DescentBB

There is an interesting blog I've been following for a while- and one that follows world events because of a possible conclusion the author has come to.

He explains his thoughts here:

http://www.1913intel.com/2011/10/15/behind/

It isn't that one goes searching for doom and gloom- such things are nothing to look forward to. However, it pays to be prepared for conclusions that trends may be pointing to.

Always hope for the best- but be prepared for the worst.

Give me a break.

Give me a break.

Feel free to ignore it.

yep, interesting all right.

and funny! I think i'll mentally file this one under 'satire'.

I don't see satire because I don't see funny.
I also question his logic when he says:

For a country with nuclear weapons, but no bunkers or few bunkers, is much less likely to start a nuclear war than a country with both.

I don't see bunkers being useful for civilians. You scramble to get under ground and then what? Pop up a few months later when the food and water supplies are done to face the fallout? So you can die slower?
We either take the hit and cordon off the hot spots, taking the losses in those areas but win the overall exchange of strikes or we take such a big hit that a bunker and a win is pointless anyway.

I say spend the bunker budget on spies and assassinations.

Will Robinson wrote:I don't see satire because I don't see funny.
I also question his logic when he says:

For a country with nuclear weapons, but no bunkers or few bunkers, is much less likely to start a nuclear war than a country with both.

I don't see bunkers being useful for civilians. You scramble to get under ground and then what? Pop up a few months later when the food and water supplies are done to face the fallout? So you can die slower?
We either take the hit and cordon off the hot spots, taking the losses in those areas but win the overall exchange of strikes or we take such a big hit that a bunker and a win is pointless anyway.

I say spend the bunker budget on spies and assassinations.

and that's why I filed it under 'satire'. because of the ridiculous logic.

Peace you can believe in?

WASHINGTON -- Russia and China are both modernizing their nuclear arsenals to include new capabilities, but experts at a House hearing on Friday offered different views on how those programs would impact the effectiveness of the U.S. strategic deterrent

http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/g ... 7_2472.php

Why modernize a nuclear arsenal if it's never going to be used? Unfortunately nuclear weapons use is increasingly considered as a viable option for warfare by our enemies.

ThunderBunny wrote:.. Why modernize a nuclear arsenal if it's never going to be used? ...

So your enemies won't think you don't mean it.