Comments by "Stephen Villano" (@spvillano) on "Double Down News" channel.

  1. Lying about a subject does your cause ill. For one thing, shall we discuss the SALT and START treaties and the restriction on the number of operational warheads? If Russia and the US went at it on a full scale thermonuclear war, given that targeting is counter value, first ICBM installations would be targeted, then nuclear capable air force bases, followed by submarine installations, each with a half dozen or more warheads for target to ensure hardened structures are destroyed. Each side is capped at 1,550 operational and duty ready warheads of any nuclear or thermonuclear mixture they choose, within the ICBM warhead cap previously agreed upon. To give you a hint, across each of our respective continental masses, we have a hell of a lot more cities than warheads together. Given that cities aren't the primary target, weapons are, that lowers the number of casualties significantly. It''s really hard to kill a lot of people in farm country in the US or Russia! Oh, lemme guess, <gasp!>, nuclear winter? Disproved in the 1990's via much improved modelling that also managed to prove the threat of global warming. Those models proved to be correct when the oil fires from Gulf War I was modeled. The "experts", with their antiquated models predicted at least a decade of cooling from the soot of the oil fires, it was a couple of cooler, wetter months only. Meanwhile, the plutonium pits are degrading from helium embrittlement, the explosives growing sensitive from neutron and beta capture, hence, the deterrent needs to be dismantled and reworked. A non-operational deterrent is not a deterrent. Now, if you want to talk about being rid of those fine products from the insanity factory, I'm all ears! At one point in my military career I might have worked on the damned things, that doesn't mean that I like them. P.S., I'm not really especially concerned over nuclear fallout, as warheads since the 1960's were efficient enough that less than a half ton of fallout per large yield warhead was a bit high, most were much, much lower. The only way to see significant fallout is for the warhead to be set for ground burst and everything on the ground within the fireball gets sucked into the still fissioning fireball and irradiated via neutron activation. Although, Putin did give me a moment of pause and consideration when he mentioned cobalt-60 warheads, which would mean that all bets are off, as we'd have to salt one class of warhead the same way. I've no clue of what's he was smoking when he said that, as even at the hottest parts of the Cold War, nobody was insane enough to salt their warheads. Too high of a chance that "On the beach" would turn very, very real.
    1