si vis pacem, para bellum" ((If you wish for peace, prepare for war).
But that's only a sophism. A vain attempt to evade the disgraceful fact that humans actually like fighting wars. We don't really "wish for peace". War is in our blood. We're never happier than when we're "in action", fighting and killing each other. It has an enormous attraction. That's why we like watching war-movies, and playing war-related video games.
And it's why we give awards, such as the "Victoria Cross", or the "Congressional Medal of Honor", to men who have killed a lot of other men. The medals acknowledge our admiration for killing.
Now, nuclear war offers the opportunity to kill on a historically unprecedented scale. Not just mowing down a few hundred men with a machine-gun, but blowing up entire cities, by dropping nuclear weapons on them, and killing hundreds of millions! This has such an enormous appeal, that surely it can't be resisted much longer. The non-use of nuclear weapons since 1945 seems bizarre and quite contrary to human nature.
Actually, I should rather say to "male" human nature. Females are less obsessed with killing, as they have babies to nurture and bring up. So women probably wouldn't start a nuclear war.
-
What disturbed me in your reply#12, was your reference to: "scum encouraged to try a bigger bang......religious vermin".
And in your earlier#3: "morons who listen to priests, politicians and philosophers".
Using terms like "scum", "vermin" and ""morons", does sound indicative of a kind of intemperance of attitude, which is associated with the fruit-loop crowd.
I am wholly intemperate, as all good men should be, when dealing with evil people. "By their deeds shall ye know them" but if someone has sworn to wipe your civilisation off the map, it's better not to wait before killing him. Animals that we kill on sight are called vermin. Humans who abandon human decency when told to by priests, politicians or philosophers, are morons. People who set out to kill indiscriminately are scum.
Perhaps you would have preferred a different outcome to World War II? Maybe you have forgiven the Inquisition? Were Stalin and Idi Amin just misunderstood? Does your club include members of Boko Haram?
-
So women probably wouldn't start a nuclear war.
Apart, of course, from Margaret Thatcher, Theresa May, Benazir Bhutto, Indira Ghandi, and hopefully Hillary Clinton. To the best of my knowledge no other women have actually had their fingers on a nuclear button but Sirima Bandaranaike and Golda Meir were potentially nuclear-capable and not known for their pacifism.
And if you want to quibble about "starting" a nuclear war you should be aware, as I'm sure each of the above ladies was, that there is no second prize in warfare.
-
So women probably wouldn't start a nuclear war.
We never know what is the main purpose of war in man. I hope the legacy of Obama will not be a pessimistic scenario.
-
So women probably wouldn't start a nuclear war.
We never know what is the main purpose of war in man. I hope the legacy of Obama will not be a pessimistic scenario.
The main purpose of war in man, is to win by killing all rival males, then mate with the women.
The women want to mate with the winner, as he has shown superior genes by killing all the other weaker men.
What's Obama got to do with it?
-
The main purpose of war in man, is to win by killing all rival males, then mate with the women.
Manifestly untrue. Your most significant sexual rivals are the guys nearest to you, especially the ones wearing the same uniform. And in modern warfare you kill not only males who are not a sexual threat (they have wives and girlfriends at home) but also females who might, to a more rational species, otherwise become a prize of war. The irrationality of man is that we can be persuaded by priests, politicians and philosophers, to kill other humans that present no threat or competition. And if you drop a nuclear bomb on the enemy your politicians have selected for you, the only survivors will be the fit young males that their politicians have put into hardend bunkers or dispersed to foreign fields as an army.
-
What's Obama got to do with it?
Apart from sealing the fate of the Syrian conflict, Obama legacy will be seen as a failure to protect citizens from war and terrorism.
-
There have been fewer terrorist deaths in the USA during Obama's regime than Bush's. The USA has not been invaded by any warring state in the last 8 years )(or indeed ever, since the British attack in 1814).
In order to resolve the Syrian conflict, the USA would have had to commit ground forces to support a legitimate but loathsome regime, or a rabble of lunatics whose sole common aim is to destroy western civilisation. In the wise words of George Bush Senior, "no president should commit ground forces unless he can tell them who they are fighting, what they are fighting for, how they will know they have won, and what will happen when they go home." Given the nauseating farces of Vietnam, Afghanistan, Somalia and Iraq, Obama seems to be the only president in recent history to have learned from that history.
Please give your reasons.
-
There have been fewer terrorist deaths in the USA during Obama's regime than Bush's. The USA has not been invaded by any warring state in the last 8 years )(or indeed ever, since the British attack in 1814).
