Who is Winning and More inflation coming up?

[Goofyhoofy]

@Leap1

You said it would make little difference to us if warheads went off in the middle east. What do you think you were saying?

Sure. Provide a link, please. This is my second request.

[Leap1]

You said a lot of things oking nuclear weapons just 2 weeks ago.

[McLovin1981]

@DrBob2

On April 16, 2026, the Strait of Hormuz recorded 11 total verified transits

US efforts of keeping the strait closed apparently are largely successful. With a little luck gas will be $7 a gallon by summer.

[McLovin1981]

@Leap1

You said a lot of things oking nuclear weapons just 2 weeks ago.

Can you give us a for instance?

[Leap1]

What goof was specifically saying 2000 plus nukes have gone off so far.

What I was saying that drew goofs response in that, a small nuclear war in the midde east we would all die within a month.

It was all in regards to iran getting nuclear weapons.

Goof get so confident. People need a pinch of salt.

[eldemonio]

@Leap1

It was all in regards to iran getting nuclear weapons.

I’m not following your logic.

I also believe the following:

• Thousands of nuclear weapons have been detonated over the past 80+ years.
• No global mass extinction events have happened

Therefore, I must also believe Iran should have a nuclear weapon?

Sound logic.

[Leap1]

It is a misbelief. The weapons were generally triggered underground or in the magnetosphere. Having seven or eight weapons set off today around ground level in the Middle East would kill most of us if not absolutely all of us, with radiation burns and cancers. We can not “get away” with a small nuclear war. That was the attitude. It is also in regards to Iran getting these weapons. Ducking this is nonsense. Why say it if you do not apply it to the conversation on Iran?

[eldemonio]

@Leap1

Having seven or eight weapons set off today around ground level in the Middle East would kill most of us if not absolutely all of us, with radiation burns and cancers.

According to who? Science disagrees with you.

I also disagree with your exaggerated analysis. That does not mean I want nuclear war, it does not mean I support a nuclear Iran.

Back to the topic at hand - currently, more people are at risk of dying from hunger due to food security issues caused by the strait blockage, than from nuclear war.

[Leap1]

@eldemonio

I also disagree with your exaggerated analysis. That does not mean I want nuclear war, it does not mean I support a nuclear Iran.

That is fair and open, but the mighty pen of Goof did not get fair and open with several opportunities to do so. Perhaps he just does not have that position. The topic was a nuclear war when Iran gets nukes. He defended such a war as having lesser fallout.

Yes, a significant body of scientific research indicates that even a “small” or regional nuclear war—such as one involving 100 Hiroshima-sized bombs (less than 1% of the global arsenal)—could produce enough smoke and soot to cause global climate failure, resulting in widespread famine that could jeopardize over two billion people

[image]International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons +2

Modern nuclear weapons are generally 20 to over 100 times more powerful than the 15-kiloton Hiroshima (“Little Boy”) bomb

[image]YouTube +2

. While earlyCold War weapons exceeded 1,000 times the yield, most modern deployed warheads range between 300–500 kilotons , with specific weapons like the B83 being roughly 80 times larger

[image]YouTube

.

.

Key Impacts of a “Small” Nuclear War:

• Nuclear Winter: Smoke and soot from burning cities could block sunlight for years, causing global temperatures to drop, leading to a “Nuclear Little Ice Age” and reduced precipitation

[image]Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists +2

.

• Global Famine: The climate disruption would cause widespread crop failures worldwide, leading to mass starvation

[image]Rutgers University +1

.

• Radioactive Fallout: Radioactive contamination would spread internationally, well beyond the borders of the warring nations

[image]ICRC

.

• Immediate Death Toll: Beyond the direct victims in the war zone, the resulting global famine could kill over 2 billion people, according to research from Rutgers University

[image]Rutgers University +2

.

While some models suggest total human extinction is unlikely and parts of the world might remain habitable, the consensus among climate scientists and humanitarian groups is that the environmental and social consequences would be global in scope, threatening nearly everyone on the planet through food shortages and economic collapse

[image]Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists +3

.Modern nuclear weapons are generally 20 to over 100 times more powerful than the 15-kiloton Hiroshima (“Little Boy”) bomb
YouTube
YouTube
+2
. While earlyCold War weapons exceeded 1,000 times the yield, most modern deployed warheads range between 300–500 kilotons , with specific weapons like the B83 being roughly 80 times larger
YouTube
YouTube
.

[Goofyhoofy]

@Leap1

It is a misbelief. The weapons were generally triggered underground or in the magnetosphere. Having seven or eight weapons set off today around ground level in the Middle East would kill most of us if not absolutely all of us, with radiation burns and cancers

“ Approximately **528** nuclear tests** were conducted in the atmosphere (which includes surface, near-surface, and low-altitude detonations) between 1945 and 1980, primarily by the United States and the Soviet Union. These atmospheric tests were designed to be detonated at or near ground level or on towers/balloons to measure effects on structures and equipment, often producing significant radioactive fallout

@Leap1

Modern nuclear weapons are generally 20 to over 100 times more powerful than the 15-kiloton Hiroshima (“Little Boy”) bomb

Between 1945 and 1980, over 500 atmospheric nuclear tests produced roughly 440 megatons of explosive yield. While tests ranged from less than 1𝑘𝑡 up to 50𝑀𝑡, this era featured many large-scale thermonuclear tests , with the total atmospheric yield averaging roughly 0.8 to 1Mt per major test event

@Leap1

He defended such a war as having lesser fallout.

Link, please.

@Leap1

. We can not “get away” with a small nuclear war. That was the attitude.

Nobody here is hoping for a nuclear war, large or small. You have invented this, as you do so many other things, and when asked to provide a link inevitably fail to do so. That is because no such arguments were made. What I have said is that the world will probably not be reduced to a smoldering ash should a limited nuclear exchange break out. The problem is that “limited” is rarely limited, as the big boys always seem to need to one-up each other. See: the tearing up of the nuclear deal which was in effect up until 2018, in favor of a seat-of-your-pants war without strategy and from which we will likely wind up with a worse deal, not to mention thousands of dead people, a worse regime, and a trillion dollars in costs.

[TucsonBones]

@Goofyhoofy

Think it was “Sum of All Fears”, where he detailed how an “atomic bomb” was the trigger used to detonate the “thermonuclear bomb.” He had a knack of turning military and scientific jargon into readable prose. Made a fortune, of course.

During the Manhattan Project, Robert Oppenheimer was frustrated with Edward Teller. Fermi’s theoretical work became the basis whereby nuclear fission could be used to set off an even larger nuclear fusion reaction. Teller took up the task of development of a fusion weapon before implosion mechanism of the fission bomb was completed. Oppenheimer replaced him with Hans Bethe as Director of the Theoretical Division. Fermi strongly opposed the development of the hydrogen bomb. Without Fermi, the hydrogen fusion bomb was probably delayed.

[Leap1]

Goof,

I guess I should ask what are you advocating by all of this?