"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

Is it more humane to kill 100's per day times thousands of
days...or
doom
the same number of people in a matter of seconds? And which one
has
more
shock appeal to subdue the enemy by exhausting his will to fight?
I
know
how FDR chose to answer those questions.


And as your radioactive cloud circles the globe, creating 500
million
slow
death cancer cases, any wonderful ideas about how we'll keep it out
of
the
US
and the one or two other nations on the globe still friendly toward
us?

You're exaggerating the effects to people outside the "immediate
effect"
range, assuming the attack is done with an "air blast" instead of a
surface
blast. Scientists have made predictions of various scenarios, and
they've
come to the conclusion that air blasts have a lot less delayed
effects
from
radiation fallout. In fact, they've calculated that a 1-Mt air blast
over a
city would have the following delayed effects *worldwide*:

Somatic effects (Cancer deaths, thyroid cancers, thyroid nodules) :
between
1900 and 3700 people worldwide.

Genetic effects (abortions due to chromosomal changes, other genetic
effects): between 450-4500 cases worldwide.

So a worst-case scenario is that 8200 people are affected worldwide
(outside
the "immediate effect" area)...which is certainly lower than the
total
number of people killed in terrorist attacks over the past 2 decades.

http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/pdfs/7906.pdf (table 14)




Better your 'hood than mine, fella.

Better the Middle East than either of our 'hoods.




If there is a nuclear war, it isn't going to be "contained" where you
would like it.

Come on...you're a lot smarter than that. No one wins nuclear war.

Particularly the ones without nukes.