A New Era For Wind Power In The United States - Department Of: Fill & Download for Free

Seems like the Cold War is back in fashion againWhen did it start? What were its pivotal moments? How did it wind down? -Get some popcorn, queue up Cold War Music, and fasten your seat belts.​​​Japan's December 7, 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor was a defining moment not only for WWII, but also for the subsequent Cold War. This may seem shocking today, but even after the 1940 fall of France, the Battle of Britain and Germany's attempted (and failed) blitzkrieg in the USSR, the US public was neutral and did not favor sending troops overseas, or taking serious responsibility for the safety of major shipping routes far from North America. The US did not have a huge military and could not justify large military spending. This all changed on December 7, 1941 ("a date which will live in infamy"), and four days later Germany declared war against the United States.​​To be fair, the Roosevelt administration apparently anticipated the needed military build-up. The US also previously started economic help to the UK (seeing the British resolve in the Attack on Mers-el-Kébir) and to the Soviet Union. The Lend-Lease (which ramped up by the end of 1941) was a major effort to prop up the Soviet economy during the German onslaught and prevent the collapse of the Red army, while the Soviet industry was being relocated to the Ural mountains.When it became clear that the Axis (Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan) would not win the war, the Allies (US, UK and USSR) met at the 1943 Tehran Conference to plan ahead and outline how Europe could be partitioned into spheres of influence. This can be illustrated by the Percentages agreementThe Percentages agreement was an agreement between Soviet premier Joseph Stalin and British prime minister Winston Churchill during the Fourth Moscow Conference on October 1944, about how to divide various European countries into spheres of influence...Winston Churchill (not Stalin) proposed the agreement, under which the UK and USSR agreed to divide Europe into spheres of influence, with one country having "predominance" in one sphere, and the other country would have "predominance" in another sphere. According to Churchill's account of the incident, Churchill suggested that the Soviet Union should have 90 percent influence in Romania and 75 percent in Bulgaria; the United Kingdom should have 90 percent in Greece; and they should have 50 percent each in Hungary and Yugoslavia. Churchill wrote it on a piece of paper which he pushed across to Stalin, who ticked it off and passed it back. The result of these discussions was that the percentages of Soviet influence in Bulgaria and, more significantly, Hungary were amended to 80 percent. Churchill called it a "naughty document".Such political agreements were finalized at the 1945 Yalta Conference, including the partitioning of Berlin. However, the actual progress on the battlefield was still important. Among direct consequences of the Percentages agreement were the Tito–Stalin Split and the unique status that Yugoslavia enjoyed during the Cold War - under the communist party, but not a Soviet dependent and more free-market than the Eastern Europe.WWII did not end with the End of World War II in Europe. The US overwhelmed Japan in the Pacific, but wanted to avoid fighting in the Japanese mainland and the inevitable huge casualties. One of the instruments was the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but it did not seem to impress the Japanese Supreme Command (because the immediate destruction was comparable with the effects of massive American firebombings that occurred weekly). They were, however, impressed, by the Soviet invasion of Manchuria (violating the Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact and taking many Japanese prisoner), which was followed by the Surrender of Japan to the US. In the days after, the USSR quickly annexed South Sakhalin and the Kuril islands, to which Japan still lays claim.Winston Churchill, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Joseph Stalin may have looked like best friends at the Yalta Conference in February 1945. But they considered the peaceful coexistence of their countries to be impossible, for non-negotiable reasons.​​​​Even before the war ended, the Soviets deployed The Thing:Theremin's device was used by the Soviet Union to spy on the United States. The device was embedded in a carved wooden plaque of the Great Seal of the United States. On August 4, 1945, a delegation from theYoung Pioneer organization of the Soviet Union presented the bugged carving to U.S. Ambassador W. Averell Harriman, as a "gesture of friendship" to the USSR's World War II ally. It hung in the ambassador's Moscow residential study until it was exposed in 1952 during the tenure of Ambassador George F. Kennan. The existence of the bug was accidentally discovered by a British radio operator who overheard American conversations on an open radio channel as the Soviets were beaming radio waves at the ambassador's office. The Department of State found the device in the Great Seal carving after an exhaustive search of the American Embassy, and Peter Wright, a British scientist and later MI5 counterintelligence officer, eventually discovered how it worked.The Thing was demonstrated by the US to the United Nations in the 1960s.​​Such Cold War cat-and-mouse games continued for a long time, including the 1978 Bulgarian umbrella (KGB-assisted poisoning of Bulgarian exile Georgi Markov in London with a sharp umbrella tip). They were aptly captured by the numerous James Bond (agent 007) films, produced regularly since 1962.​​The UN was created in 1946 trying to address the failure of the League of Nations to stop WWII. A particularly important construct was the UN Security Council, with five permanent members - the USSR, the USA, China, the UK, and France - holding veto power. Ukraine and Belarus were included as founding UN members in recognition of their sacrifices in WWII, although Stalin wanted all Soviet Republics to be (voting) members. The creation of Israel by the UN quickly lead to wars between Israel and Arab neighbors. While the USSR initially supported the creation of Israel, it turned against it in several short years (as Stalin alleged the doctors' plot - Jewish doctors who were out to kill him), and instead supported Arab countries.The stability and prosperity in Europe today, as well as the creation of the European Union in the 1980s, are largely due to the Marshall PlanThe Marshall Plan (officially the European Recovery Program, ERP) was an American initiative to aid Europe, in which the United States gave $13 billion (approximately $130 billion in current dollar value as of August 2015) in economic support to help rebuild European economies after the end of World War II. The plan was in operation for four years beginning in April 1948. The goals of the United States were to rebuild war-devastated regions, remove trade barriers, modernize industry, make Europe prosperous again, and prevent the spread of communism.The Marshall Plan required a lessening of interstate barriers, a dropping of many petty regulations constraining business, and encouraged an increase in productivity, labour union membership, as well as the adoption of modern business procedures.The Chinese Communist Revolution (1949) was hugely significant for the Cold war, and was followed by the Korean War (1950-53), which was a major test for the UN, but ended roughly where it started, except for huge casualties and massive devastation. While the US withdrew most of its troops from Europe after WWII, the Korean war forced the US to re-evaluate its military posture and assume much greater responsibility for world security.The USSR matched the US nuclear weapons within four years (Soviet atomic bomb project), but the Cold war really started with the creation of NATO (1949) and the Warsaw Pact (1955). The Turkish Straits crisis led to Turkey's joining NATO in 1952. While on the surface, the military stand-off was between two military blocks, the Cold War was "fought" over the supremacy of the economic models - the USSR was building a communist society according to the teachings of Marx, Engels and Lenin, while the West was opening global trade and freeing the markets. With the war being "cold" (no direct fighting), the outcome would eventually be decided by economics.The US presidency of Dwight Eisenhower (1953-1961) - the supreme Allied Commander in Europe 1943-45 and, later, the military administrator of US-occupied Europe - undoubtedly contributed to the US posture during the Cold war and the Soviet perception of the US. He famously warned the public that the US military–industrial complex was getting strong enough to influence US foreign policy. The aggressive US foreign policy at the time can be illustrated by the successful 1953 Iranian coup d'état organized by the CIA and the botched 1961 Bay of Pigs Invasion, also organized by the CIA (in response to the Cuban Revolution in the mid 1950s). The USSR easily matched that by suppressing the Hungarian Revolution in 1956 and spearheading the Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 to suppress an anti-Communist uprising. This led to the Brezhnev Doctrine, the 1978 communist coup in Afghanistan which was about to fail, and the subsequent Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979.Joseph Stalin died in 1953. Soviet domestic and foreign policies became erratic. Lavrentiy Beria, responsible for the NKVD (the precursor of the KGB), holding the Eastern Europe in check, and also for organizing very successful weapon design labs in prison camps (including the development of nuclear weapons) was arrested and executed on trumped up charges of spying for foreign powers. Soviet leadership had enough of dictatorship rule and hoped to distribute power more evenly. This became clear at the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (1956), which was such a shock that several high-ranked members of the Communist Party committed suicide after Nikita Khrushchev's speech denouncing Stalin's cult of personality. In March 1958, Khruschev became the Soviet Prime minister - holding both the top party post and the top government post (like Stalin back in the day and Putin today). Stalin's cool approach to foreign policy and WWII-alliance with the US and the UK fell apart when Nikita Khrushchev threw a tantrum at the United Nations on October 12, 1960, using his infamous shoe to illustrate how the Soviets would deal with the capitalists.