User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Video: Every nuclear test on Earth

  1. #1
    Points: 73,823, Level: 66
    Level completed: 30%, Points required for next Level: 1,627
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    SocialYour first GroupCreated Album picturesTagger First Class50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    KC's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    20936
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    8,879
    Points
    73,823
    Level
    66
    Thanks Given
    4,291
    Thanked 4,042x in 2,810 Posts
    Mentioned
    276 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Video: Every nuclear test on Earth

    It starts out slow, but as time goes on and nukes become more common it gets more interesting.


  2. #2
    Points: 41,774, Level: 49
    Level completed: 96%, Points required for next Level: 76
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    nic34's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    126271
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    13,119
    Points
    41,774
    Level
    49
    Thanks Given
    5,547
    Thanked 3,703x in 2,808 Posts
    Mentioned
    438 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

  3. #3
    Points: 39,654, Level: 48
    Level completed: 69%, Points required for next Level: 496
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    VeteranTagger First Class25000 Experience PointsSocial
    waltky's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    5662
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    8,859
    Points
    39,654
    Level
    48
    Thanks Given
    2,515
    Thanked 2,140x in 1,616 Posts
    Mentioned
    46 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Cool

    Will another nuclear test cause the Kim regime to implode?...

    Defector: North Korea's next nuclear test could lead to collapse
    March 14, 2017 -- The senior North Korea diplomat who defected to the South from Pyongyang's Embassy in London said Kim Jong Un's nuclear ambitions could bring about state collapse.
    Thae Yong-ho, who recently compared Kim to the Roman emperor Nero, said North Korea is headed down a dangerous path as it seeks recognition as a nuclear weapons state like "India or Pakistan," Voice of America reported Tuesday. "The Kim Jong Un regime will never give up nuclear weapons," Thae said. The high-profile defector added North Korea could "fall apart" if the regime decides to conduct a major nuclear test at its Punggye-ri nuclear site, where Pyongyang conducts tests of weapons of mass destruction.


    South Korean soldiers walk past a TV broadcasting North Korea's launch of several ballistic missiles into the East Sea at Seoul Station on March 6. North Korea could be preparing for its next nuclear test, but it could lead to a disaster that precipitates the collapse of the Kim Jong Un regime, a North Korean defector said Tuesday.

    Recent satellite images show tunnel digging continues at the site, which lies below the 800-meter Mount Mantap. According to 38 North, the activity indicates North Korea may be prepared to conduct additional underground nuclear tests. Thae said Tuesday the site is located on a road that connects Pyongyang to Hamgyong Province, and that "roads and railways that go up north pass by the nuclear test site." "If a large explosion takes place and the area becomes contaminated with radiation while Pyongyang loses control of the border region of North Hamgyong Province, mass defections could take place," Thae said.

    A nuclear failure in a "small country like North Korea" could lead to disaster, the defector said, adding China and the international community must be aware of the danger. Thae also said Kim Jong Un is trying to achieve parity with South Korea's relatively more powerful military with his nuclear weapons program. In an annual ranking of militaries around the world, South Korea troops ranked the 11th most powerful in 2016, while North Korea's military strength ranked 25th in the survey by website Global Firepower.

    http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-Ne...&utm_medium=14
    See also:

    Report: North Korea developing anti-ship ballistic missiles
    March 13, 2017 -- North Korea may be developing anti-ship ballistic missiles, multiple Seoul government officials say.
    The "carrier killer" projectiles capable of hitting offshore moving targets – like navy vessels – were tested during North Korea's most recent missile test on March 6, South Korean newspaper JoongAng Ilbo reported Tuesday, local time. The ASBM, unlike other ballistic missiles, can move at high speeds to directly hit a supercarrier with a single strike. The missile can modify its trajectory as its target moves and requires a precise high-performance terminal guidance system.


    North Korea may have tested anti-ship ballistic missiles that can strike moving targets at sea, according to South Korea media.

    One South Korean government official who spoke to the JoongAng on the condition of anonymity said North Korea has developed "missile guidance and course correction technology," and that it was "tested in September 2016 and again on March 6, when [North Korea] test-launched four Scud-ER missiles." The source also said during North Korea's September test of Scud-ER missiles, all three rockets landed around the same point. "At the time North Korea was supposed to have fired at offshore targets," the official said.

