Trump: "Hillary's Plan For Syria Would Lead to World War III"

Tyler Durden's picture

Trump took his most aggressive foreign policy shots yet at Hillary Clinton at an interview earlier today from his Trump National Doral golf resort in Florida, saying that her policies on Syria would inevitably lead to World War III.  Not pulling any punches, Trump also referenced his frequent attack against Hillary that she's "all talk", saying that her plan would engage Russia which "is a nuclear country, but a country where the nukes work as opposed to other countries that talk."

U.S. Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump said on Tuesday that Democrat Hillary Clinton's plan for Syria would "lead to World War Three," because of the potential for conflict with military forces from nuclear-armed Russia.


On Syria's civil war, Trump said Clinton could drag the United States into a world war with a more aggressive posture toward resolving the conflict.


Clinton has called for the establishment of a no-fly zone and "safe zones" on the ground to protect non-combatants. Some analysts fear that protecting those zones could bring the United bring into direct conflict with Russian fighter jets.


"What we should do is focus on ISIS. We should not be focusing on Syria," said Trump as he dined on fried eggs and sausage at his Trump National Doral golf resort. "You're going to end up in World War Three over Syria if we listen to Hillary Clinton," Trump said.


"You're not fighting Syria any more, you're fighting Syria, Russia and Iran, all right? Russia is a nuclear country, but a country where the nukes work as opposed to other countries that talk," he said.


Trump said Assad is much stronger now than he was three years ago. He said getting Assad to leave power was less important than defeating Islamic State.


"Assad is secondary, to me, to ISIS," he said.

Trump also questioned how a Clinton administration could find common ground for negotiations with Russia after she, and the Obama administration, had seemingly gone all-in to demonize Putin in an effort to salvage her campaign. 

On Russia, Trump again knocked Clinton's handling of U.S.-Russian relations while secretary of state and said her harsh criticism of Putin raised questions about "how she is going to go back and negotiate with this man who she has made to be so evil," if she wins the presidency.

Meanwhile, Trump also had harsh words for Obama who he said would rather "focus on his golf game" than engage with world issue which he says led to the deterioration of ties with the Philippines. 

On the deterioration of ties with the Philippines, Trump aimed his criticism at Obama, saying the president "wants to focus on his golf game" rather than engage with world leaders.


Since assuming office, Duterte has expressed open hostility towards the United States, rejecting criticism of his violent anti-drug clampdown, using an expletive to describe Obama and telling the United States not to treat his country "like a dog with a leash."


The Obama administration has expressed optimism that the two countries can remain firm allies.


Trump said Duterte's latest comments showed "a lack of respect for our country."

Finally, Trump continues to draw huge crowds in the Florida, despite apparently being down massively in the polls, with the following rally held earlier today in Sanford. 

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Au Member's picture

It really is that serious. If Clinton is elected she'll distract the world from her shit leadership by starting another war because she's a soulless psychopathic lying fucktard.


If you spot election fraud you can report it in real time using the app below. Not tried it myself but might make some difference unless Soros stumped up the seed capital, then it will probably call in a drone strike on you the moment you hit send.


FreeShitter's picture

Elected? Lets say selected.

Nekoti's picture

She will be just a continuation of the policies if that dumb fuck in the oval now.

TeamDepends's picture

Hillary is qualified because she has dodged sniper fire and has a vagina.

Gold...Bitches's picture

Have you ever noticed that if you rearrange the letters in "illegal immigrants," and add just a few more letters, it spells: "Go home you free-loading, benefit-grabbing, resource-sucking, non-English-speaking assholes and take those other hairy-faced, sandal-wearing, bomb-making, camel-riding, goat-shagging, raggedy-ass bastards with you."

