by Oui
Mon Mar 14th, 2022 at 11:57:39 AM EST
So we are now reading more articles how the West can survive a limited nuclear war in Ukraine. Human Kind cannot stoop any lower. The paid jobs in so-called "Think-Tanks" apparently are just for war hawks and fascist element in society today. Have been warning for such a development for over a decade now. It's a tragedy to see the worst case scenarios evolve into reality.
Research by RIVM for health effects of a nuclear bomb exploding over the Ukraine ☹

Detonation of a Nuclear Bomb on Ukraine, The Netherlands Will Hardly Notice Any Effect
Has it come to this? - Frontpaged - Frank Schnittger
Translation:
Jaap van #Dissel [leader Dutch Covid-19 policy] is getting too little attention these days. So modelling:
What if #Putin deploys a nuclear bomb? #RIVM calculates the consequences for the Netherlands
RIVM
PS A new rapport adds by increased long levity of the Dutch, healthcare costs will become a burden for government budget. Herd immunity policy had to be adjusted as all healthcare facilities were overcrowded. What effect would you imagine by radioactivity if not direct obliteration with wounded beyond comprehension? Nuclear war to solve earth's overpopulation and high demand for resources?
Hiroshima
Pacific Islands
Pacific Proving Grounds

75 years after nuclear testing in the Pacific began, the fallout continues to wreak havoc | April 2021 |
This year marks 75 years since the United States launched its immense atomic testing program in the Pacific. The historical fallout from tests carried out over 12 years in the Marshall Islands, then a UN Trust Territory governed by the US, have framed seven decades of US relations with the Pacific nation.
Due to the dramatic effects of climate change, the legacies of this history are shaping the present in myriad ways.
This history has Australian dimensions too, though decades of diplomatic distance between Australia and the Marshall Islands have hidden an entangled atomic past.
In 1946, the Marshall Islands seemed very close for many Australians. They feared the imminent launch of the US's atomic testing program on Bikini Atoll might split the earth in two, catastrophically change the earth's climate, or produce earthquakes and deadly tidal waves.
A map accompanying one report noted Sydney was only 3,100 miles from ground zero. Residents as far away as Perth were warned if their houses shook on July 1, "it may be the atom bomb test".
Australia was "included in the tests" as a site for recording blast effects and monitoring for atom bombs detonated anywhere in the world by hostile nations. This Australian site served to keep enemies in check and achieve one of the Pacific testing program's objectives: to deter future war. The other justification was the advancement of science.
The earth did not split in two after the initial test (unless you were Marshallese) so they continued; 66 others followed over the next 12 years. But the insidious and multiple harms to people and place, regularly covered up or denied publicly, became increasingly hard to hide.
Radiation poisoning, birth defects, leukaemia, thyroid and other cancers became prevalent in exposed Marshallese, at least four islands were "partially or completely vapourised", the exposed Marshallese "became subjects of a medical research program" and atomic refugees. (Bikinians were allowed to return to their atoll for a decade before the US government removed them again when it was realised a careless error falsely claimed radiation levels were safe in 1968.)
In late 1947, the US moved its operations to Eniwetok Atoll, a decision, it was argued, to ensure additional safety. Eniwetok was more isolated and winds were less likely to carry radioactive particles to populated areas.
Australian reports noted this site was only 3,200 miles from Sydney. Troubling reports of radioactive clouds as far away as the French Alps and the known shocking health effects appeared.
French Polynesia leader admits nuclear lie