    The ASBM is a weapons system typically used by militaries with a relatively weak naval force. China and Iran are currently the only countries that deploy ASBMs to target offshore assets. U.S. and South Korea intelligence authorities suspect North Korea began to acquire ASBM technology from Iran in the '90s, according to the JoongAng. Iran recently launched two short-range ballistic missiles, including the Fateh-110 Mod 3, which has an "active seeker" that helps the rocket locate ships at sea.

    http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-Ne...&utm_medium=17
    Last edited by waltky; 03-14-2017 at 11:19 PM.

  4. #4
    Points: 39,654, Level: 48
    Level completed: 69%, Points required for next Level: 496
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    VeteranTagger First Class25000 Experience PointsSocial
    waltky's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    5662
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    8,859
    Points
    39,654
    Level
    48
    Thanks Given
    2,515
    Thanked 2,140x in 1,616 Posts
    Mentioned
    46 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Red face

    Uncle Ferd says passin' a treaty is one thing - gettin' ever'body to abide by it is sumpin' else...

    Over 120 countries approved the first-ever legally binding treaty to ban nuclear weapons
    Saturday 8th July, 2017 - In what became a historic moment across the globe, 122 countries have approved the first-ever treaty to ban nuclear weapons at a UN meeting on Friday.
    The meeting that was boycotted by all nuclear-armed nations saw the negotiation and ultimate voting of the legally binding treaty that was announced to a loud applause by president of the UN conference, Elayne Whyte Gomez. While 122 nations voted in favor, the Netherlands opposed it, and Singapore abstained from voting. Gomez said, "The world has been waiting for this legal norm for 70 years," since the use of the first atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 at the end of World War II. She added that the treaty is "the first multilateral nuclear disarmament treaty to be concluded in more than 20 years.” Gomez further announced that it will be opened for signatures in September and will come into force when 50 countries have ratified it.

    Earlier in December last year, UN member states overwhelmingly approved a resolution calling for negotiations on a treaty that would outlaw nuclear weapons. Despite strong opposition from nuclear-armed nations and their allies, who have refused to participate in the talks, Gomez said 129 countries signed up to take part in drafting the treaty. This, she said, represents two-thirds of the 193 member states. While all nuclear states and NATO members boycotted the negotiations, the Netherlands, which currently has U.S. nuclear weapons on its territory, was urged by its parliament to send a delegation to the negotiations. Gomez explained that the treaty requires of all ratifying countries "never under any circumstances to develop, test, produce, manufacture, otherwise acquire, possess or stockpile nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices." It also reportedly bans any transfer or use of nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices — and the threat to use such weapons.


    Earlier this week, Retired British Royal Navy Cmdr. Rob Green, who flew nuclear strike aircraft and is now co-director of the Peace Foundation's Disarmament and Security Center, said that "the heart of this treaty" is the prohibition on threatening to use nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, Richard Moyes, managing director of Article 36, a British-based organization that works to prevent harm from nuclear and other weapons, said it isn't plausible to think the world can maintain security based on mutually threatening to incinerate hundreds of thousands of people with nuclear weapons "when we know there have been near-misses, errors of judgment — there's been accidents — and there's a degree of instability in the political leadership in the world." The treaty has meanwhile seen no support from nine countries known or believed to possess nuclear weapons, including the United States, Russia, Britain, China, France, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel.

    According to reports, the U.S. and other nuclear powers are instead hoping to strengthen and reaffirm the nearly half-century-old Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, that is considered the cornerstone of global nonproliferation efforts. That pact sought to prevent the spread of atomic arms beyond the five original weapons powers — the U.S., Russia, Britain, France and China and requires non-nuclear signatory nations to not pursue atomic weapons in exchange for a commitment by the five powers to move toward nuclear disarmament and to guarantee non-nuclear states access to peaceful nuclear technology for producing energy. Commenting on North Korea's nuclear and ballistic missile tests, including its ICBM launch earlier this month, Beatrice Fihn, executive director of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, said 15,000 nuclear weapons around the world have not managed to deter Pyongyang's nuclear ambitions.