How weird is that?

yippee kiyay's picture
yippee kiyay (not verified) s2man Oct 25, 2016 6:57 PM


lonnng's picture
lonnng (not verified) yippee kiyay Oct 25, 2016 6:59 PM

Yeah. Putin's the man. Why isn't he running for potus?

yippee kiyay's picture
yippee kiyay (not verified) lonnng Oct 25, 2016 9:38 PM

He's getting ready for what's really going on in the Middle East.

philipat's picture

Hey yippee kiyay, previously mofio then santafe then Aristotle of Greece then Gargoyle then bleu then oops then lance-a-lot then Loftie then toro. You are a serial spammer and a serial pain in the ass. Might I politely suggest that you go fuck yourself? And get a life.

Would appreciate regular ZH contributors please take a moment to help me in my campaign against this idiot and report yippee kiyay to

PS. You might have noticed that my attempt to expose you for what you are is always the same. That’s because your Spam is always the same (Using fake links to your BS site which has no connection to your comments; which are deliberately dramatic to mislead people into responding or clicking on the fake link) so it seems only fair that my exposure of your crap should also always be the same. An eye for an eye.

Nekoti's picture

Almost made me spurt ipa through my nostrils.

Collectivism Killz's picture

Wow dude, never even realized that. And to think I was impressed with mom, dad and ma'am.

monk27's picture

Well, we all saw the truth about that "sniper fire". Now regarding her vagina, are you sure she has one ? Bill himself seems to avoid it like plague...

Creative_Destruct's picture

"....qualified because she has dodged sniper fire and has a vagina."

That and wasted more travel budget than any SecState in history, destabilized an entire region, killed 500,000 people, mutilated 100's of thousands more, made millions more homeless and destitute, and created the greatest refugee crisis in history, which threatens to destroy Europe. 

Now THAT'S a qualified INCOMPETENT, if there ever was one...

crossroaddemon's picture

You do get that they're not his policies right? Why do you think they look so much like Bush's policies? Because POTUS controls nothing. They don't take a shit without permission from their banker masters.

Shemp 4 Victory's picture

They don't look like Bush's policies.

Hillary's policies are a continuation of Obama's policies are a continuation of Bush's policies are a continuation of Mr. Hillary's policies.

Delving Eye's picture

They all love war. It puts billions in their pockets.

monk27's picture

Please explain to me how anybody could enjoy "the spoils of war" on a planet nuked beyond the stone age ? That's an especially critical question for any fat cat whose entire idea of "world" is limited  to a DC and/or NY office and a mansion in The Hamptons, to which he is traveling by private limo or helicopter...

Dindu Nuffins's picture

Who do you thinks survives a global nuclear war and gets to decide the future entirely?

Do you own a reinforced and well-stocked bunker? Elites do.

Forget the old claims about Nuclear Winter. It wouldn't happen. A global nuclear war would irradiate maybe 10% of the land area, but disrupt supply lines enough to turn most areas into depopulated wastelands after looting and cannibalism. The elites and their chosen "best of humanity" (their own friends) get to emerge into a mostly intact world, with plans for sustainably developing the future utopia of a stable 500 million world population. 

Kina's picture

Global nuclear war means all supply chains cut.

No fuel, power, water, sewerage, food, medicine....


Buy a bike, solar power boards, mechanical generators.....and so on....

Or simpler...get yourself some cyanide tablets.  Or go stand under the next nuclear missile.


OH and if you run across an Elites bunker, since there is no more law except survival, you are entitled to kill them and take all their stuff.

defender1be's picture

Killing elites in the bunkers is easy, just burry the doors and fill the air intake's with isolation foam.

monk27's picture

Your "elites", being the bunch of narcissistic psychos that they are, will be at each others throats within 72 hours. Their chances to make it to the end of the first week of war will be minimal, much less to reach the end of the war... Apart from that, how exactly do they plan to live when they'll come outside of that bunker ? Where ? By what means ? With what food ?

Dindu Nuffins's picture

All elites have their pet sycophants and minions. Hillary has Huma, for example, and a team of staff. 

