Not with a whimper. But with a tragedy, and a rage, and a cold pride. The President didn't start out as a villain. He thought the Soviets would back down, as they did in the Cuban Missile Crisis under Kennedy. The Soviets decided not to repeat their “mistake”… What happens after a world ends? You'd be surprised… More Tuesday.
He was backed into a corner and given the choice to surrender territory or fight. Given the what we know about the conditions inside the Soviet Union, I don't see his decision to be a wrong one. Maybe not the right one, but not the wrong one.
Neither that pose or that dialogue on Fusion ring true to me. Pose is too comfortably sexy and a casual "Boom?" to describe the death of billions of people isn't her style.
fallout from nuclear bombs is mainly contained in the heavier dust that is blown into the atmosphere. which would fall back to earth within a day or two in the rain. most radiation victims from the bombs dropped in japan were the result of drinking contaminated water, which was muddy. proper filtering of the water would reduce risk of radiation poisoning to a negligible amount.
each major nuke (read non tactical nuke) of the time has an effective radius of ~4 miles (greater than 90% kill ratio), highest number of nukes in the world at a single point in history = 70,000. so the total square mileage nuked in 1986 (70k nukes) = 1,120,000 < total square miles of land on earth 57,500,000. the effective kill ratio hits less than 5% past 10 miles (time period specific) which still results in only 7,000,000 square miles. the idea of nuclear winter puts most of the strain on equatorial regions, with a global decrease in temperatures of 20 degrees fahrenheit, lasting only a few days. global climate could take a decade to return fully to normal. starvation is thought to result mainly from a loss of infrastructure, rather than a lack of being able to grow food. also while cockroaches do survive better in high doses of radiation than humans, less complex bugs survive even better than roaches.
Jamoecw: .... which point of history? I though that last 50 years humans have enough nukes to kill every human twice, making cockroaches the world super power.
I actually find hard to believe that so far everyone who could fire the nukes was sane enough to recognize there are no more ways to win the nuclear war that to win the 3x3 tic-tac-toe. Even Bush.
long story short: "I'm President""Oooh, other mes & no mary jane this time""Join the military son""Oh no, my pushing military on him killed him""BOOM-SHAKA-LAKA!!!"
after a warlord draws his forces up against your border and asks to parley you walk out and deliver terms for his withdrawal. typically the terms are based on what you think is the difference between the losses on each side for the battle, if he suspects the same or worse losses for his forces then he accepts and withdraws, other wise he counter proposes and then you consider if he is in error in his favor, if he is then you laugh and ride off to your forces to tell them to attack. granted this is simplified, and i didn't get into bluffing and such, but in essence that is what peace negotiations is all about. once you lose track of that, you are no longer qualified to do peace negotiations. on the up side nuclear war at this point in history would only knock us back to the dark ages, which means that the third world countries would then become the super powers. city dwellers might not hate the loss as much, though that would mainly be due to their death.
Actually, it was a tactically valid decision. I would have done the same. "Negotiating" while leaving the missiles in Syria would be the same as "negotiating" with a warlord who starts distributing guns to street gangs in a major city.
UncleRice at 10:08AM, Aug. 19, 2012
He was backed into a corner and given the choice to surrender territory or fight. Given the what we know about the conditions inside the Soviet Union, I don't see his decision to be a wrong one. Maybe not the right one, but not the wrong one.
irrevenant at 4:51AM, Aug. 19, 2012
Neither that pose or that dialogue on Fusion ring true to me. Pose is too comfortably sexy and a casual "Boom?" to describe the death of billions of people isn't her style.
jamoecw at 7:24AM, Aug. 17, 2012
fallout from nuclear bombs is mainly contained in the heavier dust that is blown into the atmosphere. which would fall back to earth within a day or two in the rain. most radiation victims from the bombs dropped in japan were the result of drinking contaminated water, which was muddy. proper filtering of the water would reduce risk of radiation poisoning to a negligible amount.
jamoecw at 7:17AM, Aug. 17, 2012
each major nuke (read non tactical nuke) of the time has an effective radius of ~4 miles (greater than 90% kill ratio), highest number of nukes in the world at a single point in history = 70,000. so the total square mileage nuked in 1986 (70k nukes) = 1,120,000 < total square miles of land on earth 57,500,000. the effective kill ratio hits less than 5% past 10 miles (time period specific) which still results in only 7,000,000 square miles. the idea of nuclear winter puts most of the strain on equatorial regions, with a global decrease in temperatures of 20 degrees fahrenheit, lasting only a few days. global climate could take a decade to return fully to normal. starvation is thought to result mainly from a loss of infrastructure, rather than a lack of being able to grow food. also while cockroaches do survive better in high doses of radiation than humans, less complex bugs survive even better than roaches.
hkmaly at 3:02AM, Aug. 17, 2012
Jamoecw: .... which point of history? I though that last 50 years humans have enough nukes to kill every human twice, making cockroaches the world super power. I actually find hard to believe that so far everyone who could fire the nukes was sane enough to recognize there are no more ways to win the nuclear war that to win the 3x3 tic-tac-toe. Even Bush.
Nero Angelo at 5:42PM, Aug. 16, 2012
long story short: "I'm President""Oooh, other mes & no mary jane this time""Join the military son""Oh no, my pushing military on him killed him""BOOM-SHAKA-LAKA!!!"
KingZombie999 at 4:57PM, Aug. 16, 2012
I'd vote for him twice
jamoecw at 3:40PM, Aug. 16, 2012
after a warlord draws his forces up against your border and asks to parley you walk out and deliver terms for his withdrawal. typically the terms are based on what you think is the difference between the losses on each side for the battle, if he suspects the same or worse losses for his forces then he accepts and withdraws, other wise he counter proposes and then you consider if he is in error in his favor, if he is then you laugh and ride off to your forces to tell them to attack. granted this is simplified, and i didn't get into bluffing and such, but in essence that is what peace negotiations is all about. once you lose track of that, you are no longer qualified to do peace negotiations. on the up side nuclear war at this point in history would only knock us back to the dark ages, which means that the third world countries would then become the super powers. city dwellers might not hate the loss as much, though that would mainly be due to their death.
azure_priest at 8:24AM, Aug. 16, 2012
Actually, it was a tactically valid decision. I would have done the same. "Negotiating" while leaving the missiles in Syria would be the same as "negotiating" with a warlord who starts distributing guns to street gangs in a major city.
Mr Kaos at 7:43AM, Aug. 16, 2012
he caused an entire world to die because he lost his son? damnn