Comments by "Arthur Mosel" (@arthurmosel808) on "RealLifeLore" channel.

By the way Sakhalin was Japanese in at least 1700. Imperial Russia then began nibbling a way there and the Kyrils. By 1875, Russia had half of Sakhalin and almost all the Kyrils. Japan then cut a deal to give up the last half of Sakhalin in return for a promise to not take the the last few Kyrils or move on Hokkaido. Since WWII, Russia has occupied those islands. So if the PRC goes against Russia, perhaps Japan would take a chance to regain its lost land.
9
The locations that he stated are too general to be of use.
3
True except when carried on nuclear standby, which was the case when almost all US losses occurred; however, the fusing wouldn't be set unless they were actually going beyond the point at which they were orbiting.
1
Why can't you find a lost bomb, lack of precise location, settling into mire at depth, dropping into an under water canyon. On land, dropping straight down and burying itself too deep for recovery, too damaged for recovery so you dig a hole and bury the remains an then cement over it. Not even knowing where to look because the aircraft was out of normal radar coverage and hadn't sent a message, so where do you look on the flight path. The video makes. It scarier than it needs to be, not to say there isn't danger, but it is grossly exaggerated.
1
Modern US nuclear weapons are designed not to explode unless properly fused and initizted. They are designed to go nuclear only if the initiating explosions all go off as required; if they don't, no nuclear explosion will occur. The high explosive used burns rather than explodes if it is exposed to fire. I have seen the test films of a nuclear bomb (no nuclear material but with an equivalent weight in the casing) dropped from an aircraft above 30,000 feet and over 500 mph, and there was no explosion (it wasn't fused) and no detonation of the explosives used to detonate it. Similarly, nuclear material is normally shipped in casks that can survive the impact of a speeding train without failing. I can't say much about Soviet or. Russian Federation nuclear weapons except they were still using many gun tube devices long after we stopped.
1
You missed another outcome of these canals in blasting them immense amounts of dust entered the air. Much of this dust landed on Arctic ice which then absorbed more heat through the heating of those dark colored particles, resulting in melting. So global warming had a great deal of man-made assistance via Russia. Also over and above the cotton fields, some rivers were redirected toward the Arctic in order to make Northern Siberia capable of some farming, again the dust and ice melt, but the question is did it add to the melting of the permafrost. Russophiles will never even mention these let alone discuss them.
1
Besides this one, check out changing the flow of rivers in Siberia to ma,e the tundra usable. Realize there the dust coated Arctic ice and dried up areas to the south; while affecting Arctic climate and heat retention.
1
A combined South African/Taiwanese program was considered the most likely.
1
The yield at a was recalculated from the samples taken and the photos of the site. The new calculation is around 17 KT; however I suggest that you review a copy of the Journal of Health Physics which covers this. By the way the Tsar Bomb was a theoretical 50 MT; it actually didn't reach its full potential, thre. Are actual physical limits to how much of the material will undergo fusion. To get a bomb with that potential would require a horrendously large delivery system; so ends t he tale of super-sized bombs. By the way terrain and altitude play havoc with planning. The Hiroshima bomb was set to detonate without the fire ball touching the surface, but it did causing more fallout. The Nagzsaki bomb's fireball didn't touch the ground despite its greater size and because of terrain the damage was not as uniform as Hiroshima a flat coastal site. An additional factor was the type of construction (wood with a great deal of paper screens) and the fact breakfast charcoal fires were common in most dwellings, coupled with the disruption of water lines and burst gas mains meant a great deal of the damage were secondary to the bomb. None of this is not agree that the weapons arenn't horrendously destructive and dangerous. I am only saying that books like the Effects of Nuclear Weapons (used to be available through the US Government Printing Office and include a circular slide rule to figure theoretical effects under optimum conditions at sea level) can't help you get a good feel for these weapons and there is an excellent book on the medical and forensic records at Hiroshima.
1
Iraq should never have been created. While the area was an administrative department under the Turkish Empire, after WWI, it was given as a nation as a consolation prize to the senior member of the Arabian chieftains who backed Britain during the war. This monster actually had three major and different elements, the southern area which was predominately Shite, the center was essentially desert and was Arab and Sunni, while the northern area was as mentioned was Kurdish, Sunni, and secular. These earlier were administrative areas in the department. Why consolation prize? Because Britain promised the chieftains in Saudi Arabia (named from the chieftain's family name who took over the area in the early 1920) the entire area of Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria, Palestine, and Lebanon; they also promised Palestine to the Zionist movement (another long story); and to add insult to injury the British and French had already decided on which part of the area they would take (so three different agreements concerning the same area). So, the primary leader of the Arab support was given Iraq as a kingdom, Transjordan was given to another member of that family. The French got Lebanon, Syria; while the Greeks and French got some of Turkey. The Turks managed to kick both out under Ataturk who created a secular Turkish state. As mentioned the family which had been promised everything lost Arabia. So, my point is that there shouldn't have been an Iraq.