It's not one bunker, dummy, where they all fight in Hunger Games fashion. There are elites building their own personal bunkers all over. Often well-stocked for weeks. 90% of land area will be perfectly clean after a few months. The major deaths come from starvation and chaos in the collapse aboveground.

monk27's picture

Oh yeah, the famous "personal bunker" crap ! Is it going to be personal as in "family only" or as in "family + minions" ? If it's family only, good luck trying to do yourself the most basic activities (like cooking your food, or fixing your light or the air conditioner) when your entire life you've been taken care off by others. It you add your minions (as you call them) like your pet butler AND some security people, what's gonna stop them from cutting your throat while sleeping ? Why would they listen and carry on with your orders ? Your money won't be worth shit anyway, and it's not likely that you'll be able to fire them at will when (not if) they decide to misbehave.

Other than that, try to imagine yourself having to live in close quarters with nowhere else to go for weeks together with your good-for-nothing-trophy-bitch that you might call "wife", and your spoiled-rotten-idiotic-pot-heads-offsprings that you might call "kids". Sorry dummy but the logistics of surviving a nuclear war are a bit more complicated than you could possible imagine. And NO, 90% of the land won't be perfectly clean after a few months, as the fallout will pollute a very wide area of agricultural soil and fresh water. Not that it would mater since you won't have any fuel for machinery or living stock to try even the most basic form of growing your own food... 

Nekoti's picture

Yes, I get the deep state. It was just a simplification of what we are facing. If more people grasped the concept of our potus being a puppet, we might be in a better spot.

J S Bach's picture

Russia also has highly-advanced delivery systems that will wreak havoc on any poor patriotic U.S. enlistees if they're unfortunate enough to be in the cross hairs.

greenskeeper carl's picture

I'm glad he is finally bringing this up, but why the hell didn't he mention this important stuff during the fucking debate when the entire country is paying attention. Most people aren't going to read or hear about this.

Bill started dropping bombs on a mostly defenseless group to distract from his many penis related issues and killed a bunch of people in an unfortunately successful attempt to shift the news away from his infidelities. Russia and Iran are not similarly defenseless should hilligula try the same thing.

crossroaddemon's picture

Clinton (Bill) dropped bombs on those defenseless people because the overlords told him to.

DeplorableAndy's picture

Because he has to play the game right now, and save his powder for when it counts. Many voters, especially many undecicided voters begin either tuning in or making up their minds in the last two weeks prior to election.  He's been saving some powder.

Turnout in my precinct is at historic preportions.  Absolutely mind-blowing lines of people waiting to cast their early vote where there have been only 3 or 4 in line in previous early voting.

Unless this is stolen, Trump is going to win in a landslide.  If it is stolen, look out.

IridiumRebel's picture

The Soros machines are already acting up. Keep pushing the rigged narrative. He's smart to say this about syria. Take off the gloves and knock this cunt the fuck out forever.

Hitlery_4_Dictator's picture

She is the type of person who would blow up the entire world because she will only live another few years anyway. It's that bad.

crossroaddemon's picture

Her shit leadership? All leadership is shit.

Shemp 4 Victory's picture


All leadership is shit.

It is in countries subject to US citizen rule.

General Titus's picture

One of the best websites for the truth about secular Syria & its genuine "War On Terror" against the fake terrorist groups ISIS & Al-CIA-Duh

TheVoicesInYourHead's picture

Best plan for Syria-

Let Syria and its allies rid the country of the evil bastard terrorist insurgents by whatever means they deem necessary.

adanata's picture


You are so correct... however, the 'terrorists' are essentially CIA funded/armed vs Pentagon funded/armed... and they're getting their butts kicked by Assad and Putin... hence the general animosity. Strictly FUBAR. Hilda cannot be elected; it cannot happen.

SillySalesmanQuestion's picture

The Don. The Anti-War Party candidate.
Whoda thunkit 18 months ago, that The Don would run...let alone win in a landslide of epic proportions.

CNN sucks!
Drain the swamp!
Locker her up!
Build that wall!
Trump 2016.

iamrefreshed's picture

I live near Sanford. It's a small community maybe 20 miles north of Orlando. For him to pull a crowd like this is amazing. Go Zimmerman!

