atomic holocausts?

[nuclearfuels]

"It may be, for instance, that nothing except the power of faith and the authority of the priesthood can save individuals and congregations from the atomic holocausts that surely shall be. "

 April 1979 | Stand Independent above All Other Creatures - Bruce R. McConkie

Is this figurative?  

If not, anyone else think moving to the mountains in UT, CO, MT, ID might be a good idea?

 

 

[Kenngo1969]

Boy, it's a good thing that the location of every weapon in the world's nuclear arsenal is known, that each such weapon is secure, and that no such weapon currently is in the hands of anyone who might wish anyone else ill.  (And of course, there's no such thing as a dirty bomb.)

Wait.  I'm sorry.  What?  

P.S.: Now, having said that, if anyone wishes me ill and wishes to exact his revenge by using such a weapon, I doubt there's much I can do about it no matter where I am except to seek to stand in holy places, both figuratively and literally speaking.  Frankly, while I'm not ready, from a repentance and spiritual readiness perspective, to meet my Maker, this life has lost much of its allure.  I'm not going to do anything drastic, but I'm also not going, in the words of the poet, Dylan Thomas, to "rage, rage against the dying of the light!" 

Edited February 16, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

"It may be, for instance,"

Is this figurative? 

Sounds hypothetical, not figurative.

[Meadowchik]

There's an app for that:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2101508/Want-know-effect-nuclear-bomb-home-town-Theres-app-that.html

You can select the city where the bomb is detonated and the intensity. Then you get a map with damaged areas and damage intensity.

Seriously we were thinking about this the other day and discussing emergency preparedness. Not fun to think about!

[CV75]

12 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

"It may be, for instance, that nothing except the power of faith and the authority of the priesthood can save individuals and congregations from the atomic holocausts that surely shall be. "

 April 1979 | Stand Independent above All Other Creatures - Bruce R. McConkie

Is this figurative?  

If not, anyone else think moving to the mountains in UT, CO, MT, ID might be a good idea?

The fire, burning, fervent heat and elemental melting associated with the Second Coming could be an atomic holocaust of the Lord's own making.

[ERayR]

13 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

"It may be, for instance, that nothing except the power of faith and the authority of the priesthood can save individuals and congregations from the atomic holocausts that surely shall be. "

 April 1979 | Stand Independent above All Other Creatures - Bruce R. McConkie

Is this figurative?  

If not, anyone else think moving to the mountains in UT, CO, MT, ID might be a good idea?

 

Prepare where you are at.  It's getting crowded here.

[thesometimesaint]

The living will envy the dead in a nuclear war.

[RevTestament]

18 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

"It may be, for instance, that nothing except the power of faith and the authority of the priesthood can save individuals and congregations from the atomic holocausts that surely shall be. "

 April 1979 | Stand Independent above All Other Creatures - Bruce R. McConkie

Is this figurative?  

If not, anyone else think moving to the mountains in UT, CO, MT, ID might be a good idea?

Sometimes Bro McConkie was speaking from the spirit, but I believe sometimes he spoke/wrote out of an obligation to try to follow the lead of others. I do not believe in a total holocaust by atomic weapons. May they be used at some time in the future? Possibly. Notice he said "atomic holocausts" in the plural. If each were complete, there wouldn't be another. 

Do I have a fear that the US faces an atomic holocaust? No. I fear a spiritual holocaust - a war for the soul. I fear forces seeking to shape our society behind the scenes by admitting disproportionate numbers of Muslims into the country for instance, who will one day demand Sharia law and violently react against any who criticize Islam.

The US does not have an immediate future of an atomic holocaust. I know this because we haven't even gotten to the stage of the New Jerusalem which would be precluded by a nuclear holocaust. 

I am actually pro-nuclear. I believe we need to quickly revamp our nuclear policy, and explore alternative sources of nuclear power. One such alternative besides a fusion power dream, is molten salt reactors using thorium, etc. Our current water cooled uranium reactors were essentially born out of a desire to have nuclear weapons rather than electricity, and are extremely ill-suited to the purpose for reasons everyone is aware of. They are inherently unsafe, and result in a waste disposal problem. What's more those we have are coming up to time for decommissioning, and we need something to replace the massive quantities of power they generate. Coal plants also pose large long-term problems, and we need to replace them. Let's not oppose everything nuclear out of irrational fears. 

Edited February 16, 2017 by RevTestament

[The Nehor]

On 2/15/2017 at 11:18 PM, Kenngo1969 said:

Boy, it's a good thing that the location of every weapon in the world's nuclear arsenal is known, that each such weapon is secure, and that no such weapon currently is in the hands of anyone who might wish anyone else ill.  (And of course, there's no such thing as a dirty bomb.)