​​A major development in the 1950s was the post-war Decolonization, during which the numerous colonies of European powers in Africa and East Asia became independent countries. They were generally poor and lacked official ideologies, so the Soviet block and the US-lead block spared no effort (and money) trying to influence those "third-world" countries. They formed the Non-Aligned Movement in the 1960s, but did not escape major turbulence (e.g., Events in Latin America During the Cold War). Also see the List of conflicts related to the Cold War.By the mid 1950s, both the US and the USSR tested thermonuclear weapons, and the main remaining technology issue was the delivery systems.​The first Soviet satellite Sputnik 1 in 1957 and the first human in space (Yuri Gagarin on Vostok 1) were a shock for the US defense establishment because they clearly indicated the feasibility of Intercontinental ballistic missiles and the apparent technological supremacy of the Soviet Union.​​The US response was a huge increase of their R&D funding, as well as a commitment to a mission to the Moon (Apollo program). While the US easily matched first Soviet space missions, the USSR was unable to send a man to the Moon, despite well-funded attempts.​​The US and the USSR started building numerous Strategic bombers, Intercontinental ballistic missiles and Nuclear submarines, starting the enormously expensive Nuclear arms race. Prompted by the fear that the USSR was far ahead in strike weapons (the Bomber gap and the Missile gap), the US developed the Lockheed U-2 that could fly over the USSR and other countries, beyond the reach of fighter planes and air-defense missiles (for a few years).​​​Those overflights triggered two quintessential Cold-war events - the 1960 U-2 incident, where Francis Gary Powers was shot down over the USSR and captured, as well as the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, where a U-2 detected Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba (deployed in response to US nuclear missiles in Turkey). The US responded with a naval blockade of Cuba. The Berlin Crisis of 1961 was another hallmark of the Cold war, resulting in the iconic Berlin Wall. The 1956 Suez Crisis, in which France and the UK sided withIsrael and overpowered Egypt, pushed Arab powers to the Soviet camp.Three events in 1963-64 marked a calming period in the Cold warthe Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treatythe assassination of John F. Kennedythe dismissal of Nikita Khrushchev.By that point, the USSR started experiencing serious economic problems, and apparently the coup against Khrushchev was prompted by his inapt economic policies. He was replaced by Leonid Brezhnev who ruled until his death in 1982. Today, Brezhnev is best remembered for his senility and slurred speech, for having a chest full of medals (many awarded by sycophants and himself), and for presiding over the Era of Stagnation in the 1970s.The calm was relative, given that Britain, France and China developed nuclear weapons of their own by the early 1960s and were busy with frequent tests. The lull in the Cold War was shattered in 1967, when, during the Six-Day War, US-supported Israel had seized the Gaza Strip, the Sinai Peninsula, the West Bank (of the Joran river) and the Golan Heights, growing its territory threefold. The USSR broke diplomatic relations with Israel and blocked all emigration by Jews to Israel. The Arab countries responded by the 1967 Oil Embargo to pressure the economies of oil-importing Western countries. This was followed by the 1973 oil crisis when OPEC cut oil exports (tripling the price of oil in the US) and the 1979 energy crisis caused by the reduction of oil exports after the Iranian Revolution (which was a surprise to both superpowers).​​The Vietnam War heated up in the early 1970s - initially a proxy war between North Vietnam (supported by China and the USSR) and the South Vietnam, it escalated with the direct involvement of the US. The USSR responded by sending advanced weapons systems, especially MiG fighters and very effective air defense, which surprised US forces. The US public, especially university students, protested against US participation and undermined domestic support for the war, which wasn't proceeding well anyway. The US withdrew, essentially losing the war.Anti-Vietnam protests at UC Berkeley:​​While oil prices grew sharply in the 1970s, the USSR ramped up oil exports and laid a network of pipelines toward Europe. This was later followed by a network of gas pipelines - first to Soviet cities, then to Eastern Europe, then to Germany. This brought mega-profits and propped up the Soviet economy, which showed clear signs of trouble. The leadership interpreted this as a great success of the socialist system, and Brezhnev announced in 1971 that the USSR reached the stage of developed socialism, on the way to building a true communist society.The Sino-Soviet split occurred in the 1960s, apparently on ideological grounds, leading to the Sino-Soviet border conflict in 1969. To some extent, this contributed to the US Rapprochement with China and Nixon's visit to China in 1972.The Cold War slowed down for a few years in the mid 1970s, marking joint US-Soviet space exploration (the Apollo–Soyuz Test Project).​​​​In the meantime, the USSR, flush with oil profits, embarked on a major rearmament program. Once again, the Cold War was all about whose economic and political model was stronger, whose science and engineering were better, and whose athletes won more olympic medals. Chess championships were particularly closely watched because having a world champion lead to claims of intellectual superiority (Chess the musical).​During the presidency of Jimmy Carter, who was considered weak on foreign policy and defense, the 1979 Iranian Revolution deprived the USA of a close (albeit corrupted) ally in the Middle East. It was exacerbated by the Iran hostage crisis and soon followed by the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the lengthy Soviet–Afghan War. The immediate US response was surprisingly strong. It included a boycot of the 1980 olympic games in Moscow, and a ban on high-technology exports including advanced computers (The Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan and the U.S. Response, 1978-1980). But this paled in comparison to the strategic response that unfurled over the next ten years. Ronald Reagan won the elections with his platform of strength, dramatically increased military spending, and set to deal with the USSR much more aggressively. The US mended relations with the Saudi Arabia and ensured more than sufficient oil production which resulted in the 1980s oil glut and gradually undermined the Soviet economy (which was in the Era of Stagnation, and only held up by oil revenues). The CIA organized armed resistance to the Soviet occupation and covertly provided air-defense weapons that shot down hundreds of Soviet aircraft (Launching the Missile That Made History). The recruitment and training was largely handled by Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaeda organization.​​The death of Leonid Brezhnev in 1982 was somewhat of a shock for the USSR, as this has not happened since the 1953 death of Joseph Stalin. The leadership was so old that the next two general secretaries of the Communist Party (Yuri Andropov and Konstantin Chernenko) died within several years. They were followed by Mikhail Gorbachev in 1985, who was younger and selected as a reformist, given the apparent decline of the Soviet economy.Top Soviet leaders, left to right: Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Andropov, Chernenko and Gorbachev.​​Throughout the 1980s, the gears of the US response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and Reagan's aggressive policies were turning. When the USSR shot down the Korean Air Lines Flight 007 and denied responsibility, Reagan (a movie actor by trade) publicly called the USSR the Evil empire. Later that year, NATO held comprehensive ten-year military exercise Able Archer 83, which was interpreted by the USSR as a preparation for an all-out attack - 1983 Soviet nuclear false alarm incident.In 1985, Mikhail Gorbachev started a course toward broad reforms in the Soviet Union, but the economy was rotten, the agriculture did not produce enough food, and the military spending was high. The terrible 1986 Chernobyl nuclear-plant disaster was a major loss of face for the USSR - in terms of science, technology, industry, economics and even politically (showing the ineptitude of high officials).