The Alarmist's picture

Especially since Orlando is fast becoming Dem country.  Saw him at West Palm Beach a couple weeks ago ... had to drive a couple hours to do it, but it was a fun little diversion after hurricane cleanup.

crossroaddemon's picture

This is just retarded.

1) Anyone who thinks POTUS has any say in war policy is living in a dreamworld. CIA, FBI, Homeland Security, Pentagon... all 100% in thrall to the deep state. They take their orders from the fucking Rothchilds, and if POTUS gives them a contradictory order he gets laughed at. If he tries to make a public issue of it he suffers a sudden and mysterious heart attack. The president is a sockpuppet. If the lizardpeople want a war the president has no power to block it.

2) Anyone who thinks Trump is not a friend of the MIC is living in a dreamworld. Have you heard his bullshit about rebuilding the armed forces?

3) Nobody is stupid enough to press the red button.

kochevnik's picture

Point three "Nobody is stupid enough to press the red button" proves you are living in a dreamworld

crossroaddemon's picture

You think they don't get the concept of MAD, nuclear winter, and the obliteration of all life on the planet including themselves? Why do you assume you're somehow smarter or better informed?

Tactical Joke's picture

It's not as bad as you think... bunker up for a few years and you're good. Sure, you'll increase your cancer risk, but you'll be king of the wasteland.o

Hitlery_4_Dictator's picture

Tactical is  right, it's not as bad as you think (get informed you stupid fag Crossroads, scroll down for your answer retard)An all-out nuclear war between Russia and the United States would be the a terrible catastrophe, a tragedy so huge it is difficult to comprehend but there is actually good news. Even so, it would be far from the end of human life on earth. The dangers from nuclear weapons have been distorted and exaggerated, for varied reasons. These exaggerations have become demoralizing myths, believed by millions of Americans. In most situations, the radiation levels will have significantly decreased within 48 hours and it will be safe to come outside.  Food and water will not be contaminated if stored correctly, in fact if the water / food is inside almost any type of container, it will actually be safer for you to eat.

Yes, you can be like this guy and survive a nuclear disaster / war.

I have found that many people at first see no sense in talking about details of survival skills. Those who hold exaggerated beliefs about the dangers from nuclear weapons must first be convinced that nuclear war would not inevitably be the end of them and everything worthwhile. Only after they have begun to question the truth of these myths do they become interested, under normal peacetime conditions, in acquiring nuclear war survival skills.Therefore, before giving detailed instructions for making and using survival equipment, we will examine the most harmful of the myths about nuclear war dangers, along with some of the grim facts.

Myth: Fallout radiation penetrates everything; there is no escaping its deadly effects.

Facts: The radiation dose that the occupants of an excellent shelter would receive while inside this shelter can be reduced to a dose smaller than the average American receives during his lifetime from X rays and other radiation exposures normal in America today. The design features of such a shelter include the use of a sufficient thickness of earth or other heavy shielding material. Gamma rays are like X rays, but more penetrating.

The actual paths of gamma rays passing through shielding materials are much more complicated, due to scattering, etc., than are the straight-line paths. The denser a substance, the better it serves for shielding material. Thus, a halving-thickness of concrete is only about 2.4 inches (6.1 cm).

Myth: So much food and water will be poisoned by fallout that people will starve and die even in fallout areas where there is enough food and water.

Facts: If the fallout particles do not become mixed with the parts of food that are eaten, no harm is done. Food and water in dust-tight containers are not contaminated by fallout radiation. Peeling fruits and vegetables removes essentially all fallout, as does removing the uppermost several inches of stored grain onto which fallout particles have fallen. Water from many sources — such as deep wells and covered reservoirs, tanks, and containers — would not be contaminated. Even water containing dissolved radioactive elements and compounds can be made safe for drinking by simply filtering it through earth.

Myth: Most of the unborn children and grandchildren of people who have been exposed to radiation from nuclear explosions will be genetically damaged will be malformed, delayed victims of nuclear war.