1
The nuclear material is normally transport in casks that can survive a hit by a locomotive. Part of my training include wat c h videos of the tests of that type of cask. There are far worse things on the highway than nuclear materials, and there is far less safety involved in their movement, and they don't belong to the US Government.
1
Too much Pro PRC language. The PRC is under severe economic and population problems, added currently in drought. Another concern is that a great deal of East Asia was taken from Imperial China starting in 1650. That includes Vladivostok which the PRC had talked about regaing it.
1
This ignores a population decline in the PRC, its economic issues (housing, banking and other business hurt by COVID and businesses moving operations out of the PRC), drought and potential famine. So, the PRC dragon is hurting and needs a successful distraction.. its choices are a risky amphibious assault accross a basically 100 mile moat that might see other forces join the fight and leave the PRC a severely damaged Taiwan or a complete failure; or a move nort h using its huge land army against a Russia tied up in a quagmire in the West and with only limited means to reinforce its East Asian lands (a situation similar to what it faced against Japan in the Russo-Japanese of 1904/1905, and that was without a Western War). With a sudden surprise move, it might provide a successful diversion; and because of territorial claims could be sold internally as a reunification of traditional territories. A thought to think about.
1
I doubt someone taking a walk found it the response team would have closed the area and been searching.
1
@emerson6111 I have some idea. Planning response for nuclear accidents and attacks was one element of my duties.
1
By the way, a bomb detonated under water would minimize fallout. Water samples taken soon after a blast could provide confirmation; however mixing in the sea would make a determination difficult at best. By the way, I don't doubt that Israel might have helped with technological research; there are sources saying that they already had those weapons by this point. I earlier indicated Taiwan was the possible partner, because by this point it had developed the necessary technology to create the bomb mechanism while South Africa had the nuclear material; and both nations were under pressure.
1
@grandadmiralthrawn8116 Depends on depth at w high the blast took place. Also remember the typhoon would have both spread the residual radiation products in the water and rained out much the residual radiation products that would have been airborne. Even a surface burst would be much reduced by those conditions. Suggested reading, "The Effects of Nuclear Weapons". This used to be available through the GPO and may have included a circular slide rule for figuring certain aspects. I have seen it in a few libraries, but usually no slide rule. This discusses many aspects of the issue.
1
This plan was floated by the US more than a century ago. It is not as crazy as it sound. The plan includes using existing waterways and linking them. Could it be done, probably. Is it a by good idea, i can't say. There are environmental concerns today that weren't cared about when the US thought about it. One of these was a scare about a volcano in Nicaragua which is why the Psnama Canal was created.
1
No such thing anybody fused to go off in some depths in shallow water. The Russian Federation just decided to make a weapons system to deliver a warhead in violation to the nuclear weapons treaty.. About the size of the warhead is also an exaggeration. The Russian Tsar bomb was rated ar 50MT, but was actually less than that in actual power due to the fact the detonation is inefficient; why you see MIRVed warheads of less than 1 MT, three warheads like that exploded at optimum height and locations will actually do more damage than one 5 MT warhead while needing a smaller delivery system. For somewhat the some what the same reason warheads are detonated at fixed distances from each other because they reduce each others effectiveness. This is called fraticide. Do some real research not just listen to hype.
1
Check what actually happened during the anti-French revolt, the Massacre of the French colonists as well as many free mixed race people. Unstable governments were formed by various strong men.😮
1
@giulianorovere5622 A good point earthquakes are exponential in effect. Lets say a 5 earthquake equal the energy of a 1 MT bomb; then a 6 is equivalent to the e nervy of 31 to 33 one MT bombs, a 7 would equal between 900 and 1000 one MT bombs; while an 8 would be about equal to 330,000 at the . Bombs of that size and a 9 (the cause of the Tohoku tsunami) would be even higher. By the way, without looking at my notes I probably over stated here because a 6 is about equal to a 1MT bomb if i remember correctly. So, if my memory is right the Tohoku Tsnami i was caused by the equivalent to 330,000 MT of energy. To put it into perspective, the 200 MT underwater weapon 6.1 ten thousand of what nature unleashed, and there was no 1,500 meter tsunami. High h I gh would the wave be, look at the US hydrogen bomb tests in the Pacific where they looked at the phenomenon.
1
@josephramirez2644 Yes and no. The energy moving the water would rapidly spread out in all directions. The wave height should depend on the amountt of water and how rapidly the sea shelves. Similar to how the wave height in a river bore after an e a rthquake can be higher than the actual tsunami. More water in a more constricted area. The explosive mechanism works differently from an earthquake as well.
1