First there was Chernobyl.
A stationary nuclear reactor explosion.
The entire village being evacuated.
Then on Thurday came Nenoska.
A flying nuclear reactor explosion.
The entire village being evacuated.
And the US put 2 nuclear reactors on the ocean bottom when both the Thresher and the Scorpion sank.
That rocket had a small isotope generator (rocket weight is very
important, it can't afford a big one). The main environment damage was caused by very toxic rocket fuel.
ThresherFirst there was Chernobyl.
A stationary nuclear reactor explosion.
The entire village being evacuated.
Then on Thurday came Nenoska.
A flying nuclear reactor explosion.
The entire village being evacuated.
And the US put 2 nuclear reactors on the ocean bottom when both the
and the Scorpion sank.
Wut? Only Russians have nuclear issues? Don't think so.
I don't know offhand how many nuclear powered ships/submarines have sunk, but I'm sure it's more than two
itThat rocket had a small isotope generator (rocket weight is very
important, it can't afford a big one). The main environment damage was
caused by very toxic rocket fuel.
rocket or missle? they're two very different things... some sources say
was a new type of cruise missle...
First there was Chernobyl.
A stationary nuclear reactor explosion.
The entire village being evacuated.
Then on Thurday came Nenoska.
A flying nuclear reactor explosion.
The entire village being evacuated.
The times they are a-changing.
That rocket had a small isotope generator (rocket weight is very important, it can't afford a big one). The main environment damage was caused by very toxic rocket fuel.
It'sAnd the US put 2 nuclear reactors on the ocean bottom when both the
Thresher and the Scorpion sank.
The USSR put one on Norway's doorstep, the Komsomolets, 30 years ago.
leaking real good now.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-48949113
ThresherFirst there was Chernobyl.
A stationary nuclear reactor explosion.
The entire village being evacuated.
Then on Thurday came Nenoska.
A flying nuclear reactor explosion.
The entire village being evacuated.
And the US put 2 nuclear reactors on the ocean bottom when both the
and the Scorpion sank.
Wut? Only Russians have nuclear issues? Don't think so.
Ward Dossche wrote to BOB ACKLEY <=-
I don't know offhand how many nuclear powered ships/submarines have sunk, but I'm sure it's more than two
America lost two, but it's not just the reactors. Also the
nuclear warheads both in missiles and torpedoes.
Who knows what Russia or any other nation lost labeled 'nuclear'
On 08-14-19 11:34, Alexander Koryagin <=-
spoke to Lee Lofaso about Re: Chernobyl II <=-
Then on Thurday came Nenoska.
A flying nuclear reactor explosion.
The entire village being evacuated.
The times they are a-changing.
That rocket had a small isotope generator (rocket weight is very important, it can't afford a big one). The main environment damage was caused by very toxic rocket fuel.
During "perestroika" all such cases were declassified and everybody know about them.
But only Russians have managed to put nuclear airplane on ocean floor. Americans wisely choose to surrender that contest.
That rocket had a small isotope generator (rocket weight is very
important, it can't afford a big one). The main environment damage was
caused by very toxic rocket fuel.
It was not a rocket, but a nuclear powered cruise missle. Big
difference. Also, why did the radiation monitors spike to ten times normal levels? I wonder if you are getting censored news.
alexander koryagin wrote to Dan Clough <=-
During "perestroika" all such cases were declassified and
everybody know about them.
That rocket had a small isotope generator (rocket weight is
very important, it can't afford a big one). The main
environment damage was caused by very toxic rocket fuel.
rocket or missle? they're two very different things... some
sources say it was a new type of cruise missle...
I read there is no much difference between them
-----Beginning of the citation-----
A rocket is so called on the basis of its mode of self-propulsion. A missile is so called on the basis of its being propelled, by a rocket engine or otherwise, for the purpose of doing damage, as a weapon. The
two categories overlap considerably, since rockets are commonly used as propulsion for missiles, with or without in-flight guidance systems. Put an explosive warhead on top of an Atlas rocket, and launch it at an
enemy (or practice target), the whole assembly becomes a missile. Put a Mercury capsule on top with John Glenn inside, it is a rocket but not a missile.