Facts: The authoritative study by the National Academy of Sciences, A Thirty Year Study of the Survivors qf Hiroshima and Nagasaki, was published in 1977. It concludes that the incidence of abnormalities is no higher among children later conceived by parents who were exposed to radiation during the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki than is the incidence of abnormalities among Japanese children born to un-exposed parents.

This is not to say that there would be no genetic damage, nor that some fetuses subjected to large radiation doses would not be damaged. But the overwhelming evidence does show that the exaggerated fears of radiation damage to future generations are not supported by scientific findings.

Myth: Overkill would result if all the U.S. and U.S.S.R, nuclear weapons were used meaning not only that the two superpowers have more than enough weapons to kill all of each other’s people, but also that they have enough weapons to exterminate the human race.

Facts: Statements that the U.S. and the Soviet Union have the power to kill the world’s population several times over are based on misleading calculations. One such calculation is to multiply the deaths produced per kiloton exploded over Hiroshima or Nagasaki by an estimate of the number of kilotons in either side’s arsenal. (A kiloton explosion is one that produces the same amount of energy as does 1000 tons of TNT.) The unstated assumption is that somehow the world’s population could be gathered into circular crowds, each a few miles in diameter with a population density equal to downtown Hiroshima or Nagasaki, and then a small (Hiroshima-sized) weapon would be exploded over the center of each crowd. Other misleading calculations are based on exaggerations of the dangers from long-lasting radiation and other harmful effects of a nuclear war.

Myth: Fallout radiation from a nuclear war would poison the air and all parts of the environment. It would kill everyone. (This is the demoralizing message of On the Beach and many similar pseudo-scientific books and articles.)

Facts: When a nuclear weapon explodes near enough to the ground for its fireball to touch the ground, it forms a crater.

Many thousands of tons of earth from the crater of a large explosion are pulverized into trillions of particles. These particles are contaminated by radioactive atoms produced by the nuclear explosion. Thousands of tons of the particles are carried up into a mushroom-shaped cloud, miles above the earth. These radioactive particles then fall out of the mushroom cloud, or out of the dispersing cloud of particles blown by the winds thus becoming fallout.

Each contaminated particle continuously gives off invisible radiation, much like a tiny X-ray machine while in the mushroom cloud, while descending, and after having fallen to earth. The descending radioactive particles are carried by the winds like the sand and dust particles of a miles-thick sandstorm cloud except that they usually are blown at lower speeds and in many areas the particles are so far apart that no cloud is seen. The largest, heaviest fallout particles reach the ground first, in locations close to the explosion. Many smaller particles are carried by the winds for tens to thousands of miles before falling to earth. At any one place where fallout from a single explosion is being deposited on the ground in concentrations high enough to require the use of shelters, deposition will be completed within a few hours.

The smallest fallout particles those tiny enough to be inhaled into a person’s lungs are invisible to the naked eye. These tiny particles would fall so slowly from the four-mile or greater heights to which they would be injected by currently deployed Soviet warheads that most would remain airborne for weeks to years before reaching the ground. By that time their extremely wide dispersal and radioactive decay would make them much less dangerous. Only where such tiny particles are promptly brought to earth by rain- outs or snow-outs in scattered “hot spots,” and later dried and blown about by the winds, would these invisible particles constitute a long-term and relatively minor post-attack danger.

The air in properly designed fallout shelters, even those without air filters, is free of radioactive particles and safe to breathe except in a few’ rare environments as will be explained later.

Fortunately for all living things, the danger from fallout radiation lessens with time. The radioactive decay, as this lessening is called, is rapid at first, then gets slower and slower. The dose rate (the amount of radiation received per hour) decreases accordingly. Figure below illustrates the rapidity of the decay of radiation from fallout during the first two days after the nuclear explosion that produced it. R stands for roentgen, a measurement unit often used to measure exposure to gamma rays and X rays. Fallout meters called dosimeters measure the dose received by recording the number of R. Fallout meters called survey meters, or dose-rate meters, measure the dose rate by recording the number of R being received per hour at the time of measurement. Notice that it takes about seven times as long for the dose rate to decay from 1000 roentgens per hour (1000 R/hr) to 10 R/hr (48 hours) as to decay from 1000 R/hr to 100 R/hr (7 hours). (Only in high-fallout areas would the dose rate 1 hour after the explosion be as high as 1000 roentgens per hour.)