​​With their economy deteriorating and oil revenues dwindling, the USSR started taking on considerable debt, much of it to buy agricultural products in the US. Due to belt-tightening, Soviet Union withdrew from Afghanistan in 1988. In the meantime, the resistance to the Soviet control of Eastern Europe was increasing. The Polish trade union Solidarity spearheaded this resistance, to the point where the USSR was massing troops near the Polish border. The invasion was essentially prevented by the financial dependence on the West, and allowing Poland to hold its first presidential elections won by Lech Wałęsa (the leader of Solidarity). With Poland becoming unfriendly to the Soviet Union, the presence of Soviet troops in Eastern Germany was a no-go. The Eastern Germans started marching against the Soviet rule, and the 1990s German reunification was negotiated by the Western German leadership with Gorbachev. The Berlin Wall fell.​​​Czechoslovakia and Hungary freed themselves of the Communist rule at about the same time, with surprisingly little drama. Romania was a little late to the game, but caught up quickly with the brutal killing of its long-time communist leader Nicolae Ceaușescu. It turned out that the official data on total support for the Communist parties and their leaders in Eastern Europe was fake.Next up was the Soviet Union itself. With the increasing Soviet Food Shortages and protests, the security services weakened and the centrifugal forces increased. Watching the events in Poland, Czechoslovakia and E. Germany, the three small Baltic republics annexed by the USSR in 1940 took a firm course toward independence, which they achieved de facto in early 1991 with surprisingly little violence (several dozen dead) - perhaps because the Soviet leadership was under pressure from the West. In the meantime, the prevailing mood in Russia was "let's stop feeding other republics", and Boris Yeltsin took matters in his hands, confronting his mentor Gorbachev and declaring the independence of the Russian Federation from the Soviet Union. The Dissolution of the Soviet Union was accelerated by the August 1991 Soviet coup d'état attempt organized by the KGB bosses when Gorbachev was on vacation in Crimea. This attempt was quashed, with Yeltsin's help, and the Communist party was banned in Russia for several years. Tanks were introduced into Moscow to keep order.​​Ukraine - the second most powerful Soviet republic - declared independence at about the same time (August 1991), and the independence of the three Baltic states was officially recognized by Russia. Other republics followed, and the dissolution of the USSR was finalized by the December 1991 Belavezha Accords.In the aftermath, the post-Soviet space saw economic collapse for the next few days. Countries that were propped by the USSR, such as Cuba, lost their support. The US and Western Europe were able to dramatically reduce military spending and troop counts in Europe, while providing some financial help to Russia and other ex-Soviet countries. The countries of Eastern Europe mostly joined the EU and NATO. Perhaps, the greatest beneficiary of the Cold War was China - starting with Deng Xiaoping, it managed to avoid the destructive influences of the Cold War and maneuver between the two superpowers, while growing its economy.Surprising as it may seem, the outcome of the Cold War is viewed differently in Russia and everywhere else. The US, and most of Europe view the dissolution of the Warsaw pact and the Soviet Union as the natural consequence of its misguided economic policies, militarism, and undemocratic governance. However, current Russian leaders consider those events accidental and blame them on individual leaders like Gorbachev (sometimes calling them traitors).Rather than acknowledge the loss of the Cold War, Russian media is quick to put the blame on the US for Russia's troubled economy in the 1990s (forgetting that the US provided food to Russia for many years, as well as military assistance and even contracts to the Russian space industry to keep it afloat). Key themes in modern Russian politics are "Russia's getting from her knees" and "forcing the US to treat Russia as equal" - nothing sinister on the surface, but the main means to achieve these results is not a strong, reformed economy, but a massive rearmament, including the development of new nuclear weapons, missiles, submarines, tanks and fighter planes. So, are we up for a replay of the Cold War? - not really, because Russia is a shadow of the former USSR, whereas Europe is more united than ever before, and the Western block is much larger than it was during the Cold War. Nevertheless, a replay of the last ten years of the Cold War is looking increasingly likely. In particular, Russian paranoia about NATO betrays the lack of a crisp idea behind which the nation can unite, or at least a compelling vision of the country's future - this is the real crisis, and has nothing to do with other countries.Did I get anything wrong? Miss something important? - I would have loved to include the Iran–Iraq War (since all key Cold-war players were involved), but had to draw a line somewhere.For more details, see the Wikipedia article on the Cold War .

How destructive is the World's nuclear arsenal? A topic prone to extreme exaggeration and conjecture with little reliance on the facts.The destructive force of all the world's nuclear weapons is a fraction of what it once was. Surprisingly quietly, the USA and Russia have dismantled over 50,000 nuclear weapons over the past 30 years. The nuclear materials from these bombs and other stockpiles of weapons grade materials, was recycled and used in nuclear power generation over the past 20 years. [1][1][1][1] A fact that few may be aware of, the situation actually crashed the uranium market in the early 2000’s. The glut of available fuel brought the open market trading value down from $20 dollars a pound to near $2 per pound at that time. So a lot has changed from the time when many of us can remember the very real threat of mutually assured destruction.Multi Megaton Weapons Now ObsoleteWhat has changed that the world no longer is building megaton weapons? The need for multi-megaton weapons was the result of low accuracy of warhead deliver on target…. we needed a sledgehammer approach to take out hardened targets and the way that was done was through very high yield bombs >=5 mt typically. The average nuclear weapon size today in 2016 is about 443kt at full yield but a large portion of those bombs can be adjusted in the field to a very small fraction of their potential yield.Today the accuracy of on target delivery has massively improved ..we hit what we aim for. This means we need less hammer to do the same job. In the 1980’s the development of earth penetrating rounds was another game changer. Not only were we on target but now we could penetrate hundreds of feet of earth and concrete before detonating the warhead. This allowed a 100 kt weapon to do the damage of a >1 mt surface detonation. This is the primary method now for targeting hardened targets and is the final driver for smaller yield bombs.The net effect of the use of EPW’s (Earth Penetrating Weapons) is a reduction in the number of casualties as compared with the number of casualties from a surface burst. This is primarily due to a 96% reduction in the weapon yield needed using an EPW. The greater coupling of the released energy to the ground shock for a buried detonation is the same as a surface burst with 25 times the explosive energy. For rural targets, the use of a nuclear earth-penetrator weapon is estimated to reduce casualties by a factor of 10 to 100 relative to a nuclear surface burst of equivalent probability of damage.[2][2][2][2]War room from Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964)A Common Story: “There are enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world many times over.” This is nothing more than poorly crafted fiction an urban legend. This common conclusion isn't based in any factual data. It is based solely in hype, hysteria, propaganda and fear mongering.If you take every weapon in existence today, approximately 6500 megatons between 15,000 warheads with an average yield of 433 kt, [3][3][3][3] and put a single bomb in its own 100 square mile grid… one bomb per grid (10 miles x 10 miles), you will contain >95% of the destructive force of each bomb on average within the grid it is in. [4][4][4][4] This means the total landmass to receive a destructive force from all the world's nuclear bombs is an area of 1.5 million square miles. Not quite half of the United States and 1/38 of the world's total land mass…. thats it!In truth it would be far less. A higher concentration of detonations would take place over military targets and would be likely 10–30 times greater in concentration over those areas. [5][5][5][5] If they were used in war it is unlikely more than 40% would get used even in a total war situation. So the actual area of intense destruction in a nuclear war is somewhere between 150,000 and 300,000 square miles or 1/384 to 1/192 of the worlds land mass.You win wars by taking out the opposing teams ability to make war, not their population centers. The arsenals of today are just enough to cover military objectives. There would be no wholesale war against civilians. That is just more fear mongering and Hollywood story telling.milliseconds after a detonation the bombs heat is conducted faster down the scaffolding support cables making these erie tentacles (called rope tricks). Contrary to most beliefs, the majority of the scaffolding often remains. Broken and thrown asunder after the detonation, the scaffolding will be scattered but it does not always vaporize.Continued from aboveThese numbers are easily verifiable, and they are right. So many have bought into the endless rhetoric of the world shattering destructiveness and the inevitable end of civilization scenarios that they can no longer be objective or analytical as they have put their beliefs in front of rational thinking. I find this true even with most scientists. I challenge anyone to just do the math …it is easy.Fallout is a short lived problem in most places.Using the 7/10 rule of exponential radionuclide decay, after just 49 days the radiation will be 1/10,000 the level it was an hour after the bombs went off and after a year and a half the radiation will have dropped below 1/100,000 of that initial level. The majority of bombs would be airburst which create little to no fallout which significantly reduces these dangers.