Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

the build up to WW3

2

Comments

  • #32
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 99,563 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    hansfrei wrote: »
    Is there money in nukes?
    Lots.

    Not only does the military industry complex get lots of money for making them, they also get paid lots of money to decommission them


    UK is budgeting £67 Bn to clean up the Sellafield site , it's even worse at the early US bomb factories


  • #33
    Jonny7
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    super_furry wrote: »
    Not as much as there is in property. Don't be like all those fools paying someone else's mortgages, sure it's dead money! Get on the merry go round now!

    Money in everything, you name it, crime, war, pollution, homeopathy, cancer.. everythaaang


  • #34
    Rayne Wooney
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,134 ✭✭✭✭Rayne Wooney


    thebaz wrote: »
    I think the words of Einstein are in all world leaders mind , and this is what causes fear of actual starting war :-

    “I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.” Einstein

    "I know World War III will be fought with nuclear weapons, therefore World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." Wooney


  • #35
    hansfrei
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 915 ✭✭✭hansfrei


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    Lots.

    Not only does the military industry complex get lots of money for making them, they also get paid lots of money to decommission them


    UK is budgeting £67 Bn to clean up the Sellafield site , it's even worse at the early US bomb factories

    Doesn't it make everything kind of radio active afterwards? Would it make the newly occupied lands of seria kind of off putting for de joos?


  • #36
    DanWall
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 509 ✭✭✭DanWall


    Seachmall wrote: »
    I suggest dosing the world's water supply with ecstasy and then sitting down and having a nice long chat.

    Take the Fluoride out and put Viagra in, that should bring us all closer together


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Shout Dust
    Closed Accounts Posts: 341 ✭✭Shout Dust


    How bad would the fallout be? There's been over 2000 nuclear detonations since Hiroshima. I know some were underground and weren't burning up cities or all fired at once, but its still a significant amount, most occuring within a 30-40 years. But would it be total apocalypse like its always suggested, or would it be possible to survive?


  • #38
    NuckingFacker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,221 ✭✭✭NuckingFacker


    krudler wrote: »
    I remember Gerry bombing us every other night, never lost our spirit though, what ho!
    Gerry Adams?


  • #39
    Sunglasses Ron
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,180 ✭✭✭Sunglasses Ron


    MRnotlob606 wrote: »
    china would not jump into war easily


    Too right. This nonsense of Chinese expansion is just that, nonsense. If they had an expansionist policy would they be deliberately limiting the amount of males coming of military age per year with the one child policy? Zee Germans encouraged couples to breed like rabbits to provide conscripts and settlers for the lebensraum 18 years down the line. The Chinese have worked too hard to build their economy and rely too much on exports to the West to bite the hand that feeds it.


    The only thing I could half see happening would be the election of an extreme nationalist in Russia, they are a very conservative bunch and they are still sore from their decline as a real power. Still, Russia is a mess (it is improving ut still has a hangover from the Yeltsin years), there seems to be too much alcoholism, drug addiction, AIDS and a culture of conscription dodging for them to be able to build an army that could conquer Europe. They couldn't even properly conquer Chechnya without cutting a deal to allow their former enemies to run the place with their approval.


  • #40
    Doc Ruby
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,956 ✭✭✭Doc Ruby


    Shout Dust wrote: »
    How bad would the fallout be? There's been over 2000 nuclear detonations since Hiroshima. I know some were underground and weren't burning up cities or all fired at once, but its still a significant amount, most occuring within a 30-40 years. But would it be total apocalypse like its always suggested, or would it be possible to survive?
    Remember the fun and games of Chernobyl and more latterly Fukushima? About ten times that with every breath you take. But you'd be alright if you were in a bunker for a couple of weeks, funny thing about radioactivity is the more dangerous it is the less time it lasts.

    However now you've got a problem. Not only is almost everyone dead, most major urban centres are gone and all the resources in them too. Most of the plant life is peppered with radioactive dust and don't even bother with the animals. Hope you had some well sealed lifeboat rations in the bunker with you.