If the dose rate 1 hour after an explosion is 1000 R/hr, it would take about 2 weeks for the dose rate to be reduced to 1 R/hr solely as a result of radioactive decay. Weathering effects will reduce the dose rate further,’ for example, rain can wash fallout particles from plants and houses to lower positions on or closer to the ground. Surrounding objects would reduce the radiation dose from these low-lying particles.

Figure above also illustrates the fact that at a typical location where a given amount of fallout from an explosion is deposited later than 1 hour after the explosion, the highest dose rate and the total dose received at that location are less than at a location where the same amount of fallout is deposited 1 hour after the explosion. The longer fallout particles have been airborne before reaching the ground, the less dangerous is their radiation.

To know when to come out safely, occupants either would need a reliable fallout meter to measure the changing radiation dangers, or must receive information based on measurements made nearby with a reliable instrument.

The radiation dose that will kill a person varies considerably with different people. A dose of 450 R resulting from exposure of the whole body to fallout radiation is often said to be the dose that will kill about half the persons receiving it, although most studies indicate that it would take somewhat less.

Fortunately, the human body can repair most radiation damage if the daily radiation doses are not too large. A person who is healthy and has not been exposed in the past two weeks to a total radiation dose of more than 100 R can receive a dose of 6 R each day for at least two months without being incapacitated.

Only a very small fraction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki citizens who survived radiation doses some of which were nearly fatal have suffered serious delayed effects. The reader should realize that to do essential work after a massive nuclear attack, many survivors must be willing to receive much larger radiation doses than are normally permissible. Otherwise, too many workers would stay inside shelter too much of the time, and work that would be vital to national recovery could not be done. For example, if the great majority of truckers were so fearful of receiving even non-incapacitating radiation doses that they would refuse to transport food, additional millions would die from starvation alone.

Myth: A heavy nuclear attack would set practically everything on fire, causing “firestorms” in cities that would exhaust the oxygen in the air. All shelter occupants would be killed by the intense heat.

Facts: “Firestorms” could occur only when the concentration of combustible structures is very high, as in the very dense centers of a few old American cities. At rural and suburban building densities, most people in earth- covered fallout shelters would not have their lives endangered by fires. On a clear day, thermal pulses (heat radiation that travels at the speed of light) from an air burst can set fire to easily ignitable materials (such as window curtains, upholstery, dry newspaper, and dry grass) over about as large an area as is damaged by the blast. It can cause second-degree skin burns to exposed people who are as far as ten miles from a one-megaton (1  MT) explosion. (
A 1-MT nuclear explosion is one that produces the same amount of energy as does one million tons of TNT.) If the weather is very clear and dry, the area of fire danger could be considerably larger. On a cloudy or smoggy day, however, particles in the air would absorb and scatter much of the heat radiation, and the area endangered by heat radiation from the fireball would be less than the area of severe blast damage.

Myth: In the worst-hit parts of Hiroshima and Nagasaki where all buildings were demolished, everyone was killed by blast, radiation, or fire.

Facts: In Nagasaki, some people survived uninjured who were far inside tunnel shelters built for conventional air raids and located as close as one-third mile from ground zero (the point directly below the explosion). This was true even though these long, large shelters lacked blast doors and were deep inside the zone within which all buildings were destroyed. (People far inside long, large, open shelters are better protected than are those inside small, open shelters.)

Many earth-covered family shelters were essentially undamaged in areas where blast and fire destroyed all buildings. In a recent blast test, an earth-covered, expedient Small-Pole Shelter equipped with blast doors was undamaged at 53 psi. The pressure rise inside was slight not even enough to have damaged occupants’ eardrums. If poles are available, field tests have indicated that many families can build such shelters in a few days.

