# MPs warn over nuclear space bombs and solar flares



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

> The government must take more seriously the threat of a nuclear weapon being exploded in space by a rogue state, MPs have warned.
> 
> The Defence Select Committee said the resulting radiation pulse could disrupt power and water supplies, UK defence and satellite navigation systems.
> 
> ...


BBC News - MPs warn over nuclear space bombs and solar flares


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

This sounds like a great way to take total control of the power-grid, communications, and pretty much anything.


BTW: Remember to read my signature, and should anything happen press on 100%. 

For those who wish to receive updates, please send me a PM; for those who don't wish to receive further updates, please send me a PM and I'll take you off.

@_Ace Face @alecross @Arclight @Alpengeist19 @Beyond_B @Brainfreeze_237 @Cover3 @DarkWarrior @DemonAbyss10 @Epherion @Feral sheep @gestalt @gammagon @Holgrave @JungyesMBTIno @KINGoftheAMAZONS @mariogreymist @niss @Persephone @Psychosmurf @Paradox1987 @Promethea @pretty.Odd @Razare @Robopop @sly @Swordsman of Mana @Svensenberg @The Proof @The King Of Dreams @timeless @Waiting @wuliheron @YouPullMeThroughTime @zelder_


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

A detonation of this sort could knock huge parts of the US and Europe out of power. With that in mind, what's to keep the elites (and by that I mean international bankers, corrupt politicians, members of transnational corporations and the military industrial complex from using the power loss for their own purposes.

The nations this group control could easily run wild and consolidate power while huge areas are powerless; this could be used to consolidate power as well while nobody could do a thing.


----------



## Epherion (Aug 23, 2011)

Fun fact, two NK subs went missing a week or two ago. Some suspect they are headed for San Fran, with a nuclear payload.

Seriosuly, fuck this internet connection. Get your shit together Starbucks.


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

@Epherion

1: They have SSBN's?
2: What locations in the US would be best to retreat?
3: What countries are not in NATO, ANZUS, E.U. SEATO, and so forth?


----------



## Zombie Devil Duckie (Apr 11, 2012)

With the US stance on mutually assured destruction, I think the bigger issue would be which country just declared war by detonating a nuke in the space above America or Europe. You don't just "get" a nuke and magically put it into orbit and then detonate it. Somewhere in the world it would need to be launched, which requires the resources of a country. 

At that point I think the world would have more to worry about than evil bankers.



-ZDD


----------



## Zombie Devil Duckie (Apr 11, 2012)

> Fun fact, two NK subs went missing a week or two ago. Some suspect they are headed for San Fran, with a nuclear payload.



Source?


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

@Zombie Devil Duckie

If you're powerful enough you can insinuate your influence anywhere -- many nations have the ability to put a nuclear warhead in orbit.


----------



## Zombie Devil Duckie (Apr 11, 2012)

And that would be an act of war, likely with nuclear retaliation.


----------



## Epherion (Aug 23, 2011)

Zombie Devil Duckie said:


> And that would be an act of war, likely with nuclear retaliation.


No its not the 1968 orbital space treaty is b/t the US and the Soviets. I dont think you understand conflict escalation.
@RobynC


> 1: They have SSBN's?
> 2: What locations in the US would be best to retreat?
> 3: What countries are not in NATO, ANZUS, E.U. SEATO, and so forth?


They bought it from the Russians, its an old model, they've always had it. As for 2 and 3, got me.


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

@Epherion



> No its not the 1968 orbital space treaty is b/t the US and the Soviets.


It wouldn't preclude a retaliation if they knocked out most of the countries power. Admittedly I think the elites would use it to round-up and attack those they don't like and/or go underground while we all rot.

You might want to forward this around. There are ways to protect electronics from EMP attack (microwave, taped over with foil and unplugged)



> They bought it from the Russians, its an old model, they've always had it. As for 2 and 3, got me.


Can you just specify what type of submarine it is? If so I can specify what it can do

As for the last two you can use wikipedia... you might want to know this too so you can retreat to a safe spot as well.


----------



## DecadentDisCordis (Dec 17, 2012)

RobynC said:


> A detonation of this sort could knock huge parts of the US and Europe out of power. With that in mind, what's to keep the elites (and by that I mean international bankers, corrupt politicians, members of transnational corporations and the military industrial complex from using the power loss for their own purposes.
> 
> The nations this group control could easily run wild and consolidate power while huge areas are powerless; this could be used to consolidate power as well while nobody could do a thing.


With no power, those rich power hungry types will not get richer. All the money in the world is but a number on electrical hardrives. Go figure. 