[6][6][6][6]Where are you safest from fallout?A regular cellar isn't much better than being outside. A good fallout shelter has a rating of 1000, meaning it reduces your exposure to the fallout outside by a factor of 1000. A typical basement is only rated at a 10 which means you're dead if you are in the path of some major fallout.Places rated at a 1000 or higher:a sub-basement (basement under a basement) you need at least 6 feet of dirt over your head to protect you from all forms of radiation.the second level below street level of a concrete reinforced parking garage (obviously that also can be closed off at the entrance as well)the inner windowless rooms on the 4th floor or higher in a highrise building (always leave at least 2 floors above you before the roof.According to FEMA these are your best bets. Whatever gives you the greatest distance from the source of the radiation is your best option. If none of these examples are available you just need to apply that distance guideline and some common sense.[7][7][7][7] [8][8][8][8]Plan on being there at least 2 weeks and perhaps a monthA problem of scaleNuclear weapons are puny on the scale of things in nature. They may be impressive to man but they mean nothing to nature. A typical hurricane releases more energy than all the world's nuclear weapons combined in its brief lifetime. At its peak, a severe storm may have a total power near to 10^15 Watts: about 3,000 times the total electrical power generated in the world. This is equivalent to exploding 500,000 Hiroshima bombs per day. [9][9][9][9]The Chisholm Fire, a man-caused forest fire in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada in 2001 released the equivalent energy of 1200 Hiroshima atomic bombs or 18 megatons. [10][10][10][10]Large forest fires release hundreds to 10’s of 1,000’s the times of energy of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Forest fires release on the order of 1 megawatt per second per acre of fire area, a staggering number. [11][11][11][11] Its a perspective and scale issue… man doesn't have a chance in challenging nature.Another comparison of scale is the Chicxulub impact event which is thought to be the cause of the dinosaur extinction 65 million years ago. That impact released over 100,000,000 megatons of energy or over 15,300 times the world total nuclear arsenal without dramatically changing the climate in the long term.[12][12][12][12]How destructive is the worlds nuclear arsenals … as it relates to a possible war between Russia and the USA. A real world risk assessment.Since the early 2000’s there have been numerous scholarly papers written about an American nuclear and conventional weapons primacy and the end of MAD (Mutually Assured destruction)[13][13][13][13] [14][14][14][14] These papers suggest that the USA has such an advantage technologically that we now possess a first strike capability and that there isn't a credible threat to US dominance in the world today or in the upcoming decade. The underlying message is that the unthinkable is becoming thinkable.[15][15][15][15] That military planners may consider the use of local in theater nuclear strikes. Some say the risk of a nuclear exchange has never been greater.[16][16][16][16][17][17][17][17]So how would a war between Russia and the USA unfold in 2016 in a scenario of sudden escalation? There have been many relevant changes in how we posture our nuclear arsenals. In the event of a war breaking out and going nuclear there is one key difference than in the past. The majority of the available nuclear weapons have been taken off high alert. This creates a natural pause that would occur between a strike using high alert strategic assets and mobilization of non alert tactical assets. The strategic assets that would be used will include ICBM’s and SLBM’s, but not all of them. The USA and Russia, per our current treaty agreement, should have no more than 1550 warheads each in this category, all of them considerably less than 1 megaton (80–800kt typical).[18][18][18][18]In the USA it is estimated that approximately 1,930 warheads are deployed of which roughly 1,750 strategic warheads are deployed on ballistic missiles and at bomber bases in the United States. Another 180 tactical bombs are deployed in Europe. The remaining approximately 2,740 warheads – more than 58% – are in storage as a so-called hedge against technical or geopolitical surprises. Many of those are scheduled to be retired before 2030. In addition to the warheads in the Defense Department stockpile, approximately 2,340 retired, but still intact, warheads are in storage under the custody of the Energy Department and awaiting dismantlement, for a total US inventory of roughly 6,970 warheads. As of 1 September 2015, the United States reported that its nuclear arsenal contained 1,538 strategic warheads attributed to 762 deployed missiles and bombers on high alert– a decrease of 105 warheads and 30 launchers compared with a year ago.[19][19][19][19]Russia, as of early 2016, is estimated to have a stockpile of approximately 4500 nuclear warheads assigned for use by long-range strategic launchers and shorter-range tactical nuclear forces. Of these, roughly 1800 strategic warheads are deployed on missiles and at bomber bases on high alert. Another 700 strategic warheads are in storage along with nearly 2000 nonstrategic warheads. In addition to the military stockpile for operational forces, a large number – perhaps 2800 – of retired but still largely intact warheads await dismantlement for a total inventory of 7300 warheads. With its total inventory of roughly 550 deployed strategic launchers out of the 1550 warheads that is allowed by treaty, 768 warheads are on SLBM’s with a total yield of less than 70mt. Russia is already well below the limit of 700 set by New START for February 2018.[20][20][20][20]You may not be able to use any weapons in your active stockpile that wasn’t already deployed in the field. Since the USA no longer keeps large quantities of nukes in the field, you won't use up your strategic assets in the first exchange. The nukes that used to be kept on alert in the field have been removed from the Navy’s surface fleet and the Air Force’s available active weapons. These nukes would have to be staged from inventory first and then loaded onto vehicles. This will take some extra time. Knowing that these locations will be the first targets of a nuclear strike, time is one thing either side wont have available to spare.War on Civilians?With a limited resource of strategic warheads on high alert, you can be assured that the initial targeting is going to be all the hard military assets. Neither side is going to have the assets available for a long shopping list. ICBM’s are seen as a use it or lose it asset. If you don't use them they will be taken out in a major strike. Both the USA and Russia would put a high priority to get all the missiles launched as quickly as possible. Most SLBM’s would be held in reserve though they would still see some launched at command and control assets as the first volley in any war.After the Korean war the U.S. Army’s revised the field manual on the law of land warfare introduced a new statement that expressed as doctrine the growing importance of intention. The revised 1956 manual said, “It is a generally recognized rule of international law that civilians must not be made the object of attack directed exclusively against them.” Previous army manuals had left this rule unexpressed. As a subculture, military professionals may have placed even more emphasis on their intentions not to harm noncombatants even in the face of widespread civilian deaths. While the sources make it difficult to assess the personal sentiments of officers and soldiers about civilian casualties during the Korean War, it is not hard to believe that many in private did not want to think of themselves as waging war against defenseless civilians.[21][21][21][21]Military Doctrine is to minimize civilian casualties not take out the citiesThe committee notes that although some scenarios show substantial nuclear-radiation-induced fatalities, military operational guidance is to attack targets in ways to minimize collateral effects. Calculated numbers of fatalities to be expected from an attack on an HDBT might be reduced by operational planning and employment tactics. Assuming that other strategic considerations permit, the operational commander could warn of a nuclear attack on an HDBT or could time such an attack to take advantage of wind conditions that would reduce expected casualties from acute and latent effects of fallout by factors of up to 100, assuming that the wind conditions were known well enough and were stable and that defenses against the attack could not be mobilized. However, a nuclear weapon burst in a densely populated urban environment will always result in a large number of casualties.[22][22][22][22]MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) has never been an accepted strategy in the military.Even today (2001), however, much discussion of MAD misses one central point: It is not the prime nuclear doctrine of the United States. For more than 30 years, increases in the size, accuracy, and sophistication of the US nuclear arsenal have reduced Mutual Assured Destruction to the status of one among many competing national strategic options.Perhaps any exchange of warheads between nuclear powers would escalate, inevitably, to total war and obliteration of both nations. That is what McNamara fervently believes to this day.However, the US military believes in preparing other, more flexible, strategic plans. Anything less would be an abdication of duty, says Gen. Russell E. Dougherty, a former commander in chief of the Air Force's Strategic Air Command."I don't think Mutual Assured Destruction was ever a military-espoused doctrine," says Dougherty.From a force planner point of view, MAD is a minimalist approach. It requires only that the American nuclear arsenal have enough warheads after any surprise first strike to destroy any opponent's population centers and civilian industry.The Air Force, by contrast, favors a larger and more complicated force structure capable of riding out a first strike and then retaliating against elusive, hardened military targets.[23][23][23][23]"Our philosophy has always been counterforce," says Dougherty. "Force is what hurts us. Find his force, and dis-enable it or denude it."“Riding the bomb” a scene from Dr Strangelove. The world has changed a lot or has it? General Ripper can be substituted with a rogue nuclear state in 2016.Continued from aboveAfter the Initial StrikeThis is where the natural pause after launching your strategic assets will come in handy. Cooler minds will hopefully be clammering for a cease fire.In a real world situation today, it is likely that both sides would see massive losses of their strategic, tactical and reserve nuclear weapons stockpiles as a result of not having these weapons on high alert. The military would be scrambling to get these assets staged and mounted on delivery vehicles with less than an hour of working time, more likely less than 30 minutes. Very few tactical assets would make it out into the field before that area is hammered by dozens of warheads. As a result, any war will see only a fraction of the prewar quantity of warheads actually get used. I would bet that both sides would lose at least 50% in the first strikes. The challenge here is that civilian casualties will always be high due to the close proximity of nuclear assets to population centers.The known locations of nuclear weapons stores at 111 locations in 14 countries, according to an overview produced by FAS and NRDC.Russia: Nearly 1,000 nuclear weapons surround Saratov. Russia has an estimated 48 permanent nuclear weapon storage sites, of which more than half are on bases for operational forces. There are approximately 19 storage sites, of which about half are national-level storage facilities. In addition, a significant number of temporary storage sites occasionally store nuclear weapons in transit between facilities. This is a significant consolidation from the estimated 90 Russian sites ten years ago, and more than 500 sites before 1991.Many of the Russian sites are in close proximity to each other and large populated areas. One example is the Saratov area where the city is surrounded by a missile division, a strategic bomber base, and a national-level storage site with probably well over 1,000 nuclear warheads combined.There is considerable uncertainty about the number of Russian nuclear weapons storage sites, for several reasons. First, the Russian government provides almost no information about its nuclear warhead storage program. Second, Western governments say very little about what they know.Moreover, estimates vary on what constitutes a “storage site;” some count each fenced storage bunker as a site, even though there may be several individually fenced bunkers within a larger storage complex.We count each storage complex as one site or storage location and estimate that Russia today stores nuclear weapons permanently at 40 domestic locations. This is a slight reduction from our 2009 estimate, but a significant reduction from the 100 sites in the late-1990s, 250 sites in the mid-1990s, and 500 sites in 1991.Although the Russian government provides almost no public information about its nuclear weapons storage program, it has occasionally made declarations. For example, at the 2010 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, Russia declared that “the total number of nuclear weapons storage facilities has been reduced fourfold” since 1991 (Russian Federation, 2010a: At the same event, the Russian delegation distributed a publication stating that “ Russian non-strategic nuclear weapons are concentrated in centralized storage bases exclusively ob the national territory” (Russian Federation, 2010b: Moreover, twice a year under the terms of New START, the Kremlin hands over a detailed list of its strategic force deployments to the US government. Unfortunately, the list is secret.There is also uncertainty about the status of many nuclear weapon systems, including what constitutes “non-strategic” weapons. For example, medium-range Tu-22M3 Backfire bombers are sometimes described by Russians as more than tactical, but they are not considered strategic in arms control agreements signed by Russia. Consequently, this notebook considers the Tu-22M3 and all other weapons not covered by New START to be non-strategic and to be covered by the Russian declarations that all non-strategic nuclear warheads have been placed in central storage.Russian permanent nuclear weapon storage locations fall into three main categories: operational warheads at Strategic Rocket Force, navy and air force bases; non-strategic and reserve/retired warheads at national-level storage sites; and warheads at assembly/disassembly factories.The storage locations for operational warheads include 11 ICBM fields and garrisons, two nuclear submarine bases, and two heavy bomber bases. The national-level storage sites include 12 separate storage sites, although the status of a few of these is unclear. The warhead production complexes also have warhead storage facilities. [24][24][24][24]The United States in 2014 stores nuclear weapons at 18 sites, including 12 sites in 11 states in the United States and another six sites in five European countries. At the end of the Cold War, the United States maintained thousands of nuclear weapons outside of its borders on land and on the high seas.In 2014 the United States has further consolidated its nuclear weapons into fewer sites. Most significant is the apparent termination of nuclear weapons storage at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada, which only a decade ago contained one of the world’s largest concentrations of nuclear weapons. Similarly, nuclear weapons have been removed from Barksdale Air Force Base, one of three remaining heavy bomber bases,4 and from all tactical fighter-bomber bases in the continental United States. All Air Force nuclear warheads are now stored at five locations: three intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) bases (F. E. Warren, Malmstrom, Minot), two bomber bases (Minot, Whiteman), and one central storage facility, Kirtland Underground Munitions Storage Complex (KUMSC).The last naval non-strategic nuclear weapon system—the Tomahawk land-attack cruise missile (TLAM/N)—was eliminated in 2012. The weapons were stored at the Strategic Weapons Facilities at Bangor in Washington and at Kings Bay in Georgia, the only two remaining naval nuclear weapons storage sites.The United States is the only nuclear-armed state that deploys nuclear weapons in other countries. Approximately 180 non-strategic nuclear bombs are stored in underground vaults beneath 87 aircraft shelters at six bases in five European countries (Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey) for delivery by US and NATO fighter-bombers. [25][25][25][25]Approximately 50 B61 (variable yield bomb 0.3 to 340 kiloton) nuclear bombs inside an igloo at what might be Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada. Seventy-five igloos at Nellis store “one of the largest stockpile in the free world,” according to the U.S. Air Force, one of four central storage sites in the United States.Continued from aboveThere is little comfort in this scenario other than the scope of a real nuclear war would likely only involve a fraction of the world's nuclear arsenals, perhaps 1/3 of the world total at most and that a natural pause in the hostilities early on might prevent it from being even that much. It isn't much and it shouldn't make you happy as we are on the verge of going backwards it seems. I am just calling a spade a spade here. This shouldn't be such a risk after making so much progress on disarmament, but it is.Projected US Casualties and Destruction of US Medical Services From Attacks by Russian Nuclear ForcesA 2002 study puts the US death toll from a strategic counterforce strike from the combined effects of blast, burns, and radiation, the attack by 2,000 warheads would cause 52 ± 2 million deaths and 9 ± 1 million injuries, even though it was primarily directed at military targets in sparsely populated areas. The goal of the first attack to recall, was to destroy US military, political, and economic targets. In the 2,000-warhead scenario, there were 660 air bursts, many of which had overlapping zones of mass fires and blast damage because the distances separating some of the targets were less than the diameter of the zones.In a second analysis a vengeance strike against countervalue targets (non-strategic population centers) In this second scenario, the US targets for 500 Russian nuclear weapons are chosen to maximize loss of life. If all 500 warheads detonated over their targets, a total of 132 million deaths and 8 million injuries are calculated to occur.The US Major Attack Options (MAO) in this first scenario assumes a Russian attack similar in target categories to a comprehensive US MAO, with 1,249 discrete targets, some receiving multiple warheads.