The great life-saving potential of blast-protective shelters has been proven in war and confirmed by blast tests and calculations. For example, the area in which the air bursting of a 1-megaton weapon would wreck a 50-psi shelter with blast doors in about 2.7 square miles. Within this roughly circular area, practically all them occupants of wrecked shelters would be killed by blast, carbon monoxide from fires, or radiation. The same blast effects would kill most people who were using basements affording 5 psi protection, over an area of about 58 square miles.

Myth: Because some modern H-bombs are over 1000 times as powerful as the A-bomb that destroyed most of Hiroshima, these H-bombs are 1000 times as deadly and destructive.

Facts: A nuclear weapon 1000 times as powerful as the one that blasted Hiroshima, if exploded under comparable conditions, produces equally serious blast damage to wood-frame houses over an area up to about 130 times as large, not 1000 times as large. Today few if any of Russia’s huge intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) are armed with a 20-megaton warhead. Now a huge Russian ICBM, the SS-18, typically carries 10 warheads, each having a yield of 500 kilotons, each programmed to hit a separate target. See Jane’s Weapon Systems, 1987-88.

Myth: A Russian nuclear attack on the United States would completely destroy all American cities.

Facts: As long as Soviet leaders are rational they will continue to give first priority to knocking out our weapons and other military assets that can damage Russia and kill Russians. To explode enough nuclear weapons of any size to completely destroy American cities would be an irrational waste of warheads. The Soviets can make much better use of most of the warheads that would be required to completely destroy American cities; the majority of those warheads probably already are targeted to knock out our retaliatory missiles by being surface burst or near-surface burst on their hardened silos, located far from most cities and densely populated areas.

Unfortunately, many militarily significant targets – including naval vessels in port and port facilities, bombers and fighters on the ground, air base and airport facilities that can be used by bombers, Army installations, and key defense factories – are in or close to American cities. In the event of an all-out Soviet attack, most of these ‘”soft” targets would be destroyed by air bursts. Air bursting a given weapon subjects about twice as large an area to blast effects severe enough to destroy “soft” targets as does surface bursting the same weapon. Fortunately for Americans living outside blast and fire areas, air bursts produce only very tiny particles. Most of these extremely small radioactive particles remain airborne for so long that their radioactive decay and wide dispersal before reaching the ground make them much less life- endangering than the promptly deposited larger fallout particles from surface and near-surface bursts. However, if you are a survival minded American you should prepare to survive heavy fallout wherever you are. Unpredictable winds may bring fallout from unexpected directions. Or your area may be in a “hot spot” of life-endangering fallout caused by a rain-out or snow-out of both small and tiny particles from distant explosions. Or the enemy may use surface or near-surface bursts in your part of the country to crater long runways or otherwise disrupt U.S. retaliatory actions by producing heavy local fallout.

Today few if any of Russia’s largest intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) are armed with a 20-megaton warhead. A huge Russian ICBM, the SS-18, typically carries 10 warheads each having a yield of 500 kilotons, each programmed to hit a separate target. See “Jane’s Weapon Systems. 1987-1988.” However, in March 1990 CIA Director William Webster told the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee that “…. The USSR’s strategic modernization program continues unabated,” and that the SS-18 Mod 5 can carry 14 to 20 nuclear warheads. The warheads are generally assumed to be smaller than those of the older SS-18s.

Myth: Blindness and a disastrous increase of cancers would be the fate of survivors of a nuclear war, because the nuclear explosions would destroy so much of the protective ozone in the stratosphere that far too much ultraviolet light would reach the earth’s surface. Even birds and insects would be blinded. People could not work outdoors in daytime for years without dark glasses, and would have to wear protective clothing to prevent incapacitating sunburn. Plants would be badly injured and food production greatly reduced.

