Generational Dynamics Forum - New Site

guest wrote:

devorah wrote:PP:
John is very tolerant to basement dwellers. Me, not so much. WWIII will be fairly final for millions of people.

You think the war will,begin in a couple of weeks?

Wouldn't all the nuclear reactors melting down destroy the world?

"Nuclear reactors"..?

What..?

devorah wrote:PP:
John is very tolerant to basement dwellers. Me, not so much. WWIII will be fairly final for millions of people.

1) John is boss

2) I thought that was understood in my drawn out "fuck". No amount of words can describe how fucking terrible this shit storm is. I'm not sure where you get the idea that I think or feel differently. Care to elaborate?

PonderingPossum wrote:

devorah wrote:PP:
John is very tolerant to basement dwellers. Me, not so much. WWIII will be fairly final for millions of people.

1) John is boss

2) I thought that was understood in my drawn out "fuck". No amount of words can describe how fucking terrible this shit storm is. I'm not sure where you get the idea that I think or feel differently. Care to elaborate?

You're an idiot. Goodbye

FishbellykanakaDude wrote:

guest wrote:

devorah wrote:PP:
John is very tolerant to basement dwellers. Me, not so much. WWIII will be fairly final for millions of people.

You think the war will,begin in a couple of weeks?

Wouldn't all the nuclear reactors melting down destroy the world?

"Nuclear reactors"..?

What..?

The nuclear reactors that power many western countries would melt down in a war; either they would be destroyed or abandoned by the workers. They plants would all melt down and the radiation would continue to leak out into the environment. That's what I am talking about. Even if only conventional weapons were used, the nuclear power plants would either be targeted or panicked crews would flee.

PonderingPossum wrote:

devorah wrote:PP:
John is very tolerant to basement dwellers. Me, not so much. WWIII will be fairly final for millions of people.

1) John is boss

2) I thought that was understood in my drawn out "fuck". No amount of words can describe how fucking terrible this shit storm is. I'm not sure where you get the idea that I think or feel differently. Care to elaborate?

It would be terrible for the North Koreans, the outside world not so much. Almost all of the casualties will be within North Korea courtesy of the Ohio class submarine.

Guest wrote:

FishbellykanakaDude wrote:

guest wrote:
You think the war will,begin in a couple of weeks?

Wouldn't all the nuclear reactors melting down destroy the world?

"Nuclear reactors"..?

What..?

The nuclear reactors that power many western countries would melt down in a war; either they would be destroyed or abandoned by the workers. They plants would all melt down and the radiation would continue to leak out into the environment. That's what I am talking about. Even if only conventional weapons were used, the nuclear power plants would either be targeted or panicked crews would flee.

Well, I would think that "most" (?) western nuclear reactors would be shutdown in a controlled way, if there was warning that they were being targeted.

But even if all of them were damaged so as to put them into "melt-down", that still wouldn't "destroy the world". It might pollute the localities around the individual reactors quite a bit, but that radiation leak wouldn't be much compared to only a few large thermonuclear bombs going off.

"When being attacked by wolves, don't worry too much about catching fleas." <-- ancient Viking wisdom, and Joke #1 at mead parties.

Aloha ko'u hoaloha! <shaka nui!>

A nuclear blast is not as bad as a nuclear power plant that has melted down. Nuclear fall out pours out indefinitely (or until someone can cap the reactor). It's not easy to 'shut down' a reactor. They can't be turned off. They have to be taken apart carefully and shipped to a specially built containment site. It's more expensive to decommission a nuclear power plant that it is to build it. I would ban nuclear energy, if it were up to me.

A war (or a civil war) would be catastrophic for any country that uses nuclear power. Plants could not be decommissioned easily in a country that is a battlefield.

devorah wrote:PP:
John is very tolerant to basement dwellers. Me, not so much. WWIII will be fairly final for millions of people.

Heisenberg wrote: You're an idiot. Goodbye

Well it seems my possum like ways have inadvertently upset some humans. Apologies. Time to play possum.... wouldn't want to end up as roadkill!

So does the 6-18 months timeline for World War 3 still hold, John? I'm outside the country. Should I head home now? I'd have to quit my job. I suppose I could get a new one in The States, but I'm thinking more about protecting my mother, and, if things really get bad, dying with her.

Guest wrote: > So does the 6-18 months timeline for World War 3 still hold, John?
> I'm outside the country. Should I head home now? I'd have to quit
> my job. I suppose I could get a new one in The States, but I'm
> thinking more about protecting my mother, and, if things really
> get bad, dying with her.

I'm not sure what you're asking me here, since I don't even know what
continent you're on or your mother is on. But even if I did, the time
frame cannot be firmly predicted. My expectation is that a regional
war will begin somewhere -- North Korea, South China Sea, Kashmir,
Mideast, Caucasus, etc. -- and as other countries are pulled in, it
becomes a world war. I suppose that process could take 6-18 months,
but it may or may not get started for a while.

At any rate, none of this really answers your question. If you want
to die by your mother's side, then you have a number of life decisions
to make, not all of them related to world war.