    So let's say you manage to last the six months or so it takes for the worst of the radioactivity to degenerate into something that won't give you cancer of the everything in short order. Now you've got to rebuild society, but not to worry, the same shower of bastards who blew everyone up were safe in their bunkers and now want to take the reins again.

    Once the civil war is over, you can begin with a clean slate by figuring out how to forge scrap iron into tools. Enjoy! And visit the survivalism forum, that's where you get the good stuff.


  • #41
    NuckingFacker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,221 ✭✭✭NuckingFacker


    Doc Ruby wrote: »
    Remember the fun and games of Chernobyl and more latterly Fukushima? About ten times that with every breath you take. But you'd be alright if you were in a bunker for a couple of weeks, funny thing about radioactivity is the more dangerous it is the less time it lasts.

    However now you've got a problem. Not only is almost everyone dead, most major urban centres are gone and all the resources in them too. Most of the plant life is peppered with radioactive dust and don't even bother with the animals. Hope you had some well sealed lifeboat rations in the bunker with you.

    So let's say you manage to last the six months or so it takes for the worst of the radioactivity to degenerate into something that won't give you cancer of the everything in short order. Now you've got to rebuild society, but not to worry, the same shower of bastards who blew everyone up were safe in their bunkers and now want to take the reins again.

    Once the civil war is over, you can begin with a clean slate by figuring out how to forge scrap iron into tools. Enjoy! And visit the survivalism forum, that's where you get the good stuff.
    close enough overall, but radioactivity wont kill you with cancer, short term, it'll just literally break down your insides and you'll keel over from organ failure. You'll be a puking, bleeding wreck within hours, tops. Survival might not be a prize worth fighting for..


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    hansfrei
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 915 ✭✭✭hansfrei


    Chinese drones

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/21/world/asia/hacking-us-secrets-china-pushes-for-drones.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0


    Russia and China will be repelling an invasion maybe? If someone borrowed a load of money from you but didn't want to pay it back. Would a war be cheaper than the repayments on a massive loan?


  • #43
    Doc Ruby
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,956 ✭✭✭Doc Ruby


    NuckingFacker wrote: »
    close enough overall, but radioactivity wont kill you with cancer, short term, it'll just literally break down your insides and you'll keel over from organ failure. You'll be a puking, bleeding wreck within hours, tops. Survival might not be a prize worth fighting for..
    That's the bit you sit out in your bunker. If you're exposed at that stage, good luck. As they say in the military, the appropriate action is to put your head between your legs and kiss your ass goodbye. Longer term lower level radiation exposure is what you'd face after the initial blasts, and that's the slow killer.


  • #44
    yoloc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 375 ✭✭yoloc


    When the oil runs out there will be war


  • #45
    Sulla Felix
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,442 ✭✭✭Sulla Felix


    ScumLord wrote: »
    No this is just posturing.

    Syria is just something for them to argue over, the Chinese need the west buying their crap so they can't attack anyone or they'll be broke within a week. Russia is weak, like small girl, I'm not too worried about them any more.
    Anyone else read the bolded in a Russian accent?


  • #46
    Shout Dust
    Closed Accounts Posts: 341 ✭✭Shout Dust


    NuckingFacker wrote: »
    close enough overall, but radioactivity wont kill you with cancer, short term, it'll just literally break down your insides and you'll keel over from organ failure. You'll be a puking, bleeding wreck within hours, tops. Survival might not be a prize worth fighting for..

    Would this radiation cover the everywhere on earth though? Or would there be parts that escape relatively unharmed?


  • #47
    Madame K
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 125 ✭✭Madame K


    Shout Dust wrote: »
    Would this radiation cover the everywhere on earth though? Or would there be parts that escape relatively unharmed?

    If all the action happens in the Northern hemisphere, I reckon you'll be fine if you are way down south.


  • #48
    NuckingFacker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,221 ✭✭✭NuckingFacker


    Madame K wrote: »
    If all the action happens in the Northern hemisphere, I reckon you'll be fine if you are way down south.
    So my heads fecked but my azz will be fine?


  • #49
    Jonny7
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    The vast majority of the human race probably would have survived an all out nuclear war between US (and allies) and the then USSR.

    Africa, South America and many parts of the world would have been spared, radiation would have been more centralised (the newer bombs were much "cleaner") and the whole nuclear winter scenario has been debated since some pretty bloody big volcanoes have erupted since

    Nasty but we'd have survived, unfortunately most governments of major powers would have also weathered it


  • #50
    StewartGriffin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,284 ✭✭✭StewartGriffin


    Shout Dust wrote: »
    Would this radiation cover the everywhere on earth though? Or would there be parts that escape relatively unharmed?

    Apparently Leitrim is the location of the worlds largest underground radiation shelter. This is why that county is sometimes not included in maps. Sometimes they even try to make out it doesn't exist. But I know things cos my Nan has a farm there and she saw an American in a field near her house. And he was naked.


  • #51
    NuckingFacker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,221 ✭✭✭NuckingFacker


    StewartGriffin wrote: »
    Apparently Leitrim is the location of the worlds largest underground radiation shelter. This is why that county is sometimes not included in maps. Sometimes they even try to make out it doesn't exist. But I know things cos my Nan has a farm there and she saw an American in a field near her house. And he was naked.
    Did you know the entire population of leitrim could fit in china? I read it somwhere on the interned. :cool:


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,687 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    Not sure whether to admire you 'how-to-survive-the-apocalypse' guys or whether to think ye're all mad bastards.


  • #53
    Sh1tbag OToole
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,971 ✭✭✭Sh1tbag OToole


    Charlie Rock wrote: »
    Not sure whether to admire you 'how-to-survive-the-apocalypse' guys or whether to think ye're all mad bastards.

    Mad bastards definitely


  • #54
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,687 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    Sh1tbag OToole wrote: »
    Mad bastards definitely

    I'm not so sure.

    Fail to prepare and prepare to fail and all that stuff.


  • #55
    hansfrei
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 915 ✭✭✭hansfrei


    John Titor predicted WW3 and nine billion dead in 2015. Time traveller or hoax?


  • #56
    Daniel2590
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,645 ✭✭✭Daniel2590


    hansfrei wrote: »
    John Titor predicted WW3 and nine billion dead in 2015. Time traveller or hoax?

    Well considering that would require the earth's population to increase by ~2 billion in a little over a year... :pac:


  • #57
    Benny_Cake
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,105 ✭✭✭Benny_Cake


    Daniel2590 wrote: »
    Well considering that would require the earth's population to increase by ~2 billion in a little over a year... :pac:

    Sounds like an enjoyable challenge!


  • #58
    Duckjob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,857 ✭✭✭Duckjob


    Sulla Felix wrote: »
    Anyone else read the bolded in a Russian accent?

    I read it in a Borat accent


  • #59
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 99,563 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    hansfrei wrote: »
    John Titor predicted WW3 and nine billion dead in 2015. Time traveller or hoax?
    considering our population is 7 billion that's kinda unlikely unless every woman of breeding age drops a sprog or two in the meantime

    on the tech side all computer instructions can be emulated by one instruction OISC (subtract and branch if negative etc.) and that can be constructed from just NAND gates ( or just NOR or just XNOR etc.)

    It's like claiming that there's every other colour of paint except green in the future :rolleyes:


  • #60
    Calibos
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 7,929 ✭✭✭Calibos


    I grew up in in the late 70's and 80's when there was the most anti nuke sentiment, CND greenham common etc

    Even as a 12 year old I couldn't get my head around that sentiment and was firmly in the M.A.D. Principle camp.

    Globalisation and economic interdependence has copper fastenened our safety.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Eight Ball
    Closed Accounts Posts: 906 ✭✭✭Eight Ball


    I'd say the world is further away from world war 3 now than at any stage since the end of the Cuban missile crisis.


Advertisement
Advertisement