Facts: Large nuclear explosions do inject huge amounts of nitrogen oxides (gasses that destroy ozone) into the stratosphere.However, the percent of the stratospheric ozone destroyed by a given amount of nitrogen oxides has been greatly overestimated in almost all theoretical calculations and models. For example, the Soviet and U.S. atmospheric nuclear test explosions of large weapons in 1952-1962 were calculated by Foley and Ruderman to result in a reduction of more than 10 percent in total ozone. (See M. H. Foley and M. A. Ruderman, ‘Stratospheric NO from Past Nuclear Explosions”, Journal of Geophysics, Res. 78, 4441-4450.) Yet observations that they cited showed no reductions in ozone. Nor did ultraviolet increase. Other theoreticians calculated sizable reductions in total ozone, but interpreted the observational data to indicate either no reduction, or much smaller reductions than their calculated ones.

A realistic simplified estimate of the increased ultraviolet light dangers to American survivors of a large nuclear war equates these hazards to moving from San Francisco to sea level at the equator, where the sea level incidence of skin cancers (seldom fatal) is highest- about 10 times higher than the incidence at San Francisco. Many additional thousands of American survivors might get skin cancer, but little or no increase in skin cancers might result if in the post-attack world deliberate sun tanning and going around hatless went out of fashion. Furthermore, almost all of today’s warheads are smaller than those exploded in the large- weapons tests mentioned above; most would inject much smaller amounts of ozone-destroying gasses, or no gasses, into the stratosphere, where ozone deficiencies may persist for years. And nuclear weapons smaller than 500 kilotons result in increases (due to smog reactions) in upper tropospheric ozone. In a nuclear war, these increases would partially compensate for the upper-level tropospheric decreases-as explained by Julius S. Chang and Donald J. Wuebbles of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

Myth: Unsurvivable “nuclear winter” surely will follow a nuclear war. The world will be frozen if only 100 megatons (less than one percent of all nuclear weapons) are used to ignite cities. World-enveloping smoke from fires and the dust from surface bursts will prevent almost all sunlight and solar heat from reaching the earth’s surface. Universal darkness for weeks! Sub-zero temperatures, even in summertime! Frozen crops, even in the jungles of South America! Worldwide famine! Whole species of animals and plants exterminated! The survival of mankind in doubt!

°Facts: Unsurvivable “nuclear winter” is a discredited theory that, since its conception in 1982, has been used to frighten additional millions into believing that trying to survive a nuclear war is a waste of effort and resources, and that only by ridding the world of almost all nuclear weapons do we have a chance of surviving.

Non-propagandizing scientists recently have calculated that the climatic and other environmental effects of even an all-out nuclear war would be much less severe than the catastrophic effects repeatedly publicized by popular astronomer Carl Sagan and his fellow activist scientists, and by all the involved Soviet scientists. Conclusions reached from these recent, realistic calculations are summarized in an article, “Nuclear Winter Reappraised”, featured in the 1986 summer issue of Foreign Affairs, the prestigious quarterly of the Council on Foreign Relations. The authors, Starley L. Thompson and Stephen H. Schneider, are atmospheric scientists with the National Center for Atmospheric Research. They showed ” that on scientific grounds the global apocalyptic conclusions of the initial nuclear winter hypothesis can now be relegated to a vanishing low level of probability.”

fbazzrea's picture

regardless, nuclear war is undesirable. people will die. homes will be destroyed. nature will suffer. your supported theories may reveal hidden cracks. not a chance i want to take.

Hellery = war & destruction (profitable for her)

Trump = business & prosperity (profitable for us)

no brainer

Trump 2016!!


Got The Wrong No's picture

Gee Thanks, I feel much better now.  Bombs away

pine_marten's picture

If the electric grid goes down the nuke plants melt down.  The fuel pools burn.  Millions of tons of the worst kind of pollution released into the biosphere.

the edge of chaos's picture

well fuck..if thats all there is to it let em fly!!! fucking moron...

Jimmy Jimmereeno's picture

Excellent and detailed essay. 

Bottom line:  Buy an old Winnebago or a used shipping container.  Bury it in your backyard with 3 feet of dirt on top.  Install a simple air filtration system.  Stock up and hole up (for 72 hours or so) in the event of a nuclear strike.  Unless  one is in the immediate locus of a nuclear burst, that action should assure survival.

Go here to figure out your downwind vulnerability from a strike: