Now that the "conventional nuclear bomb" thing is out of the way for obvious reason, no flash, no pressure-wave, no emp etc. There's really nothing to go on that it was a "neutron bomb" except some heat sparkles that emanated after the blast corona.
Just going to have to wait and see if thousands of Yemenis start suffering from radiation poisoning.
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Sorry I'm not a fan of a person of questionable moral and ethical integrity like the Clintons.
*Shrugs* Her policies are objectively better for the country in the metrics I care about.
I would totally vote for Nixon over someone who believes in austerity, wishes to break the US's agreements with other countries (which would make it really hard for us to make *future* agreements, and most of the Republican field has outright said they would do), and so on...
I mean, some of these candidates were for defaulting on the US debt, and that would kill the US economy in a way that makes the Great Depression and crash of '08 combined look like the dot com bubble.
I would vote Nixon so hard over these jokers, because these candidates are, mostly, so very bad.
And Hilary's better than Nixon.
Remember, a lot of the stuff you don't like about her is just accusations that investigation has shown she's not responsible for (see: Benghazi).
Is Hilary perfect? No. Is she better in areas I care about, namely, social issues/rights, the US economy, and not cutting our own feet off when it comes to international agreements? Yes.
And you also dodged the initial subject, namely: Radiation Does Not Work That Way.
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Russia on record has been testing non radiation nukes for years, as far back as 2007. Its not that hard to understand that you can make a nuke without the radiation.
Bzzt, wrong. By definition a nuclear weapon has radiation.
Now, there are some with less radiation, but a nuclear reaction is a split atom creating radiation that splits other atoms in a chain creation. That is what makes it nuclear.
This... seems like something you just heard and assumed was real.
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Russia on record has been testing non radiation nukes for years, as far back as 2007. Its not that hard to understand that you can make a nuke without the radiation.
Huh?
The purpose of a neutron bomb is to put out many, many, many times the radiation of a conventional nuke/fission bomb. That's how a neutron bombs mainly kills, with radiation.
Err, you just posted a link about a non-nuclear bomb there TI. (EDIT- I see you removed t)
Though it is academic anyway. if the argument is that this is a nuclear bomb of relatively limited means, without the shockwave, radiation release, fallout or EMP wave, then... so what? It's only those attributes that make people dislike nuclear weapons. All you have here is a big bomb- the world has plenty of those that go off all the time. Adding the word 'nuclear' t it makes no difference.
In any case- clearly not a nuke. It is only significant if it does one of two thigs:
1. Has a blast range like a nuke., which this didn't else the people filming it would have been boned
2. Has a radiation release and/or fallout like a nuke. Which we'd all damn sure know about.
There's simply no way anyone in the world could set of a nuke in a hostile theatre without the whole world knowing about it very quickly.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Err, you just posted a link about a non-nuclear bomb there TI.Though it is academic anyway. if the argument is that this is a nuclear bomb of relatively limited means, without the shockwave, radiation release, fallout or EMP wave, then... so what? It's only those attributes that make people dislike nuclear weapons. All you have here is a big bomb- the world has plenty of those that go off all the time. Adding the word 'nuclear' t it makes no difference.
In any case- clearly not a nuke.
Not all nukes have to be huge and city busters..multiple reports say it was a nuke, much like Ukraine.
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Not all nukes have to be huge and city busters..multiple reports say it was a nuke, much like Ukraine.
Again, what exactly is it you are worried about then? The whole POINT of worrying about nukes is their mass destruction capability. This is not a weapon of mass destruction. You can't just use the word 'nuke' and divorce it from any meaning and expect that to be newsworthy. All this is is a large explosion- we get dozens of those a day in some parts of the world.
But as I say- not a nuke.
Apparently, many people don't understand what a tactical nuke is, TI. I guess they think if it's not a city destroyer then it's not a nuke. LOL. Neutron bombs are a type of nuke and they don't destroy the environment around the blast like a standard nuke does. Hopefully, we'll find out soon enough if many people in the area have been killed by radiation or have radiation sickness. I don't think they could cover something like that up if lots of people were affected.
Originally posted by Star428
Apparently, many people don't understand what a tactical nuke is, TI. I guess they think if it's not a city destroyer then it's not a nuke. LOL. Neutron bombs are a type of nuke and they don't destroy the environment around the blast like a standard nuke does. Hopefully, we'll find out soon enough if many people in the area have been killed by radiation or have radiation sickness. I don't think they could cover something like that up if lots of people were affected.
Yea, and no one reports on the massive radiation in Japan or the ocean, why would they here.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
A non-nuclear nuclear weapon has been used in Yemen, according to TI's equivocations.And actually most people know what a tactical nuke is. These being "tactical" nukes wouldn't be some magical fix to your theory--tactical nukes would still produce radiation.
The article null posted talked about radiation alarms going off..
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
The article null posted talked about radiation alarms going off..