https://news.sky.com/story/pakistan-warns-kashmir-row-could-lead-to-all-out-war-with-india-13355033Following a mass shooting in Kashmir that left 26 tourists dead that India have blamed on Pakistan, relations between the two countries have broken down.
Indian Prime Minister Modi has vowed to purse those responsible to the ends of the Earth while Pakistan's defence minister warns the row could result in all out war between the two countries.
Both countries have nuclear weapons.
213 replies and 61 files omitted.
>>387769So they both get nuked, and fuck up the entire hemisphere with their poocular winter while they're at it.
>>387771Certainly moots the water issue when it's suddenly all radioactive.
>>387718>Nagasaki Exactly, and Hiroshima too. There was not and there is not any radioactive measurements. Those are clean modern Japanese cities and according to the establishment lies, radiation would make them unsuitable for life for thousands of years.
>>387796Try visiting there. I'm sure they would love to hear your insights.
>Those are clean modern Japanese cities and according to the establishment lies, radiation would make them unsuitable for life for thousands of years.That is not how nuclear weapons work.
>>387821>That is not how nuclear weapons work.Ahem. So you are saying a nuclear "detonation" will not leave any radioactive residue?
>>387857>What is its half life?Ah, you mean isotope decay. Well, according to "science" the decay might last tens of thousands of years. You see, the decay will end when isotopes turn into inert lead.
>>387860Wrong. Nuclear fallout has a half life of about 30 years. The bomb was dropped about 80 years ago.
>>387855The radiation decayed over the past 80 years. It was almost entirely gone in the late 50's.
>>387860>Well, according to "science" the decay might last tens of thousands of years.No it fucking doesn't, you delusional midwit. You are making shit up based on nonsense you absorbed third hand through memes. Nuclear fallout from an atom bomb decays over the course of a couple decades.
>>387863It is *now*. Less so in the 50s.
>>387861>Wrong.Seriously?
Let us see, if my instrument measured 1 rad on 1945, then, and according to you, in 1975 the reading would be 0.5 rad and in 2005, 0.25 rad.
>>387867What are you asserting? No scientists say that atom bombs irradiate an area "for thousands of years". Nobody has ever claimed that Hiroshima and Nagasaki should still be irradiated.
>>387867After 30 years half of the radioactive material has decayed, again halving every 30 years. That is what half life means. Taking 90 years for ease of calculation it has halved, then halved then halved again so is now at 1/8th of what it was originally.
>>387869>Nobody has ever claimed that Hiroshima and Nagasaki should still be irradiated.Exactly, and that contradicts science. Therefore those cities were never nuked.
Just undeniable facts.
>>387875You were talking about it lasting thousands of years. Things with a half life of thousands of years are barely radioactive at all. Dangerously radioactive things have a half life in days or hours.
>>387872>Exactly, and that contradicts science.What science are you referencing? We both just demonstrated to you how the radiation from the bomb would decay to irrelevant levels over the course of a few decades.
>>387878>What science are you referencing?Physics 101, the isotope chapter.
>>387877>You were talking about it lasting thousands of years.Correct, that is why Carbon 14 is a test, a very unreliable test by the way, but it works because isotope decay last millions of years.
>>387885That one does. Not all radioactive materials are the same.
>>387880Nigger, you should be able to do this math with a highschool level education.
Since you are so smart, write it out and tell me what number you get for the amount of time for nuclear fallout to decay to irrelevant levels.
(Spoiler alert: it's not thousands of years)
>>387886>Not all radioactive materials are the same.Sure, but in the case of Carbon 14, the test is based in a comparison between C14 and highly radioactive material.
>>387889That's hardly relevant to the atom bombs dropped on Japan.
>>387890Sure, but because you look like can't grasp the concept of isotope decay, kindergarten level I should apply.
>>387889Carbon dating works by measuring the ratio of carbon 14 to carbon 12 in the sample.
>>387891Answer this
>>387887 , to prove that you can actually grasp it.
>>387887>CalculusSorry, it was so many years ago.
>>387896That is how it works. You absorb carbon 14 from food meaning you right now have a certain ratio of carbon 14 to carbon 12 in your body. Then you die and stop taking in carbon 14, which then slowly decays over time.
>>387898What about the range of uranides salts? That's way more emissions than carbon.
>>387900Not sure what you mean by that. Try to say it clearer.
>>387895>Sorry, it was so many years ago.So you're saying you don't actually know then?
I do. The answer is a bit over one year, with almost all of it being gone in first couple days.
>>387900That's still not relevant to the atom bomb's fallout.
>>387902Sorry, U235 when turning into isotopes gives way to a whole range of highly radioactive elements. And if remember well, when diluted in acids are called salts.
>>387903Cesium-137 half life ~30 years
Strontium-90 half life ~28 years.
Iodine-131 half life 8 days.
That's nuclear fallout.
>>387908>half lifeOkay, here is where you have the misunderstanding, that term "half life" is self explanatory. See
>>387867 for a practical tutorial.
>>387911You said it was almost all gone in a couple of days. The shortest half life on that list is 8 days.
Radiation is directly related to the half life though. Radiation comes from the decay of the atoms, meaning that the higher the half-life of the element, the less dangerous it is. So elements with very, very long half lifes are not actually very dangerous, at least relative to those with very short half lifes.
Sure, there are elements out there with half life's in the millions, billions, or even trillions of years, but they are barely radioactive at all.
>>387903>That's still not relevant to the atom bomb's fallout.Of course not, but I trying to explain the periodic table to you.
>>387912>You said it was almost all gone in a couple of days.Nope, I said that never were any atomic explosion and it is actually a hoax.
I'm tired of arguing with this boomer. He's been shitting up this board for four years now with his retardation, and I feel guilty for letting him once again bait me into derailing another good thread.
It's midnight. Hopefully the jeets nuke eachother to deatb, so we can demonstrate to the village idiot how nukes work in real time.
>>387912You are correct. I was thinking of the dangers of acute exposure. I stand corrected.
>387914>>>/cyb/>>387917Just give up. There's no reasoning with this asshole. Just look at how he behaved in the flat earth thread.
>>387917Whatever, but according to "science", the facts don't add up with the "official story".
>>387919You don't know the science though. You think that a nuke makes a place into some instant death field that nobody can enter for millennia.
>>387918>Hopefully the jeets nuke eachother to deatbI hope that too, sadly it won't happen.
>>387921>You think that a nuke makes a place into some instant death field that nobody can enter for millennia.That's is what the American government taught the America people in the 50s, 60s, and 70s in bibliographies and news and movies.
>>387924More like the US government was doing radiation experiments on you and told you it was only a little bit of radiation but was in fact a lot of radiation. People got sick and ever since have believe that even a little radiation is deadly.