[26][26][26][26]This 2002 study was made in a time when the world had twice as many nuclear weapons as we have today in 2016. The high alert weapons are fewer and have smaller yields in 2016. The list of high priority targets still remains high which means that there will be no available weapons for countervalue targets of population centers.This report intentionally emphasised a high casualty countervalue attack with the targets chosen for the highest loss of life. This was in response to a proposed National Missile Defense system which for some reason would mean the Russians would target civilians. I don't know why that is a logical conclusion. It really makes no sense and in the scenario in 2016 there isn't going to be strategic weapons available to do such a thing.All the strategic high alert Russian weapons will be aimed at the 1249 targets referenced in that study. In truth, the available weapons to cover this is insufficient to ensure all those targets are taken out. Using all 1800 high alert Russian warheads against 1249 targets only gives you a coverage of 1.4 warheads on a target. In the height of the cold war some targets had over 60 warheads assigned to them. While this is clearly overkill the ratio of 1.4 to 1 is not. It is unlikely that this force of missiles would be able to take out all the known targets as a result.The total military targets of the USA easily consumes all of Russia’s strategics weapons destructive power leaving zero weapons available for civilian targets.There are over 6000 military bases and military warehouses located in the U.S.A. These facilities include a total of 845,441 different buildings and equipments [27][27][27][27] with a total building area 2.1 billion square feet or 75 square miles.[28][28][28][28] The US also has over 800 bases in foreign lands. Adding to the bases inside U.S. territory, the total land area occupied by US military bases domestically within the US and internationally is of the order of TBD (in excess of 100,000 square miles - online numbers reported add up to more than the reported total), which makes the Pentagon one of the largest landowners worldwide.So while the destruction would be less and the cities would not be targeted, the 52 million dead is probably a reasonable figure since the us population has increased over 20% since the time of this report.Map of military facilities in the United States (full size here [29][29][29][29] )EMP EffectsIn the case of high altitude nuclear bursts, two main EMP types come into play, “fast pulse” and the “slow pulse.” The fast pulse EMP field is created by gamma ray interaction with stratospheric air molecules. It peaks at tens of kilovolts per meter in a few nanoseconds, and lasts for a few hundred nanoseconds. The broad-band frequency content of (0-1000 megahertz) enables it to couple to electrical and electronic systems in general, regardless of the length of their penetrating cables and antenna lines. Induced currents range into the 1,000s of amperes. The “slow pulse” EMP is caused by the distortion of the earth’s magnetic field lines due to the expanding nuclear fireball and rising of heated and ionized layers of the ionosphere.DoD has adopted protective priorities using commercial protective equipment. The Department of Defense (DoD) has experience in prioritizing and protecting systems since the 1960s. The DoD has prioritized and has protected selected systems against EMP (and, by similitude to E3, GMD effects). DoD places emphasis on protecting its strategic triad and associated command, control, communications, computer, and intelligence (C4I) systems.Nuclear EMP will burn out every exposed electronic system is FALSE. Based on DoD and Congressional EMP Commission’s EMP test data bases we know that smaller, self-contained systems that are not connected to long-lines tend not to be affected by EMP fields. Examples of such systems include vehicles, hand-held radios, and disconnected portable generators. If there is an effect on these systems, it is more often temporary upset rather than component burnout. [30][30][30][30]“The most probable effect of EMP on a modern nuclear power plant is an unscheduled shutdown. EMP may also cause an extended shutdown by the unnecessary activation of some safety-related systems. In general, EMP would be a nuisance to nuclear plants, but it is not considered a serious threat to plant safety. Counter-measures to minimize the effects of EMP have been recommended. Implementation of these recommendations would also increase the protection of the plant against damage by lightning, switching, and electromagnetic interference transients as well as general failures in electrical, control, and instrument power. “ [31][31][31][31]In SummarySo here is the bottom line. The countries involved, the USA and Russia, will live on and the vast majority of the world would remain untouched. I am not saying it would be pretty as it certainly would not. It would be an unprecedented catastrophe for the USA without a parallel. While Russia has lived through invasions and suffered 10’s of millions dead in WII this would surely exceed that as well. Between the two countries there would be 10’s of millions dead, a total of 150 million is certainly a possibility but even that number means hundreds of millions more survived and for the majority it would be imminently survivable.It would not be the end of man, the world, civilization and not even the end of our countries. All the hype and fear mongering is just that. It isn't hard to do a valid analysis for your own peace of mind.MAD or mutually assured destruction, as a strategy does not exist in 2016 . The above math makes that evident. MAD actually has never been the official accepted position of the USA or Russia. For most of the post cold war era the USA has adopted deterrence as our primary policy.[32][32][32][32] Evidence suggests that this may be changing. A more important epiphany than realizing MAD no longer applies would be to understand the impact of this new reality in the world's future political and military decisions. [33][33][33][33]Further detailed reading on this subject and an analysis debunking a nuclear winter Allen E Hall's answer to In a total nuclear exchange where the entire worlds arsenals are used, how long would the nuclear winter last and would we survive?In the News:Russia Withdraws From a Post-Cold War Nuclear DealU.S. Accuses Russia of Violating Missile TreatyRussia calls new U.S. missile defense system a ‘direct threat’Russia says US missile system breaches nuclear INF treaty - BBC NewsThe future of U.S.-Russian arms control | Brookings InstitutionThe LRSO: US Plans for Nuclear PrimacyNote: I make no claim that I an right… I only offer an analysis with considerations for details and data overlooked by others … sometimes intentionally. Please do your own due diligence and make an educated determination for yourself. Feel free to challenge my analysis, I welcome opposing views.Footnotes[1] Against Long Odds, MIT’s Thomas Neff Hatched a Plan to Turn Russian Warheads into American Electricity[1] Against Long Odds, MIT’s Thomas Neff Hatched a Plan to Turn Russian Warheads into American Electricity[1] Against Long Odds, MIT’s Thomas Neff Hatched a Plan to Turn Russian Warheads into American Electricity[1] Against Long Odds, MIT’s Thomas Neff Hatched a Plan to Turn Russian Warheads into American Electricity[2] The National Academies Press[2] The National Academies Press[2] The National Academies Press[2] The National Academies Press[3] https://fas.org/issues/nuclear-weapons/nuclear-notebook/[3] https://fas.org/issues/nuclear-weapons/nuclear-notebook/[3] https://fas.org/issues/nuclear-weapons/nuclear-notebook/[3] https://fas.org/issues/nuclear-weapons/nuclear-notebook/[4] NUKEMAP[4] NUKEMAP[4] NUKEMAP[4] NUKEMAP[5] Overkill Is Not Dead[5] Overkill Is Not Dead[5] Overkill Is Not Dead[5] Overkill Is Not Dead[6] The 7:10 Rule of Thumb[6] The 7:10 Rule of Thumb[6] The 7:10 Rule of Thumb[6] The 7:10 Rule of Thumb[7] https://www.ready.gov/sites/default/files/shelter.txt[7] https://www.ready.gov/sites/default/files/shelter.txt[7] https://www.ready.gov/sites/default/files/shelter.txt[7] https://www.ready.gov/sites/default/files/shelter.txt[8] Nuclear Blast | Ready.gov[8] Nuclear Blast | Ready.gov[8] Nuclear Blast | Ready.gov[8] Nuclear Blast | Ready.gov[9] What is Physics Good For?[9] What is Physics Good For?[9] What is Physics Good For?[9] What is Physics Good For?