Quote: lofthouse @ 14th September 2022, 5:19 PMWhere I work , this completely out of the blue bank holiday has caused absolute chaos
We now have a lot of angry customers...
It would be good to have that every year. We have nothing between August and Christmas and I understand we have some of the fewest number of Public Holidays.
(Be prepared to correct my gandma).
Quote: Aaron @ 14th September 2022, 5:48 PMOf everything going on over this fortnight, I'm not sure the decisions over the closure (or not) of Center Parcs can be put down to the monarchy!
No - but because of the confusion caused by the 'rules' which were created for different times.
I'm sure the Royals just want the damn thing over with.
Here's something I read recently, it was long and detailed but here's a precis.
People were asking if Putin might now use nuclear weapons as it's not going well in Ukraine.
An expert said nuclear bombs are not the auto-armageddon people fear.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were flattened because the buildings were made of wood and paper
But, the brick buildings were still standing.
He said it would take over a 100 to flatten Kiev.
Not only that, he told that the explosive charge to detonate a bomb deteriorates in 5 years and has to be re-setup with fresh explosives, otherwise it's likely not to go off.
Thousands of test nuclear bombs have been set off since ww2 and the world has survived without much trouble.
They are deadly, powerful and nasty but assured mutual distruction is a myth.
What about clouds of deadly radioactive shite floating all over Europe
The after effects of Chernobyl went on for years....
Still going on.
Many died of radiation sickness/burns at Hiroshima but thousands survived in the surrounding areas.
The point is, the world would not be a desolate burnt out radioactive ruin.
If Putin lobs nuclear weapons, he'd regret it.
MAD is definitely not a myth, but hopefully people like Putin enjoy their luxurious lives enough to avoid it. It wouldn't take a hundred nukes to destroy Kyiv - one or two would be plenty. We've all seen that Russia's army is a shadow of what we feared it to be, but I'm not willing to bet that they'd let their supreme weapons rust. Nuclear powers conduct frequent tests and maintenance programs to ensure that they'll go bang when required.
My father was a radiological monitor in the Army from 1956-8 and he participated in 50 or 60 above-ground tests, being as close as two or three miles from ground zero. He's still alive and kicking, but I've toured the atomic testing site in Nevada and seen the 1,100-foot crater and twisted bank safes and railroad bridges, so I'm not going to brush off the power of nuclear weapons.
I'm not either. I wasn't making light of it but buildings are made of concrete and brick in cities.
These would take the brunt at the epicenter but defuse the power going out.
They didn't build cities to test the bombs.
The expert said 100 to flatten Kiev. It's a big city.
Quote: Stephen Goodlad @ 14th September 2022, 8:46 PMI'm not either. I wasn't making light of it but buildings are made of concrete and brick in cities.
These would take the brunt at the epicenter but defuse the power going out.
They didn't build cities to test the bombs.
The expert said 100 to flatten Kiev. It's a big city.
They actually built test cities in the Nevada desert. They were flattened.
Ok
The gist of it is this: a limited nuclear exchange would be survivable on a humankind level. The question is whether we could limit it to a small exchange.
There as me reading a nuclear experts words (with his credentials on view)
And all the time I should have been asking you.
You've got to die sometime.
The real threat from a nuclear exchange is not the explosions themselves, but the nuclear winter it could bring.
Also, worth noting that the bombs are now many, many times more powerful than those that were dropped on Japan in 1945.
Any nukes used by Putin would not be the 'strategic' kind ie Inter-Continental
Far more likely (though still unlikely) would be 'tactical' nukes.
As a way of winning a war, in a conventional sense, they are pretty cumbersome.
As a way of telling everyone to back the f**k off, they are more effective.
Many of them have a 'dialled-in' payload - anything from a tenth there size of Hiroshima to twice the size.
They could destroy a city if required - but that wouldn't be the point of them.
They won't be used imo. Even the smaller tactical ones in Ukraine, because once there's a nuclear fallout the alarm bells ring the world over and it's effectively WW3, leading to the whole world's nuclear arsenal being deployed. But he has to say they will be or there is zero point in their existence. Their power lies in the belief of his enemies that he will use them, but then that's the same with every country who has them.
I've never believed he's a mad nutter willing to destroy the world, he's a very cunning Machiavellian who's rolled the dice once too often and finally lost. I think he'll be squirrelled away to his bunker in a quiet takeover, but we'll see.