And the guy in control of the largest nuclear weapon arsenal in the world just had this to say:

Quote

 

By the way, it would be great if we could get along with Russia. Just so you understand that. Tomorrow, you will say "Donald Trump wants to get along with Russia; this is terrible." It is not terrible.

It is good. We had Hillary Clinton try to do a reset. We had Hillary Clinton give Russia 20% of the uranium in our country. You know what uranium is, right? It’s this thing called nuclear weapons. And other things. Like lots of things are done with uranium. Including some bad things.

But nobody talks about that. I did not do anything for Russia. I've done nothing for Russia. Hillary Clinton gave them 20% of our uranium. Hillary Clinton did a reset, remember with the stupid plastic button that made us all look like a bunch of jerks?

 

So uranium is actually nuclear weapons and other things....including bad things.....good to know. I feel comfortable knowing this guy knows how to handle these kinds of weapons. So how does he feel about the second largest arsenal?

Quote

 

I can tell you one thing about a briefing that we're allowed to say because anybody that ever read the most basic book can say it: Nuclear holocaust would be like no other. They're a very powerful nuclear country, and so are we.

If Russia and the United States actually got together and got along -- and don't forget, we're a very powerful nuclear country and so are they. There's no upside. We're a very powerful nuclear country and so are they. I have been briefed. And I can tell you one thing about a briefing that we're allowed to say because anybody that ever read the most basic book can say it, nuclear holocaust would be like no other.

They're a very powerful nuclear country and so are we. If we have a good relationship with Russia, believe me, that's a good thing, not a bad thing.

 

Nuclear holocaust would be like no other. A statement so profound it bears repeating....so he did.

Edited February 17, 2017 by The Nehor

[strappinglad]

Obama forgot to get the teleprompter fixed so Trump has to wing it. So, if he is missing a few feathers....

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, strappinglad said:

Obama forgot to get the teleprompter fixed so Trump has to wing it. So, if he is missing a few feathers....

I have heard people paralyzed with stage fright shaking through what they are saying deliver a more coherent and intelligent response then that.

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

And the guy in control of the largest nuclear weapon arsenal in the world just had this to say:

So uranium is actually nuclear weapons and other things....including bad things.....good to know. I feel comfortable knowing this guy knows how to handle these kinds of weapons. So how does he feel about the second largest arsenal?

Nuclear holocaust would be like no other. A statement so profound it bears repeating....so he did.

Actually, he is right. If we have a good relationship with Russia, it is a good thing. Reagan realized that. I feel much more comfortable with his semi-coherent ramblings than the Hillary/Obama uranium deal with Iran - although Iran has not traditionally been as loose a cannon as Iraq.

[The Nehor]

9 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Actually, he is right. If we have a good relationship with Russia, it is a good thing. Reagan realized that. I feel much more comfortable with his semi-coherent ramblings than the Hillary/Obama uranium deal with Iran - although Iran has not traditionally been as loose a cannon as Iraq.

I found that deal to be good at least inasmuch as the details have been revealed. There are undoubtedly portions of the deal that have not been disclosed to the public. Most nations approved of the deal with Israel of course being the exception.

[RevTestament]

33 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I found that deal to be good at least inasmuch as the details have been revealed. There are undoubtedly portions of the deal that have not been disclosed to the public. Most nations approved of the deal with Israel of course being the exception.

I am not in favor of any proliferation of uranium technology at all. Nor the proliferation of uranium power plants. We need a newer safer technology than the one we just handed over to a country known to sponsor terrorists in the heart of the terrorist belt. To top it off we paid them a ton of money. It's insane policy. I resent having to stand in line every time I go to the airport and subject my privacy to whoever is on the other side of the viewer because of terrorists who believe the Koran is a holy book like Obama does. No i am not in favor of this type of nuclear proliferation to any countries much less Muslim ones. It is bad news. I am in favor of a newer, safer thorium based technology which would be much more difficult to weaponize.

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I am not in favor of any proliferation of uranium technology at all. Nor the proliferation of uranium power plants. We need a newer safer technology than the one we just handed over to a country known to sponsor terrorists in the heart of the terrorist belt. To top it off we paid them a ton of money. It's insane policy. I resent having to stand in line every time I go to the airport and subject my privacy to whoever is on the other side of the viewer because of terrorists who believe the Koran is a holy book like Obama does. No i am not in favor of this type of nuclear proliferation to any countries much less Muslim ones. It is bad news. I am in favor of a newer, safer thorium based technology which would be much more difficult to weaponize.