In order to resolve the Syrian conflict, the USA would have had to commit ground forces to support a legitimate but loathsome regime, or a rabble of lunatics whose sole common aim is to destroy western civilisation. In the wise words of George Bush Senior, "no president should commit ground forces unless he can tell them who they are fighting, what they are fighting for, how they will know they have won, and what will happen when they go home." Given the nauseating farces of Vietnam, Afghanistan, Somalia and Iraq, Obama seems to be the only president in recent history to have learned from that history.
Please give your reasons.
Obama legacy:
- chemtrails
- Syrian conflict
- terrorism
- etc (nuclear war with Russia)
-
The Syrian conflict seems to have at least three sides, one of which the US opposes, but I don't see any evidence of the US actually starting the fight.
I am not aware of significant acts of terrorism instigated by the US. Indeed during Obama's regime, American support for the IRA seems to have diminished significantly and AlQuaeda's capability has been reduced. As I said above, terrorist activity in the USA, both homegrown and imported, seems also to have decreased since the Idiot Bush left the scene.
When was the nuclear war with Russia? I must have been asleep. Clearly Mr Trump won't start one because he owes the Russians a lot of money - or maybe that's the reason he will!
You will have to educate me on "chemtrails". What are they, and how has Barack Obama invented/promoted/popularised them?
-
The Syrian conflict seems to have at least three sides, one of which the US opposes, but I don't see any evidence of the US actually starting the fight.
The Islamic state (ISIS) is a fabrication of US to promote military operations in the middle east. The Syrian conflict is largely caused by ISIS rebels attacking the population.
I am not aware of significant acts of terrorism instigated by the US. Indeed during Obama's regime, American support for the IRA seems to have diminished significantly and AlQuaeda's capability has been reduced. As I said above, terrorist activity in the USA, both homegrown and imported, seems also to have decreased since the Idiot Bush left the scene.
I agree.
When was the nuclear war with Russia? I must have been asleep. Clearly Mr Trump won't start one because he owes the Russians a lot of money - or maybe that's the reason he will!
This scenario is being censored by western medias.
You will have to educate me on "chemtrails". What are they, and how has Barack Obama invented/promoted/popularised them?
This information is being censored by western medias:
- Obama massively used geoengineering (stratospheric aerosol injection) over North-America during its presidency.
- SAI is believed to be potentially harmful to human health.
-
I seriously hope Obama legacy will be a diplomatic resolution (lead by Russia) of the Syrian conflict. The global nuclear war scenario should make 911 irrelevant.
-
Perhaps we delude ourselves, if we think there can be a "diplomatic solution" to the problems in the Middle East.
It's a huge chaotic mess of weak conflicting Arab states, driven by two different versions of Islamic religion, Shia and Sunni. Plus a third religion, Judaism, which is embodied in the militarily-powerful State of Israel. And a fourth religion, Christianity, which has the sympathy of the economically-powerful West.
All this makes fire to heat a continuously bubbling witches' cauldron. And unless the cauldron is tipped over, and the fire extinguished, there will never be peace.
But how can this done?
-
Perhaps we delude ourselves, if we think there can be a "diplomatic solution" to the problems in the Middle East.
It's a huge chaotic mess of weak conflicting Arab states, driven by two different versions of Islamic religion, Shia and Sunni. Plus a third religion, Judaism, which is embodied in the militarily-powerful State of Israel. And a fourth religion, Christianity, which has the sympathy of the economically-powerful West.
All this makes fire to heat a continuously bubbling witches' cauldron. And unless the cauldron is tipped over, and the fire extinguished, there will never be peace.
But how can this done?
We need to stop electing dictators and declare war to tyranny; not terror.
-
What are the implications of a global war scenario between the West and Russia? Do you think the elections in the US will spark a global conflict? Was the internet handover a strategic operation to repress political opinions about the risks of a nuclear war?
Well, depends. From my European point of view, it depends on how the new elected president will react to Russian aggression and propaganda. If the answers will not be so diplomatic or made by impulse I think we'll face a World War III.
-
Zollinger,
Would a nuclear World War III be such a bad thing? It'd certainly solve the "population" problem. I theorise that such a war could reduce the human population from its present ludicrously-high 7 billion, to about 1 or 2 billion. Which is much more sustainable.
And now that America has elected President Trump, mightn't we soon see experimental verification?
-
Perhaps we delude ourselves, if we think there can be a "diplomatic solution" to the problems in the Middle East.
It's a huge chaotic mess of weak conflicting Arab states, driven by two different versions of Islamic religion, Shia and Sunni. Plus a third religion, Judaism, which is embodied in the militarily-powerful State of Israel. And a fourth religion, Christianity, which has the sympathy of the economically-powerful West.