[10] http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/6/5247/2006/acp-6-5247-2006.pdf[10] http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/6/5247/2006/acp-6-5247-2006.pdf[10] http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/6/5247/2006/acp-6-5247-2006.pdf[10] http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/6/5247/2006/acp-6-5247-2006.pdf[11] The Nuclear Imperative[11] The Nuclear Imperative[11] The Nuclear Imperative[11] The Nuclear Imperative[12] The KT extinction[12] The KT extinction[12] The KT extinction[12] The KT extinction[13] http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/isec.2006.30.4.7[13] http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/isec.2006.30.4.7[13] http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/isec.2006.30.4.7[13] http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/isec.2006.30.4.7[14] https://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/a9324932-a61c-4ad4-9626-8e9978b455f7/Johnson-Freese-and-Nichols.aspx[14] https://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/a9324932-a61c-4ad4-9626-8e9978b455f7/Johnson-Freese-and-Nichols.aspx[14] https://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/a9324932-a61c-4ad4-9626-8e9978b455f7/Johnson-Freese-and-Nichols.aspx[14] https://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/a9324932-a61c-4ad4-9626-8e9978b455f7/Johnson-Freese-and-Nichols.aspx[15] Rethinking the Unthinkable[15] Rethinking the Unthinkable[15] Rethinking the Unthinkable[15] Rethinking the Unthinkable[16] A Nuclear Conflict with Russia is Likelier Than You Think[16] A Nuclear Conflict with Russia is Likelier Than You Think[16] A Nuclear Conflict with Russia is Likelier Than You Think[16] A Nuclear Conflict with Russia is Likelier Than You Think[17] http://www.frstrategie.org/publications/notes/web/documents/2016/201601.pdf[17] http://www.frstrategie.org/publications/notes/web/documents/2016/201601.pdf[17] http://www.frstrategie.org/publications/notes/web/documents/2016/201601.pdf[17] http://www.frstrategie.org/publications/notes/web/documents/2016/201601.pdf[18] https://fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/R41219.pdf[18] https://fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/R41219.pdf[18] https://fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/R41219.pdf[18] https://fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/R41219.pdf[19] http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00963402.2016.1145901[19] http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00963402.2016.1145901[19] http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00963402.2016.1145901[19] http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00963402.2016.1145901[20] http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00963402.2016.1170359[20] http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00963402.2016.1170359[20] http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00963402.2016.1170359[20] http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00963402.2016.1170359[21] http://www.globalresearch.ca/americas-ethics-of-bombing-civilians-after-world-war-ii-massive-casualties-and-the-targeting-civilians-in-the-korean-war/5402007[21] http://www.globalresearch.ca/americas-ethics-of-bombing-civilians-after-world-war-ii-massive-casualties-and-the-targeting-civilians-in-the-korean-war/5402007[21] http://www.globalresearch.ca/americas-ethics-of-bombing-civilians-after-world-war-ii-massive-casualties-and-the-targeting-civilians-in-the-korean-war/5402007[21] http://www.globalresearch.ca/americas-ethics-of-bombing-civilians-after-world-war-ii-massive-casualties-and-the-targeting-civilians-in-the-korean-war/5402007[22] The National Academies Press[22] The National Academies Press[22] The National Academies Press[22] The National Academies Press[23] Air Force Magazine[23] Air Force Magazine[23] Air Force Magazine[23] Air Force Magazine[24] Worldwide deployments of nuclear weapons, 2014[24] Worldwide deployments of nuclear weapons, 2014[24] Worldwide deployments of nuclear weapons, 2014[24] Worldwide deployments of nuclear weapons, 2014[25] Worldwide deployments of nuclear weapons, 2014[25] Worldwide deployments of nuclear weapons, 2014[25] Worldwide deployments of nuclear weapons, 2014[25] Worldwide deployments of nuclear weapons, 2014[26] http://www.ippnw.org/pdf/mgs/7-2-helfand.pdf[26] http://www.ippnw.org/pdf/mgs/7-2-helfand.pdf[26] http://www.ippnw.org/pdf/mgs/7-2-helfand.pdf[26] http://www.ippnw.org/pdf/mgs/7-2-helfand.pdf[27] http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-worldwide-network-of-us-military-bases/5564[27] http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-worldwide-network-of-us-military-bases/5564[27] http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-worldwide-network-of-us-military-bases/5564[27] http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-worldwide-network-of-us-military-bases/5564[28] http://www.gsa.gov/graphics/ogp/FY_2010_FRPP_Report_Final.pdf[28] http://www.gsa.gov/graphics/ogp/FY_2010_FRPP_Report_Final.pdf[28] http://www.gsa.gov/graphics/ogp/FY_2010_FRPP_Report_Final.pdf[28] http://www.gsa.gov/graphics/ogp/FY_2010_FRPP_Report_Final.pdf[29] Image on wikimedia.org[29] Image on wikimedia.org[29] Image on wikimedia.org[29] Image on wikimedia.org[30] https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Baker-Statement-5-13-EMP.pdf[30] https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Baker-Statement-5-13-EMP.pdf[30] https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Baker-Statement-5-13-EMP.pdf[30] https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Baker-Statement-5-13-EMP.pdf[31] Effects of nuclear electromagnetic pulse (EMP) on nuclear power plants (Technical Report)[31] Effects of nuclear electromagnetic pulse (EMP) on nuclear power plants (Technical Report)[31] Effects of nuclear electromagnetic pulse (EMP) on nuclear power plants (Technical Report)[31] Effects of nuclear electromagnetic pulse (EMP) on nuclear power plants (Technical Report)[32] http://www.nukestrat.com/us/stratcom/SAGessentials.PDF[32] http://www.nukestrat.com/us/stratcom/SAGessentials.PDF[32] http://www.nukestrat.com/us/stratcom/SAGessentials.PDF[32] http://www.nukestrat.com/us/stratcom/SAGessentials.PDF[33] http://belfercenter.hks.harvard.edu/files/is3004_pp007-044_lieberpress.pdf[33] http://belfercenter.hks.harvard.edu/files/is3004_pp007-044_lieberpress.pdf[33] http://belfercenter.hks.harvard.edu/files/is3004_pp007-044_lieberpress.pdf[33] http://belfercenter.hks.harvard.edu/files/is3004_pp007-044_lieberpress.pdf

Look at the pattern of the last thirty years or so. Reagan/Bush I bankrupted us and sank us into Recession with voodoo economics. Bill Clinton came in and cleaned up the mess, but it took a few years to get the economy moving again, with Republicans screaming all the while that he wasn’t doing it fast enough. Clinton didn’t appoint people who wanted to cash in on our economy; he appointed thoughtful, qualified people who came to work every day saying: how can we give America a more solvent, stable, growing economy for everybody? And that’s what they did. While expanding worker benefits like family leave, and protecting people from workplace hazards, and forcing companies to comply with more environmental measures (each time one of these things passed, Republicans would scream: “You’re about to wreck the economy!”) the Clinton years saw unprecedented growth — no Republican administration can match it. The rich have been getting richer since the Reagan era, but for much of the Clinton era, the poor and the middle class were getting richer too. There certainly were problems with the crime bill Democrats passed — some of which became clearer years later, and it’s too bad later governments didn’t take corrective action. But it caused crime rates to drop dramatically; people never thought violent crime rates in major cities could plunge the way they did.Bill Clinton did not bumble us into any wars. His sparing use of force was smart, contained and surgical. Republicans screamed soon after he came into office about what happened in Somalia, a commitment he inherited from Daddy Bush, who put it under UN auspices — and Bill Clinton kept Republican Colin Powell on to oversee it, as a sign of US policy continuity and bi-partisanship. Republicans hollered over those 18 US servicemen being killed, as they later did not over the thousands of Americans killed in Iraq and Afghanistan by W in two wars of choice with no real planning and no exit strategy. What happened in Mogadishu left Clinton burned, and so he failed to act in Rwanda — as he says, that was one of the greatest failures of his presidency. But what he did in Haiti was brilliant. Bush I had winked at the coup against Haiti’s first democratically elected president, Aristide, and the bloodthirsty FRAPH that came to power was terrorizing people, causing a refugee crisis on our shores. Bill Clinton sent Jimmy Carter in to negotiate, flew a plane overhead, and the FRAPH left power, without a shot being fired or an American or Haitian getting killed. People came out of their homes with flowers, to lay their guns on blankets and say thank you to Americans. President Aristide was restored to office … but then, later, Bush II winked at the next coup that overthrew him …As with Rwanda, Bill Clinton hesitated to act in the former Yugoslavia, which was disastrous, as the Serbian Christians committed genocidal “ethnic cleansing” and mass rape as military policy against the Bosnian Muslims. The bloodthirsty European Christians murdered 8,000 Muslim men and boys at Srebenica over a few days in July of 1995; even the Taliban and Al Qaeda don’t usually kill civilians at that rate! But finally, Clinton did act. He acted in the context of NATO, since Democrats believe in working with our allies and treating them with respect. NATO bombed the Serbs out of Kosovo, while Republicans screamed that Clinton would start a big war and make Russia mad. And they said you can’t win a war with only air power! (Turns out you can.) The Serbs retreated, and then the Serb people rose up and overthrew Slobodon Milosevic themselves. Muslims in Kosovo were grateful, and started naming streets and parks after Bill Clinton. And again — not a single American serviceman or woman was killed in the process.People said it was impossible to get rid of the Federal deficit. Bill Clinton generated a surplus. Al Gore, when he ran for president, said let’s use the surplus to pay off the national debt. That’s because Democrats are the party of grown-ups and fiscal responsibility. W said no, let’s have free money instead. “It’s your money, you paid for it!” he incoherently told America. Gore correctly pointed out that 40% of W’s tax cut would go to the richest 1%. (After all, the numbers were crunchable.) “No, no, that’s fuzzy math!” W shrilled. His brother Jeb and Katherine Harris diddled Florida, the Supreme Court handed W the White House, and