The question is what are you willing to give up to prevent enriched uranium from being produced. We can stop them totally if we are willing to invade and enter anouther Iraq-like quagmire. We also did not pay them a massive amount of money out of our treasury. That was some of their money we seized when we froze their assets that we are returning.

I would argue that integrating Iran back into the international community may be the best way to encourage moderation while the deal will stall their production of enriched uranium so they will not have enough to construct a working bomb for some time. 

[thesometimesaint]

21 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Sometimes Bro McConkie was speaking from the spirit, but I believe sometimes he spoke/wrote out of an obligation to try to follow the lead of others. I do not believe in a total holocaust by atomic weapons. May they be used at some time in the future? Possibly. Notice he said "atomic holocausts" in the plural. If each were complete, there wouldn't be another. 

Do I have a fear that the US faces an atomic holocaust? No. I fear a spiritual holocaust - a war for the soul. I fear forces seeking to shape our society behind the scenes by admitting disproportionate numbers of Muslims into the country for instance, who will one day demand Sharia law and violently react against any who criticize Islam.

The US does not have an immediate future of an atomic holocaust. I know this because we haven't even gotten to the stage of the New Jerusalem which would be precluded by a nuclear holocaust. 

I am actually pro-nuclear. I believe we need to quickly revamp our nuclear policy, and explore alternative sources of nuclear power. One such alternative besides a fusion power dream, is molten salt reactors using thorium, etc. Our current water cooled uranium reactors were essentially born out of a desire to have nuclear weapons rather than electricity, and are extremely ill-suited to the purpose for reasons everyone is aware of. They are inherently unsafe, and result in a waste disposal problem. What's more those we have are coming up to time for decommissioning, and we need something to replace the massive quantities of power they generate. Coal plants also pose large long-term problems, and we need to replace them. Let's not oppose everything nuclear out of irrational fears. 

Even one nuclear explosion in a major city would overwhelm the resources of that country which it is in to adequately medically respond. With Russian and the US each having over 1400 deliverable nukes in less than an hour. Our best prospects lie in never using them again.

Unfortunately we have a President who believes that if we have them why can't we use them. So God is going to come back and save us all from our own folly?

There is no magic silver bullet when it comes to energy production. However; if every home in the US had solar panels on their roofs we wouldn't need any coal or nuclear power plants built for the foreseeable future. .

[RevTestament]

5 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Even one nuclear explosion in a major city would overwhelm the resources of that country which it is in to adequately medically respond. With Russian and the US each having over 1400 deliverable nukes in less than an hour. Our best prospects lie in never using them again.

True. Even one nuclear explosion can be viewed as a holocaust, and kill millions, poison a region etc. Let's suffice it to say the world is not going to end during Trump's presidency in a nuclear holocaust or prophecy would not be fulfilled. So we can drop the fear-mongering vis-a-vis:

"Unfortunately we have a President who believes that if we have them why can't we use them. So God is going to come back and save us all from our own folly?"

They wouldn't have been built if they weren't intended to be a feasible weapon. That is all Trump is talking about. What do you want him to say? - no we'll never use them. let's dismantle them? I don't think anyone believes they can start a nuclear war without grave consequences to themselves, so it will remain status quo - with the possible exception of terrorists who might try to make it look like another country attacking. 

Quote

There is no magic silver bullet when it comes to energy production. However; if every home in the US had solar panels on their roofs we wouldn't need any coal or nuclear power plants built for the foreseeable future. .

Solar is not the answer. For one thing they are all getting produced over in China. Have you ever asked yourself why? Maybe they aren't so green after all - at least in their production. Plus it does nothing to help American jobs or trade deficit. It only makes it worse. Where are all those green jobs Obama promised? In China... Nor is solar the answer for large metropolitan areas in the east. Wind power is even a worse idea. At least you can get some solar every day. DC is actually a better power source for localized usage. It is so much more efficient that often our AC is converted to DC for use in motors etc around the home. So in this sense solar is good as well, but most people who have it don't use it for DC. There is a fusion startup that has a dream of manufacturing small fusion reactors capable of powering about 10,000 homes and businesses. That scale might be amenable to DC as well, and we could get rid of the wastes in AC power. 