Perhaps it would be a good thing to happen. It may erase the worlds debt if such information was lost. Or cause the world to burn, which is the option I favour.


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

@_DecadentDisCordis_

1: This could be fear mongering allowing more control over the grid

2: Electronics can be hardened -- we'd be in the dark, they'd be fine

3: They have bunkers which are almost certainly shielded. At least one has a nuclear reactor that can last 100 years

4: Why the hell would you want the world to burn?


----------



## DecadentDisCordis (Dec 17, 2012)

RobynC said:


> @_DecadentDisCordis_
> 
> 1: This could be fear mongering allowing more control over the grid
> 
> ...



1.Fear mongering is good.

2.Yes they can. We would be without power. So what? Humans a to reliant on easy means. It would cause the weak to perish. 

3.They will have trapped themselves in a bunker. They survive we don't. Oh well.

4. Because this world is a festering pit of ugliness. Caused by humans. I despise humans as a race. We are a cancer that must be eliminated.


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

@DecadentDisCordis

1: Fear mongering is not good -- I don't even like having to use fear mongering to get people to listen to what's what. This isn't about any greater good except for a handful of powerful people to control our lives further

2: They could easily decide to round up Americans they do not like, they could even should they be inclined decide to use those drones or perhaps that that 1.6 billion rounds of ammo that DHS has been storing up.

3: I'd rather die than not have my freedom as well -- however there's something wrong about powerful people building a bunker to protect themselves and let countless millions die.

4: Have you ever been to earth? There are many beautiful places on earth, and while humans have caused some harm not all humans are responsible for the actions of some


Why don't you go trolling somewhere else? 

I've assumed you to be a troll very early on and it's not just because you are relatively new and have black private status. It's your conduct -- it speaks for itself.


----------



## SirDave (Sep 1, 2012)

Zombie Devil Duckie said:


> And that would be an act of war, likely with nuclear retaliation.


IMHO, I believe there is almost no prior military action including a NK nuclear bomb dropped on Alaska that would get a nuclear attack from the US beyond tactical battlefield nukes. We no longer have the will. 

The situation we were in back in WWII is notwithstanding because we had just fought a big piece of a global war. For clues look back on the war in Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan and how we left Iraq without so much as a Status Of Forces Agreement that would have given us influence in the region that at the least would've kept Iran from air shipping military hardware across Iraqi air space to Syria to better destroy Syrian rebels.


----------



## SirDave (Sep 1, 2012)

I believe there is a real potential for an EMP attack on the US in the future. NK has put an artificial satellite in orbit and intel (DIA) says they have the ability at present to build them of a size to put them on a missile, so if not now they soon will. 

If they exploded one (or or perhaps more) over the central US they could nullify our entire technology putting us back in a non technological condition without the ability to recover if certain powers saw our weakness as an opportunity. Our navy no longer has the ability to find their position by astrolabe so dependent they are on GPS. But in the main our navy would at least be out of harm's way.

It should be noted that China has not increased our credit on bonds to them for three years running now, choosing to sell at the same rate as they accommodate new ones resulting from trade.


----------



## All in Twilight (Oct 12, 2012)

DecadentDisCordis said:


> 4. Because this world is a festering pit of ugliness. Caused by humans. I despise humans as a race. We are a cancer that must be eliminated.


That's a harsh judgment and makes you no better. I don't think we should eliminate the human race but transform it into something superior. I too think that there is something terribly wrong with humanity.
If you truly lived in the Now as you state, then you would have rephrased your words. Fear can only comes into existence if the Now is misunderstood.

As for the OP, what are you afraid of? You seem to be occupied with so many things and possibilities that life is slipping through your hands as we speak and you're not even aware of it.


----------



## Vaan (Dec 19, 2010)

Its highly unlikely that they would do this. The only reason one would do this would be to knock out communications and confuse resistance prior to a major invasion which is highly unlikely from any terrorists or hostile nations.


----------



## DecadentDisCordis (Dec 17, 2012)

RobynC said:


> @_DecadentDisCordis_
> 
> 1: Fear mongering is not good -- I don't even like having to use fear mongering to get people to listen to what's what. This isn't about any greater good except for a handful of powerful people to control our lives further
> 
> ...


Fear mongering is good because it is effective to control the masses.

That is bad if that ammunition is turned on civvies. Nothing more.

Yes there is. But that is the way of the world. There is nothing stopping people going out there as a community and funding such a project for themselves.

And there were many more until humans destroyed them. There is so much corruption out there that all humans would have to go. Or be policed with no rights.

My conduct?? Black private status?? Those have nothing to do with the issue. Because my views differ to those of yours, I am a troll?

I will apologize for derailing your thread. I will not apologize for my views.


----------