everyone learned that Gore had told the truth and W had lied. (Surprise!) He ignored all the outgoing Clinton officials’ warnings about the Al Qaeda threat, and spent the month of August 2001 on vacation, ignoring more warnings. Less than two weeks later, we were attacked. He used it as pretext to bumble us into two wars of choice, as I said above, with no real plan and no exit strategy, but lots of lies and cherry-picked data about non-existent WMD. Those wars killed hundreds of thousands, killed and maimed tens of thousands of our troops, gave us Abu Ghraib and the Republican idea that the Geneva Conventions are “quaint” and torture is fine, enriched Cheney’s company Halliburton and its subsidiary KBR, made Iran stronger — and those two wars never end.The rich got richer, Republicans moved toward mass denial of science, infrastructure rotted … but Republicans said never mind! The economy is strong, and that’s what matters! We’ve de-regulated everything, and it’s great! And then, in 2008 …Obama came into office, and painstakingly went to work, cleaning up the mess of Republican Recession. Republicans fought his efforts to restore our economy every step of the way. In a time of national emergency, with a new president coming in, two Republican-started stupid wars raging and an economy crashed by the Republicans, Mitch McConnell patriotically told GOP Senators: “Our number one priority is making sure Obama doesn’t get a second term.” Obama worried too much about trying to restore bi-partisanship with a-holes like that. He consulted Republicans too frequently and worked for joint plans, but he still managed to get stimulus through that saved the economy (we came out of the Recession far faster than austerity-crazed Europe) and saved the US auto industry. He turned the wars around and he found and killed bin Laden. He got twenty million more Americans health insurance, and many people who screamed they didn’t want the ACA found it worked well for them, and kept costs down. He put us on the path to an unprecedented stretch of long-term growth, and instead of putting a fox in charge of every hen house, as W had done, Obama appointed qualified, knowledgeable people to run every agency, as Bill Clinton had done: people who wanted to leave America better off than it was when they came into government.Do you seriously think that’s a priority for any Trump administration appointee?Now, once again thanks to the electoral college and the Supreme Court (which gave us Citizens United and gutted the Voting Rights Act) we have a Republican chronic liar in office, an insecure little boy who avoided serving in Vietnam but loves strutting around and acting tough and getting people killed to prove he’s a man. He puts crooks and government-destroyers in charge of every government agency and department, and purges government of long-term, non-partisan experts and career civil servants and scientists. He lies his head off, pretends science is not real, shreds the Constitution, divides our people, scapegoats vulnerable groups, de-regulates and takes credit for the strong economy Obama created, as W took credit for the strong economy Clinton created. Even more than W, he has disgusted our allies, stained our national honor and turned the United States back into a pariah nation.He gave the richest 1%, and especially the richest .1%, another jumbo tax cut that sent our national debt and deficit through the roof! He celebrates dictators and colludes with enemy foreign powers, compromising our national sovereignty and national security. He threw away Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran which got rid of so much of their enriched uranium and so many of their centrifuges — and replaced it with nothing. He hurts refugee children on purpose. He handled Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico about as well as W handled Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. He has the personal moral code of a sociopath. But never mind, Republicans say — the economy is so strong! That justifies everything! Just like it did in 2006 …So, those are Democratic administrations vs. Republican ones. Someone else answered this question saying: look at how awful California and all the blue states and blue cities are! Well, okay, let’s look at them. California and New York and other blue states generate much more wealth for our country than red states do. And blue cities in red states (like Nashville, where I live) generate most of the states’ wealth. Republicans in red counties and states who holler about lazy liberals coddling people on welfare — they, themselves, are welfare queens, living off the Federal tax dollars of their more prosperous neighbors in blue areas. People in blue areas don’t mind helping out their fellow citizens, and they’re okay with paying for better infrastructure for themselves — for a better quality of life. Blue areas of the country allow people to feel like they are living in a First World country — more than, say, Mississippi does. California is, indeed, having a housing problem, because a lot of people want to live there. Montana is not a destination state for as many people. It’s not where they imagine making their American Dream come true.So, twenty years of Democrats running the government would bring that infrastructure and quality of life to everyone. There would be universal pre-K free education for all three and four-year-old children. There would be a living wage — a minimum wage that allows workers to live in dignity. Democrats would end the college debt crisis, work with economic experts (rather than insulting the Fed) to mitigate the national deficit and debt, invest in re-training people whose jobs are disappearing (‘cause coal, actually, is not the future) and institute criminal justice reform that actually a lot of Republicans want also — that’s why Mitch McConnell won’t let the bills reach the Senate floor. There are a lot of bills he won’t let reach the floor … but if Democrats could get past how people like him and Trump distort democracy, there would be comprehensive immigration reform with citizenship for Dreamers and a path to citizenship for the millions of people who have lived here for decades, paid taxes and worked hard: no more shadow economy. There can be a sane, humane process of determining who deserves asylum — we’ve had one before that did not involve babies in cages. We had programs before to help the most dangerous cities in El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala. Trump has trashed them. But if people find safety and opportunity at home, they won’t walk across Mexico to come here.Democrats believe science is real. The Scientific Method is not perfect. But it led to the Industrial Revolution. It’s the reason the computer in your car works. And planes fly. And newer cancer drugs work, overall, better than older ones. Republicans, by turning their backs on climate science, and science in general, head us back toward the Dark Ages, and imperil Planet Earth. If Democrats ran the government for a few decades, they’d invest in new technologies and green energy. We’d have more wind farms and electric cars, and we would compete with China to make the best solar panels in the world, and that would generate a lot of wealth and a lot of jobs. Democrats would restore the middle class, get health insurance for everyone (most likely with Medicare for all but also a private option for those who prefer it) invest in education, celebrate our diversity, respect human rights, provide a safety net for people in crisis … Their decisions would be data-driven, not ideology-driven. They would not scrub science off of .gov websites or “discourage” people at the CDC from using terms like “evidence-based” and “science-based.” Qualified people would actually run government agencies.Democrats would restore our commitment to NATO, and to our allies. They would repudiate, once again, dictators, oligarchs, proto-Fascism and white supremacists. As happens whenever Democrats are in the White House, (since the Vietnam Era — the lessons of which Democrats learned but Republicans didn’t) they would not be casual and impulsive about going to war, but would lead the international community based largely on moral, rather than military, strength. In contrast, Republicans render us both economically and morally bankrupt, as a nation, again and again.Democrats are patriots, and they would not be fine, as Republicans are, with enemy foreign powers pulling the strings of our government. Democrats value the United States Constitution. They don’t think democracy is “mob rule.” Democrats would drain the Trumpian swamp and pass new laws to de-slime our institutions, currently so full of toxic corruption. They would restore the separation of powers and the system of checks and balances. They would pass new laws to guarantee that the president is not above the law, and reinforce the emoluments clause. They would appoint judges and justices who agree with most Americans about women’s reproductive rights and the basic civil rights of gay people. They would end the New Jim Crow of Republican voter suppression and voter roster purges, and get rid of ridiculous partisan gerrymandering, since the Republican-run Supreme Court is fine with it. They would get rid of Citizens United, since corporations are not people.When America has a strong middle class and everybody who works hard can get ahead, when we treat each other with respect and basic decency, when we invest as a national community in solving problems only a community can solve, when we stay put in the fact-based universe and do not choose to pretend to believe in lies … America works better. It grows and prospers. That’s what would happen with Democrats in charge, long-term.