    Fihn is seeking a new approach, starting with prohibition, as the first step to eliminate nuclear arms. On March 27, when talks began on the nuclear weapons ban treaty, U.S. Ambassador Nikki Haley said that "there is nothing I want more for my family than a world with no nuclear weapons, but we have to be realistic." She reportedly asked if anyone thought North Korea would give up its nuclear weapons, stressing that North Koreans would be "cheering" a nuclear ban treaty — and Americans and others would be at risk.

    http://www.bignewsnetwork.com/news/2...uclear-weapons
    See also:

    Nations take a step away from the threat of nuclear annihilation
    Sunday 9th July, 2017 - A majority of the world's nations have just joined together to call for the elimination of all nuclear weapons. Authors: If the US is serious about keeping the world safe from a nuclear attack, then it should have voted yes to the ban
    A majority of the world's nations have just joined together to call for the elimination of all nuclear weapons. We should listen. The United States government opposed the historic UN vote for a new treaty to prohibit nuclear weapons, but that was a knee-jerk response, grounded in last century's reflexes. Today, the path forward to total abolition of these weapons is open — even as, ironically, the danger of nuclear war is greater than it has been since the worst days of the Cold War. The United States and Russia hold more than 90% of the world's nuclear weapons, with about 7,000 each. The other nuclear-armed states have smaller arsenals by comparison. None of the nuclear-armed states were among the 120 nations who voted to declare these weapons illegal. But if the United States is serious about seeking the security of a world free of nuclear weapons, then it should have been the first to vote "yes" on the ban.

    For decades the US has instead based its security policy on the theory of nuclear deterrence — an untested belief that nuclear weapons are so terrible that they keep one nuclear-armed country from attacking any other, for fear of mutual destruction. Perhaps. Then again, the same was said of machine guns in the 1800s — weapons of such awesome destructive power, they were predicted to end war. "They are peace-producing and peace-retaining terrors," The New York Times wrote in 1897 of the new Maxim machine guns, adding that "their devastating effects have made nations and rulers give greater thought to the outcome of war before entering." Is there any reason to believe such tragically flawed logic from the 19th century will work out better in the 21st? More likely, nuclear weapons, those "peace-producing and peace-retaining terrors," are simply another horror that given time will grow mundane and familiar — until eventually they are used, this time perhaps in a war that destroys humankind.

    That is not hyperbole. New data suggest that a war involving just 100 nuclear weapons, or less than 1% of the world's arsenals — say, for example, a regional war between India and Pakistan — would cause abrupt severe climate disruption, worldwide food shortages, hundreds of millions of starvation deaths, and probably a total collapse of civilization. And yet we continue to base our security on these "peace-retaining terrors." A core assumption of this deterrence theory is that the nuclear-armed states will be led by calm, collected, and well-informed people, who will infallibly respond to crises in a rational fashion. Perhaps. Then again, as it does after every presidential election, the US has now handed control of some 6,800 warheads to a single individual. How does the current President fit with the idealized model of a world run by grownups? After all, according to a signed letter from 50 leading Republican national security experts, "He is unable or unwilling to separate truth from falsehood ... lacks self-control and acts impetuously ... has alarmed our closest allies with his erratic behavior" and overall exhibits "dangerous qualities in an individual ... with command of the US nuclear arsenal."

    It is not enough, however, to get this particularly unqualified finger off the button. We need to get rid of the button itself. Just consider whether anyone could be calm, collected, and reasonable after, say, a nuclear explosion destroys Moscow. It might not be clear for days whether such a disaster was caused by a terrorist, a foreign power, or a domestic accident. As this was being investigated, would the world likely be dealing with a calm, matter-of-fact Russian nation? How quickly might things spin out of control? In the wake of the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington, the US government responded in part by invading and occupying the completely unrelated nation of Iraq, causing hundreds of thousands of unjustified deaths and creating the vacuum now filled by ISIS and other extremist groups. Is there any reason to believe that we would do better in the future if New York was vaporized?

    MORE

  5. #5
    Points: 23,558, Level: 37
    Level completed: 34%, Points required for next Level: 792
    Overall activity: 5.0%
    Achievements:
    10000 Experience PointsVeteran
    rcfieldz's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    15929
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    4,130
    Points
    23,558
    Level
    37
    Thanks Given
    72
    Thanked 1,126x in 894 Posts
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The OP's video post is unavailable..?

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts