The Russkies have THE worst track record in the world in the area of Nuclear Power, have, as of late been upgrading their nuke/bio/chem weapons and army in a massive re-modernization effort. If the Russian nukes melt down due to remeadiation (or a lack that thereof.) Could/would the Russians claim this as an impetus to start a war with the US? China? Whomever? i.e. Like the apartment building blasts that 'kicked off' the Chechneyan War Pt 2, could they attempt to blame someone else rather than their own incompetance, for 'sabotaging' their disfunctional nukes? With the recent feilding of new equipment, and a turn towards hard line politics, Is the Bear really dead, or was he just hibernating?

-- Billy Boy (Rakkasan@Yahoo.com), October 22, 1999

Answers

If their nuculer plants melt down because of computer problems, what makes you think an ICBM could hit a target halfway around the world, and not crash someplace 200 or 2,000 miles from its liftoff point?

JZ

-- Jeff Zurschmeide (zursch@cyberhighway.net), October 22, 1999.

>what makes you think an ICBM could hit a target...etc

My luck and experience.

-- Greybear (greybear@home.com), October 22, 1999.

JZ's got a good point. granted ICBM's are old technology, but I imagine any type of precision guidance requires good timing. Especially if the satelites are down who's to say the thing wouldn't land in NE Arkansas. This may be one of the best deterrent arguements available. i.e. If your worried that your early warning systems are unreliable wouldn't you also be worried that your guidance systems are unreliable.

-- PD (PaulDMaher@worldnet.att.com), October 22, 1999.

NE Arkansas huh? FIRE AWAY!

-- Just (nuke@em.dano), October 22, 1999.

-- Jeff Zurschmeide

You are kidding aren't you? First of all, what makes YOU think we are talking ICBMs after the incredible and treasonous technology transfer that has been uncovered? 2nd of all what does a nuclear power meltdown have to do with any missle launches, including those coming at us from of a ship off the pacific.

Just getting you to think before you post.

-- OR (orwelliator@biosys.net), October 22, 1999.

Old nukes, new nukes, does down wind ring a bell?

-- pbj (Y2KEYES@open.com), October 23, 1999.

Take the warheads off and have a global version of yard darts next summer.The nation with the best score gets to run the world for the next 50 years.

-- Sam (Gunmkr52@aol.com), October 23, 1999.

"The nation with the best score gets to run the world for the next 50 years."

What world?

-- Shelia (Shelia@active-stream.com), October 23, 1999.

OR: nuclear power plant meltdowns and ICBM launches have A VERY MAJOR thing in common, as I posted a few days ago on this site.

Back in about 1983, there was a very detailed article in SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN explaining the immense compounding destructive effects to be gotten by having the ICBM's target NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS in the enemy's country! It would not be an exagerration to see how ONE hit could take down the entire power grid nation-wide.

The resulting very dirty fallout, not to mention loss of power directly through plant destruction, plus EMP pulses of horrendous magnitude travelling through the entire power grid, no to mention the sheer terror value of such a hit, supposedly made for an effective deterrent to the use of the ICBM's.

This was standard strategy during the whole COLD WAR, but very few people were ever aware of it!

After all, why waste an ICBM on a military base out in no man's land, with perhaps only a few thousand casualties(and some nuclear fallout spreading far and wide) when you can use that same ICBM to hit a nuclear power plant, ESPECIALLY ONE THAT IS NEAR A MAJOR CITY. Now you are talking perhaps upwards of a million casualties, maybe 10 million. I also said that CHINA has the USA over a barrel on this tactic, too, since there was an article about a week ago that said that her TWO nuclear power plants would be Y2K-ready.

The USA has about 105 nuclear power stations, with some having up to 6 reactors. Remember, too, that nearby each nuke plant is a HUGE spent fuel rod cooling complex, so you get an incredible "bang for the buck" when you smoke one of these. So, China is AHEAD on this tactic 105-2! Awful odds.

Hope this is not too unsettling for anyone reading who lives near one, but you already had normal nuclear Y2K concerns before now, anyway.

-- profit of doom (doom@helltopay.ca), October 23, 1999.

I came in late regarding the "tin foil hat" joke. Just have to finally ask. Something about protecting ourselves from all the gawdawful stuff in a way that is really useless?

-- Shivani Arjuna (SArjuna@aol.com), October 23, 1999.