US Army exercises in Nevada to enter the battlefield after a nuclear explosion
During the 1950s, the Pentagon Played War Games With Troops and Nukes
Years of tests tried to discover the psychological toll of nuclear war
After the Soviet Union set off its first nuclear weapon in 1949, the U.S. military quickly envisioned a new type of war full of nuclear missiles, artillery and even recoilless rifles.
But with little information and no actual experience of this terrifying new battlefield, the Pentagon was desperate to find out what would really happen if its troops got nuked.
So in 1951, the Pentagon, the U.S. Army and the Atomic Energy Commission teamed up for what eventually became a series of nuclear war games—blandly nicknamed Desert Rock—in the Nevada desert. For the next seven years, technicians, scientists and academics poured over both practical and psychological data from the various exercises.
“Exercise Desert Rock I marked the first time that … troops have had the opportunity to receive realistic training in the tactical aspects of atomic warfare,” a now-declassified Army report on the test stated.
By the end of the project, the American troops had participated in eight separate Desert Rock events … which all involved nuclear detonations.
U.S. Army and the Atomic Energy Commission Operations Desert Rock
Atomic Veterans Were Silenced for 50 Years. Now, They're Talking.
French Algeria Testing Ground Nuclear Bomb
Gerboise Bleue
Gerboise Bleue (lit. 'Blue Jerboa') was the codename of the first French nuclear test. It was conducted by the Nuclear Experiments Operational Group (GOEN), a unit of the Joint Special Weapons Command on 13 February 1960, at the Saharan Military Experiments Centre near Reggane, French Algeria in the Sahara desert region of Tanezrouft, during the Algerian War] General Pierre Marie Gallois was instrumental in the endeavour, and earned the nickname of père de la bombe A.
Radiological Conditions
at the Former French Nuclear Test Sites in Algeria:
Preliminary Assessment and Recommendations
Development Neutron Bomb
The Neutron Bomb | Air Force Mag – Oct. 30, 2017 |
The uproar over the neutron bomb is largely forgotten today but it was in the news almost constantly in 1977-78 and again in 1981, a blazing international issue that drew in top leaders from the United States, Europe, and the Soviet Union.
After almost a year of waffling and indecision, US President Jimmy Carter decided in April 1978 to defer production of the neutron bomb, although he did not cancel the program outright. President Ronald Reagan reopened the question in 1981, eventually electing to produce neutron weapons but to keep them in storage.
“Neutron bomb” was the popular term for the enhanced radiation weapon (ERW), a small hydrogen warhead for short-range US Army rockets and artillery shells. It was intended to replace existing nuclear warheads—atomic rather than hydrogen devices—already deployed on battlefield weapons in Europe.
Many critics shared the judgment of science fiction author and commentator Isaac Asimov that the neutron bomb “seems desirable to those who worry about property and hold life cheap.”
In fact, the purpose had nothing to do with preserving property. The neutron bomb did not leave property intact; by limiting collateral damage, it just destroyed less of it. The objective was to restore the sagging credibility of “tactical nuclear weapons”—as they were then called—as a deterrent against an attack by Soviet and Warsaw Pact tank armies.
The critics were closer to the mark with their accusation that the neutron bomb lowered the nuclear threshold by reducing the reluctance to use nuclear weapons. “By giving NATO greater potential to fight a limited nuclear war, will battlefield nuclear weapons increase deterrence, or will they increase the likelihood that NATO may actually engage in nuclear battle?” asked historian Sherri L. Wasserman.
The Future of U.S. Non-Strategic Nuclear Weapons
and Implications for NATO
Drifting Toward the Foreseeable Future
The views, opinions, and analysis in this study are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the policy of the United States government, NATO, or Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) or any of its clients.
The Tories’ bellicose posturing on Ukraine is dangerous – and unfair to us | The Guardian Opinion |
There is a fascinating tension in the British attitude to war and military matters. When he wrote about England in 1941, George Orwell said his home country was defined by the “gentleness” of its civilisation, and such a “hatred of war and militarism” that flag-waving and patriotic boasting were always the preserve of a small minority. Events over the past 40 or so years have perhaps proved him wrong: from time to time, a widely shared jingoism has been brought to the surface of our national life, focused either on actual conflict – as happened when Britain fought for the Falkland Islands – or some hare-brained proxy for it, such as Brexit. But there is something about Orwell’s portrayal of people with an innate distaste for bellicose posturing that still rings true, across all the countries of the United Kingdom.
Among certain politicians, by contrast, there is far too little of that kind of thinking. Over the past three weeks, the unimaginable awfulness of what has happened in Ukraine and the fact that Vladimir Putin’s invasion is such a matter of moral clarity has encouraged a lot of rhetoric and posturing that has been shrill, banal and full of a misplaced machismo. The war, says one Tory MP, is Boris Johnson’s “Falklands moment”. The vocal Conservative backbencher Tobias Ellwood – a former soldier in the Royal Green Jackets, and now an active reservist – insists that the west’s response shows “we’ve lost our appetite, we’ve lost our confidence to stand up: to stand tall”. And while he and other Tory MPs – including zealous believers in Britain breaking from the EU, suddenly holding forth about the urgent need for international unity – have been making sense-defying demands for NATO to impose a no-fly zone, some of the cabinet have come out with their own very unsettling pronouncements, seemingly thinking that if Putin talks tough, they should talk tougher. When Sajid Javid was asked about the recent Russian attack on a Ukrainian military base only about 10 miles from the country’s border with Poland, we saw the strange spectacle of the health secretary apparently embracing the prospect of nuclear war: “Let’s be very clear … if a single Russian toecap steps into NATO territory, there will be war with NATO.”
Liberal Hegemony - The Great Delusion
Related reading …
Seeing Off the Bear:
Anglo-American Air Power Cooperation During the Cold War
Today’s collection of idiots running around after each other’s tails … not taking Russia’s national security serious.
Russia is risking all-out war | CNBC – Jan 12, 2022 |