Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Come and join our gamer community by
registering for free here
Anything & Everything
Off Topic Chat
An Idea Of Boredom.......
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="mYth" data-source="post: 183959" data-attributes="member: 8107"><p>Here's another one we had today........hope it bakes the noodle:</p><p></p><p>Nuclear war, or atomic war in general, can be divided into two subgroups. The first, a limited nuclear war, consists of only the use of a small number of weapons in a tactical exchange aimed primarily at the opposing military forces. The second, a full-scale nuclear war, consists of large numbers of weapons used in an attack aimed at an entire country, including both military and civilian targets. Soon after the first use of atomic weapons, the Doomsday Clock was created by the Board of Directors of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists as a symbolic countdown to full-scale nuclear war. A nuclear war, unlike a conventional war, causes widespread destruction at a large scale and has long-term globally damaging effects. It has been proposed that a full-scale nuclear war could bring about the extinction of the human race and permanent damage to most complex life on the planet, ecosystems as well as the severe disruption of the global climate. Thus the reference to nuclear war as a doomsday scenario. Most recently, The United Kingdom has a declared policy of sub-strategic nuclear strikes, in which case a limited strike would be carried out. Former Defence Secretary Malcolm Rifkind described this as a deterrence against harm to the UK's vital interests. Rifkind argued that following the end of the Cold War aggressors may believe the threat of a strategic nuclear attack to be bluff, and that a policy of a more limited strike would ensure that the nuclear deterrent had credibility. Yet with this sub-strategic policy, and the related potential for a new generation of limited yield "battlefield" nuclear weapons from the United States, alarms anti-nuclear groups who believe it will make the use of nuclear weapons a more acceptable part of a country's arsenal.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Just say the following......."Wow......."</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="mYth, post: 183959, member: 8107"] Here's another one we had today........hope it bakes the noodle: Nuclear war, or atomic war in general, can be divided into two subgroups. The first, a limited nuclear war, consists of only the use of a small number of weapons in a tactical exchange aimed primarily at the opposing military forces. The second, a full-scale nuclear war, consists of large numbers of weapons used in an attack aimed at an entire country, including both military and civilian targets. Soon after the first use of atomic weapons, the Doomsday Clock was created by the Board of Directors of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists as a symbolic countdown to full-scale nuclear war. A nuclear war, unlike a conventional war, causes widespread destruction at a large scale and has long-term globally damaging effects. It has been proposed that a full-scale nuclear war could bring about the extinction of the human race and permanent damage to most complex life on the planet, ecosystems as well as the severe disruption of the global climate. Thus the reference to nuclear war as a doomsday scenario. Most recently, The United Kingdom has a declared policy of sub-strategic nuclear strikes, in which case a limited strike would be carried out. Former Defence Secretary Malcolm Rifkind described this as a deterrence against harm to the UK's vital interests. Rifkind argued that following the end of the Cold War aggressors may believe the threat of a strategic nuclear attack to be bluff, and that a policy of a more limited strike would ensure that the nuclear deterrent had credibility. Yet with this sub-strategic policy, and the related potential for a new generation of limited yield "battlefield" nuclear weapons from the United States, alarms anti-nuclear groups who believe it will make the use of nuclear weapons a more acceptable part of a country's arsenal. Just say the following......."Wow......." [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Anything & Everything
Off Topic Chat
An Idea Of Boredom.......
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top