All this makes fire to heat a continuously bubbling witches' cauldron. And unless the cauldron is tipped over, and the fire extinguished, there will never be peace.
But how can this done?
We need to stop electing dictators and declare war to tyranny; not terror.
That sounds good, and pious. But in the Middle East can there be Peace - or only "unfinished business" - until one side has managed to win outright victory.
Isn't our continual Western interference just staving off such a victory, and so making the fighting keep going on?
-
And now that America has elected President Trump, mightn't we soon see experimental verification?
No. The defeat of Clinton really is an evidence that the US do not seek war. I look forward a diplomatic resolution in Syria now that tyranny has been defeated. Congratulations to all Americans in this epic day agaisn't tyranny!
-
And now that America has elected President Trump, mightn't we soon see experimental verification?
No. The defeat of Clinton really is an evidence that the US do not seek war. I look forward a diplomatic resolution in Syria now that tyranny has been defeated. Congratulations to all Americans in this epic day agaisn't tyranny!
"Tyranny" is a word which resonates in US presidential history ("Apart from that Mrs Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?")
Will it be long before a new (possibly FBI/CIA-sponsored) John Wilkes Booth leaps on the stage shouting "Sic semper tyrannis", after shooting Trump?
Trump is so hated by the liberal media, that for that reason alone, I would protect him at all costs. Even if he does start a nuclear war with Russia. Which we'd win anyway.
-
"Tyranny" is a word which resonates in US presidential history ("Apart from that Mrs Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?")
Will it be long before a new (possibly FBI/CIA-sponsored) John Wilkes Booth leaps on the stage shouting "Sic semper tyrannis", after shooting Trump?
This scenario could destroy America confidence in the democratic system and could trigger a civil war.
Trump is so hated by the liberal media, that for that reason alone, I would protect him at all costs.
It's because liberal media is part of the swamp. The last 8 years of Obama presidency tightened the corruption of the elites.
-
Would a nuclear World War III be such a bad thing? It'd certainly solve the "population" problem. I theorise that such a war could reduce the human population from its present ludicrously-high 7 billion, to about 1 or 2 billion. Which is much more sustainable.
Those who suggest killing masses of people to "solve" the population problem should start by killing themselves and set an example for others to follow for the greater good of humanity!
-
Would a nuclear World War III be such a bad thing? It'd certainly solve the "population" problem. I theorise that such a war could reduce the human population from its present ludicrously-high 7 billion, to about 1 or 2 billion. Which is much more sustainable.
Those who suggest killing masses of people to "solve" the population problem should start by killing themselves and set an example for others to follow for the greater good of humanity!
But would any individual person, or even several, who committed suicide, inspire the mass of the people to do the same. Even if the suicides all left notes saying "I killed myself to reduce global population, please follow my example". That doesn't seem a fruitful approach to the problem. Mightn't a more efficacious solution be, if the citizens of a powerful nuclear-armed country, such as the USA, elected a possible fruit-loop as their president.
This could theoretically produce speedier results. And empirical verification of the theory may soon be forthcoming.
Personally, I look forward to it, as we all have to die anyway. Wouldn't it be scientifically more satisfying to be brilliantly disintegrated during a spectacular thermonuclear war, rather than tediously wearing out from old-age?
-
The hallmark of civilisation is that everyone can choose the time, place and manner of his death. We have a long way to go.
-
The hallmark of civilisation is that everyone can choose the time, place and manner of his death. We have a long way to go.
Yes, and surely a real civilisation should let everyone choose not to die at all. Isn't that what we all really want?
Ever since civilisation first started, we've wanted not to die. This wish couldn't be fulfilled by early civilisations, as they didn't have proper science.
They only had "Religion", which doesn't work because it's based on "faith" not on systematic examination of data like in Science.
But now that our civilisation has Science, we can confidently look forward to a solution of Death. Probably by 2030-40.
But how many posters will still be around to see it?
-
That would be the end of civilisation. If nobody ever died, what would we eat and where would we live in 200 years' time? Or for a shorter prediction, what would we drink in 50 years?
And if you were immortal, what would be the point of doing anything? Tomorrow is just as good as today, but less effort. So nothing would get done and civilisation would collapse.
-
That would be the end of civilisation. If nobody ever died, what would we eat and where would we live in 200 years' time? Or for a shorter prediction, what would we drink in 50 years?
And if you were immortal, what would be the point of doing anything? Tomorrow is just as good as today, but less effort. So nothing would get done and civilisation would collapse.
