In the event of an all-out nuclear war, what would the crew of a nuclear submarine be expected to do after they had launched all their compliment of nuclear weapons? Does anyone know? Cos Google doesn't!
Communicate with whomever is still in charge of their respective country they are from. That would be the only thing they could do. If they couldn't hear from anyone in sharge they would have to find a port somewhere to go to that isn't contaminated.
go back to refill their silos? besides, you know that nuclear subs are called so because they run on nuclear fuel, and not because they fire nukes?
Scifes, yes, I am aware that's why they are called nuclear subs! But, I think you'll find, most of them DO carry nuclear missiles.
Confirm orders and return to port. If the sub has exhausted its arsenal, it must re-supply. Additionally, "Nuclear War" does not necessarily mean that the whole world becomes a giant mushroom cloud. Most likely, they would follow the same procedure as the one during conventional war. On a side note: The whole point of something being Highly Radioactive is that it's Radiating! Quickly. As in; Will not stick around for long. During the Cold War, the anti-nuke movement made big use of scare tactics.
Standing orders are to make contact with the nearest re-arming base and go there to rearm and await further instructions. My brother told me that. He is a big shot in the Navy. There is a connection between the over one thousand nuclear tests humans have carried out for the past 60 years and the once unheard of disease cancer.
This appears that you are claiming that cancer was unheard of until nineteen forty two or so... Is that correct?
Absolutely, positively, 100%. IT was a rare, obscure disease rarer than Polio in the US in today. Almost no one, ever got cancer before the 1940's. Now if you're going to point out say, coal miners, or plutonium miners or chemists or hatters who used mercury or whatnot, then please- do yourself a favor and don't post.
Scroll up, brainiac. The claims were made by YOU. Now you're just passing the buck, hoping to weasel out of it. Ok, then- You refuse to support your claims- So I have no reason to grant them any merit. Have a nice day.
Didn't they just not know what cancer was until then, and before then simply filed it as "consumption" along with a ton of other diseases science didn't know about yet? And I'm not posting a medical journal, I'm just posing the question Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Here, read: The History of Cancer This may also be of interest: http://www.cancerquest.org/index.cfm?page=2405
Another quality control, placed by a critical mind, you mean. It's likely, actually. Elsewise, why would people post and defend their thoughts? The premise is quite simple: If you are making a claim, you must support that claim if you wish to be taken seriously. This applies to myself just as much and if I make an error or present a misconception- I expect, hell, I demand, that others correct me on it with support so I can see the error. It's how I learn. If I make claims, I must be willing to support them and if I don't- I expect the other party to not take me seriously. When I first started posting on a forum, it was because I was going to share my knowledge with the world and let everyone know how great I was. What I actually learned was that I'm an ignorant asshole. So, I had to get to work on that. Slowly, I've improved a bit. Not much, mind you- but a bit. It's taken a lot of introspection, a lot of work and a lot of self examination and it IS Hard to do. It requires constant conscientious effort and maintenance. And I slip up on it sometimes and I lose my cool... But If I'm going to put in this effort, I'd be a fool not to think others should do the same. I cannot force them. I can barely reason with most. But I can influence just as I had been influenced. The rewards for it for me are slight. If noticeable at all. But perhaps, for others, it's helpful. Even when I don't know about it. So if some poster claims that Cancer did not exist before 1940 or so- and this statement has heavy implications- I would be remiss to not question it. Not demand support of such a statement. It's not MY Knowledge being imparted- it's learning the nature of the world so that one can be informed- by their own doing. What you just said NMSquirrel, is only that you are biased. That you do not care about gathering knowledge, only your nuts. Rag on me all you want. I actually kinda pity you.
post and defend? defend cause they are getting attacked.. how bout post and discuss.. till you get those who refute the support just to 'test' or 'educate' as you are intoning.. its how they correct that makes it so it is understood. i hear you.. aren't we all.. fear,frustration,guilt,sadness,loss..anger cannot exist alone.. (was told that by psychologist)(( i added guilt..)) you cannot influence others by insulting them and berating them or IMO just making them feel worthless.(common denominator).. then there is the issue of 'just as i had been influenced'..not everybody learns the way you do..which also brings up the question of 'how do you learn?' hmmm..if i was saying that i would say it like.. i want god to use me whether i know about it or not..or to paraphrase myself.. i want god to use me whether i want him to or not.. but thats me.. true enough, but first you have to be sure that you understand what the other person is truly saying..and not just jump down his throat at the first perceived error..i say perceived cause maybe what he is trying to say isn't what you are hearing.. (using the term 'he' generically in this case) um..its not my knowledge..?..i would claim it as gods knowledge...but again..thats me.. before one can gather knowledge they have to learn how to communicate..communication takes more than one person..translation errors must be worked out before any understanding can be had. IMO it is not: user1: 2+2=5 user2:Wrong!,Nope.Incorrect! this is selfish need to feel your own worth. it is: user1; 2+2=5 user2: 2+2=4 anything more than the right answer is you trying to make your own worth credible. ironically,we try so hard to make others see what we are worth,we don't realize how much of that worth we assign to ourselves. IOW..your not as worthless as you think you are.. and.. you are not as worthless as others make you out to be.. which brings back the question 'who determines our sense of worth?' which has been discussed elsewhere..( did i just OCD on that again?) i was trying to teach you something..but before i could teach you, you had to be in the right mindset..otherwise you would not understand..do you understand what i am saying?