Greenham Common Women.

i did read about a russian nuke sub commander who lost contact and almost launched nukes thinking russia had been nuked but then decided not to luckily.

the toxic and radioactive side of  such shells  www.scientificamerican.com/.../

There are clearly two issues" with Depleted Uranium , explains David Brenner of Columbia University's School of Public Health, "the radiation and the toxicological issue." Indeed, not only is depleted uranium potentially dangerous because of its radioactivity, it is also a strong toxin. 

I think you are confusing toxic chemicals with radiation.   Heavy metals are not good - Lead has a pretty bad effect.

heres the result of using  these depleted uranium rounds in Iraq

www.theguardian.com/.../world-health-organisation-iraq-war-depleted-uranium

No.    DU is not radioactive - it is 'self-shielding'.

yes nuclear shells have been used in the last middle east war involving USA and UK tanks 

Not possible.     There are many, many worldwide factories using radiation - smoke detectors, medical stuff etc.

They ALL have independent monitoring of their manufacturing processes including external monitoring and environmental monitoring in case of any accidental release.    This system is how things like Chernobyl was uncovered - and it's much faster, more accurate and sensitive these days.    Even airports have radiation monitoring - just in case.

Any kind of radioactive release would be picked up as the prevailing winds take any airborne contamination anywhere near any facility - the isotopes would be wrong for the area so it would be exposed instantly.

The only 'radioactive' things on the battlefield are Depleted Uranium bullets - F=ma - increase the mass, increase the impact.

I think you're confusing old celluloid film speckling with CCD speckling.    Neutrons smash molecular holes into CCDs - they don't really speckle -  the pixels work until they die - I've been using them since the early 90s in lethal radiation environments.       The old 'Vidicon' tube-style used to speckle and survive quite well until the electronics died - but the tube was quite robust.

i dont disgree but the sheer amount of them has lead to something they hadnt thought off ----- an accidential detention of a nuke leading to an immediate exchange.

BTW computers are now involved in the decision of the exchange

there has been at least 2 near nuclear wars

watch video/documentray  on youtube "Command and Control" 

en.wikipedia.org/.../Command_and_Control_(film)

I'm rather fond of fantastic explanations. What is life without the fantastic?

When everyone has a gun pointing at each other you get a scene from a Tarantino film... 

Since they solved miniaturisation some years ago, (I believe by using an alternate source of neutrons obviating the requirement to have a critical mass to supply sufficient neutrons to sustain fission) it is widely rumoured that nuclear weapons have already been casually and stealthily deployed deployed in recent conflicts. The only good thing about nuclear weapons is that they still use plutonium and thus degrade over time as the "metal" transitions spontaneously from one phase to another, less useful in nuclear weapons physics phase. There is a real possibility that nuclear weapons will soon become old hat, when the newer physics of "nucleonics" gains enough traction. You'll get your flying cars then as well.

Although from what I can gather, our secret leaders (or "caretakers" if you prefer) are doing their utmost to suppress all progress in that particular science, whilst they carry on trying to mould us into beings fit enough to join the cosmic society without starting a war within five minutes.

O.K. The last paragraph is a fantastic explanation cooked up by myself in an effort to join up all the loose ends and rationalise the the mess that we seem to be in despite all the wonders of technology. But the rest of it is as far as I can determine pretty factual. "Plastic" in particular I'd like you to go and google nuclear weapon used in yemen and review the footage. I watched a lot of it back when it was coming out and that ccd speckling appeared across multiple devices and looked a LOT like the CCD destruction footage that came out of Fukushima. 

No - they were Tomahawk cruise missiles - usually carried by B52 and B1 - but once the submarine-launched version came on line, it was more stealthy to sneak up to your target with a sub and then launch with a much shorter chance for the enemy to be able to prepare.

It also coincided with the B1 being cancelled - and then production restarted as the B1b - a neutered version of the original B1 not really fit for deep penetration missions - more useful of conventional bombs.

aye, but perhaps if we didnt have nukes pointed at each other there would be no threat of extermination and thus countries would be more open to constant war. if you have nukes pointed at each other, germany isnt going to invade france for fear of being nuked..... imagine if france had no nukes... germany may very well could have invaded them again. nukes may keep nations civil.

for example, everyone is used to punching each other in the face, and here comes a guy with a gun, no one will punch him in the face for fear of his gun. everyone has a gun, no one is punching anyone in the face no more for they all fear each others gun. 

there is a case that just the existence of nukes alone has prevented major wars or skirmishes between large nations. and thus has prevented our sons having to fight and war and die in the fields.

tell ur mother-in-law they did make a change they kept pressure on the governments. Please thank her for her courageous stand.

but there are missiles pointed at every major city and port  in Europe . No one survives a nuclear exchange - even a limited one of 50 missiles each  would lead to  nuclear winter killing millions not even involved

Caelus   1990 !? Flippin' millenials! 

Hi I Sperg, I remember the CGW well. They were regular headline makers in the early-to-mid 80's. Apart from raising consciousness about the issue, though, I'm not sure they had any significant impact. We still bought Trident eventually and nuclear weapons are just as widespread as ever. In fact, many would argue that a nuclear conflict is more likely now than at any other time.

She may feel she changed nothing (and may well be right, although I am not 100% sure) but at least she got off her behind and took action to TRY.

As far as I remember she was protesting about American tactical cruise missiles being posted on our soil making us a priority target or initiator of nuclear conflict and those particular missiles were not moved to Scotland as far as I can determine, they were in fact sent back to the country they came from or moved on to a more compliant country. So if she had a different mindset she could claim a small victory in the long war to make our leaders stop setting us up for death & destruction on a large scale.

Scotland is where they service trident carrying submarines and rotate the strategic nuclear missiles amongst those submarines. A different evil, and you'll notice that the Scots didn't field as much resistance to that event as your mum-in-law did...

In my life I've seen the British people "protest" about many things, but so far they've only really pushed back against three. C.B. radio denial, Cruise missiles at Greenham common & speed cameras. They were successful in all three endeavours.

Before the bikers started setting fire to the things and lorry drivers bending them, our leaders were getting ready to roll our double sided, concealed, speed cameras everywhere, and that forced a re-think when they realised that every time the people torched one, (repeatedly in the case of some round here) it cost many tens of thousands of pounds to replace it, and only a pint of petrol plus a worn out tyre to destroy it again. Assymettric warfare, the same way the taliban and other outmatched people bleed what they see as forces of oppression over time until they give up.  

Fighting oppression is not about killing people, it's about having a steely determination to prevail. Those Greenham common women had that in spades, and I hope your mum in law still has some of it left.

thats probably why then, was only born in 1990 lol
funny though, i dont see their logic, getting rid of nukes means that instead wed have to fight wars the hard way which means more of their sons would die in war, where as with nukes no one needs to die at all as all you do is press a button from safety and thus save their sons lives.

they defo made a change, the kept major pressure on the governments  and like u say they did something