Nah, civilisation wouldn't collapse. It would be much stronger, because no-one would risk destroying it by starting a war.
I mean, if you were potentially immortal unless you got shot or blown-up in a war, wouldn't you make damn sure war didn't happen. Immortality would guarantee Peace.
On the drinking point, you could look forward to sampling really, really long-term vintage wine, if you fancy wine, which I don't.
Aren't you just whistling in the dark by producing spurious reasons against an immortality in 2030 that you may not live long enough to see?
Suppose an "immortality treatment" were available today. Would you reject it and say: "No - I prefer death"?
Don't kid us!
-
A life sentence is a long time. An indefinite life sentence is a very long time. Given the appaling mess that homo sapiens is making of the world, I thin I've had about a much as I can stand already.
If I were the only immortal, in a thousand years I'd be telling people what it was like "in the old days" and everyone would hate me for it. If everyone was immortal, there would be no space to stand, we'dall be reminiscing, and I'd hate everyone else for it.
I may be here in 2030. My present intention is to kill myself in January 2029 but I might be persuaded to hang on a bit, just to annoy you.
-
A life sentence is a long time. An indefinite life sentence is a very long time. Given the appaling mess that homo sapiens is making of the world, I thin I've had about a much as I can stand already.
If I were the only immortal, in a thousand years I'd be telling people what it was like "in the old days" and everyone would hate me for it. If everyone was immortal, there would be no space to stand, we'dall be reminiscing, and I'd hate everyone else for it.
I may be here in 2030. My present intention is to kill myself in January 2029 but I might be persuaded to hang on a bit, just to annoy you.
I like the bit about "just to annoy you"! Probably that's what immortal humans would be doing after 10,000 years of continual presence in each other's insufferable company - annoying and hating each other.
I think it's been reported that when the 3-man crew of a Russian Salyut/Mir space-station blasted off into orbit, they were the very best of friends. But when they landed after a six-month mission together, they were barely on speaking-terms.
Can you imagine what would have happened if the mission had gone on for six years?
-
I was married to the same woman for 26 years and loved her more each day. If she were still alive, I'm pretty sure we'd be planning our next joint mission. On the other hand when I fly with a male buddy, we reckon 2 - 4 weeks is the safe limit for an expedition, even though we operate very efficiently together.
Crew compatibility is very important. In a small crew there's a significant difference in dynamics between even and odd numbers, and the boundary between gelling and grating is very hard to predict. I think that the sexual instinct is so deeply ingrained that a male/female pair is more likely to remain functional as a team than two of a kind, though I'm open to evidence from homosexual pairs.
Shackleton's exploits show the most extreme examples of cooperation under stress in a fairly large all-male team. However Shackleton's crew did have a banjo, seemingly inexhaustible supplies of tobacco, and occasional encounters with edible penguins and seals. The lack of such distractions on Mars suggests that a friend of the opposite sex might be a good idea, and I promise not to smoke or play the banjo.
-
Alan, your intellect is so manifestly enormous, and your posts so crammed with facts and intelligent insights, that a feeling of of inferiority is induced in everyone else.
Consequently, I must question whether you'd be suitable for a long-term space-mission of any kind whatsoever.
Because about 6 weeks into the mission, wouldn't the rest of the crew undoubtedly contrive to shove you out of the air-lock, as an intolerable "smart-ass"?
I say this with respect - and not from malice, but admiration and envy!
-
Definition of a gentleman: a man who can play the banjo, but doesn't. I am a gentleman. Some intellectual robustness is essential in my companion, but any woman can win an argument with a smile, so I don't see a problem.
Anyway, it's easy to be a smartarse if you know what you are talking about, but as none of the crew has ever flown to Mars, it's going to be one wide-eyed adventure for all of us.
-
There is a sci show vide on this. Answer: Yes we will survive even if all nuclear bombs go off. It wont be nice but we will survive.
-
The answer is "yes", because the nuclear war will only take place in the Northern Hemisphere.
Russia and America, plus Europe, will be wiped out.
However, South America will be intact after the War. Brazil and Argentina will be the new superpowers.
Australia will also be OK.
-
The answer is "yes", because the nuclear war will only take place in the Northern Hemisphere.
.........
Australia will also be OK.
Ever read "On the Beach"?
-
Yeah, I've read "On the Beach". It postulates use of cobalt -bombs, and is completely unrealistic. The movie was better than Shute's novel. At least, it gave me a haunting feeling for "Waltzing Maltilda". But still crap.
A nuclear war between the USA and Russia, wouldn't end civilisation. At worst it would reduce global population from the present 7 billion to about 2+ billion, which is what it was in 1950.