----- The end of the citation -----
According this definition it was a missile propelled by a liquid-propellant rocket (at least during first stage of the flight).
Who knows what Russia or any other nation lost labeled
'nuclear'
Russia might know, and they might not. Very likely more was
lost than anyone outside of Russia will ever know about.
During "perestroika" all such cases were declassified and everybody know about them.
First there was Chernobyl. A stationary nuclear reactor
explosion. The entire village being evacuated.
Then on Thurday came Nenoska. A flying nuclear reactor explosion.
The entire village being evacuated.
The times they are a-changing.
That rocket had a small isotope generator (rocket weight is very
important, it can't afford a big one). The main environment damage
was caused by very toxic rocket fuel.
The plane needed bigger wings.
The first stage of the missile is for launching; after dispensing it the thing can be called a cruise missile.
PS: Having looked at the flame of the disaster we have learned for sure that it indeed had the liquid first stage. ;)
Wut? Only Russians have nuclear issues? Don't think so.
You are right.
Americans and Russians both have nuclear submarines on ocean
floor. That is proven fact.
But only Russians have managed to put nuclear airplane on ocean
floor. Americans wisely choose to surrender that contest.
Have you heard of the US bombers that lost nuclear bombs during drills?
I heard. ;-)
That rocket had a small isotope generator (rocket weight is very
important, it can't afford a big one). The main environment damage was
caused by very toxic rocket fuel.
It was not a rocket, but a nuclear powered cruise missle. Big
difference. Also, why did the radiation monitors spike to ten times
normal levels? I wonder if you are getting censored news.
Rather than you getting embellished news?
So what happened to Raoul Wallenberg ?
I heard that he was arrested in 1945 in Budapest by soviet military counterintelligence service and accused of spying. In the USSR of
30s-40s such a sentence was given to millions common innocent people,
and Wallenberg, according to some sources, indeed was the US agent. He
died in 1947 of heart attack in prison.
It is useless to fight with such rumors. There are many of them, some
even told us that Nazi now hide themselves under antarctic ice. ;-)
So what happened to Raoul Wallenberg ?I heard that he was arrested in 1945 in Budapest by soviet
military counterintelligence service and accused of spying.
In the USSR of 30s-40s such a sentence was given to
millions common innocent people, and Wallenberg, according
to some sources, indeed was the US agent. He died in 1947
of heart attack in prison.
Has this ever been disclosed with reports, autopsy reports?
What happened to the remains? Has Russia appologized for
killing one of the greatest humanitarians ever?
Who knows what Russia or any other nation lost
labeled 'nuclear'
Russia might know, and they might not. Very likely
more was lost than anyone outside of Russia will ever
know about.
During "perestroika" all such cases were declassified and
everybody know about them.
Yes. That is how the world knows the Soviets faked Hitler's
death, falsely claiming to have the charred bones of the
deceased dictator.
They faked? You mean Stalin spared his life and let him go?
This also posed a significant problem for
American intelligence, which had come upon evidence from other
sources that Hitler had survived by moving to South America.
However, to be honest, I really do not believe Hitler is alive.
It is useless to fight with such rumors. There are many of them, some
even told us that Nazi now hide themselves under antarctic ice. ;-)
Wut? Only Russians have nuclear issues? Don't think
so.
You are right.
Americans and Russians both have nuclear submarines on
ocean floor. That is proven fact.
But only Russians have managed to put nuclear airplane
on ocean floor. Americans wisely choose to surrender
that contest.
Have you heard of the US bombers that lost nuclear bombs
during drills? I heard. ;-)
Just the bombs. Not the planes.
If I were a Spanish would have preferred their losing empty planes, not real hydrogen bombs. ;=)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1966_Palomares_B-52_crash
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 292 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 208:37:41 |
| Calls: | 6,618 |
| Files: | 12,168 |
| Messages: | 5,317,096 |