A new Thorium power source would allow for smaller plants, and thus better energy recuperation. Uranium water plants are so expensive to build they must be built big in order to see any ROI. We actually had a working thorium MSR plant, but it just wasn't hooked up to any generator, so it is a technology we know can work if we solve some engineering problems to scale it up, but under Nixon it was abandoned because it couldn't be weaponized, and he was promising jobs to California. It is a much better fit for power production. We desperately need it. Wouldn't it be nice to get your power bill cut in half, while at the same time knowing your money is going to new American jobs with a much better and efficient technology? China is actually working on it as is India. Us - it seems we would rather continue enriching certain middle east countries intent on attacking us given the chance, and continuing to pump gobs of CO2 into the atmosphere while breathing polluted air.  

[The Nehor]

8 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

There is no magic silver bullet when it comes to energy production. However; if every home in the US had solar panels on their roofs we wouldn't need any coal or nuclear power plants built for the foreseeable future. .

This may be the future but solar power is not yet a great solution. If everyone tried to install them we would quickly run out of raw materials. Without a method of storing the energy we would hit other problems. Generally electrical companies charge an additional fee to people who use solar. This sounds punitive but it makes sense. A house with or without solar panels still needs to be connected to the grid unless it is completely independent and since solar panels pay less to the company the company has to recoup the costs somehow.

In some climates solar energy is just not viable due to weather conditions.

I expect we will improve the technology with time.

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, RevTestament said:

True. Even one nuclear explosion can be viewed as a holocaust, and kill millions, poison a region etc. Let's suffice it to say the world is not going to end during Trump's presidency in a nuclear holocaust or prophecy would not be fulfilled. So we can drop the fear-mongering vis-a-vis:

"Unfortunately we have a President who believes that if we have them why can't we use them. So God is going to come back and save us all from our own folly?"

They wouldn't have been built if they weren't intended to be a feasible weapon. That is all Trump is talking about. What do you want him to say? - no we'll never use them. let's dismantle them? I don't think anyone believes they can start a nuclear war without grave consequences to themselves, so it will remain status quo - with the possible exception of terrorists who might try to make it look like another country attacking. 

There is nothing in prophecy that suggests God will intervene if nuclear weapons are used or that there will not be some kind of nuclear exchange before the end.

And no, Trump was suggesting using them. He stated that he would never take their use off the table which sounds reasonable. But he also insisted he would be unpredictable with their use. That is horrifying. Luckily Trump seems to have no idea how nuclear weapons are deployed. When asked which of the Nuclear Triad (subs, land-based missiles, and bombers), if any, he wanted to prioritize.

"I think — I think, for me, nuclear is just the power, the devastation is very important to me."

That was his answer. Gibberish. He tried to show how restrained he is by pointing out that he was against going into Iraq when it started which qualifies as an 'alternative fact'.

[The Nehor]

8 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Even one nuclear explosion in a major city would overwhelm the resources of that country which it is in to adequately medically respond. With Russian and the US each having over 1400 deliverable nukes in less than an hour. Our best prospects lie in never using them again.

True, but the simple reality is there will be almost no medical response in the event of a full exchange.

[RevTestament]

12 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

There is nothing in prophecy that suggests God will intervene if nuclear weapons are used or that there will not be some kind of nuclear exchange before the end.

The end is over a thousand years away. A lot must happen in that time. As I have said perhaps a nuclear weapon will be used on some city, but the end of the United States is not slated for a nuclear holocaust. If so there would be no gathering of Lamanites and Gentiles to build the New Jerusalem in Independence. Presumably an all out nuclear exchange would preclude such an event. Since it is prophesied, I have to conclude there will be no end of the US in an all out nuclear exchange.

Quote

And no, Trump was suggesting using them. He stated that he would never take their use off the table which sounds reasonable. But he also insisted he would be unpredictable with their use. That is horrifying. Luckily Trump seems to have no idea how nuclear weapons are deployed. When asked which of the Nuclear Triad (subs, land-based missiles, and bombers), if any, he wanted to prioritize.

"I think — I think, for me, nuclear is just the power, the devastation is very important to me."

That was his answer. Gibberish. He tried to show how restrained he is by pointing out that he was against going into Iraq when it started which qualifies as an 'alternative fact'.

It is semi-coherent but obviously what he is saying is that he takes the potential devastation very seriously rather than lightly. It would be foolishness for any President to say he/she would never use them. It's understood that is like inviting an attack. The above is typical Trump. He is not going to hide a power card in dealing with foreign powers. Was it Roosevelt who said "walk softly and carry a big stick." I agree that Trump has some worrisome tendencies, but this really is not one of them. 

[The Nehor]

27 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

The end is over a thousand years away. A lot must happen in that time. As I have said perhaps a nuclear weapon will be used on some city, but the end of the United States is not slated for a nuclear holocaust. If so there would be no gathering of Lamanites and Gentiles to build the New Jerusalem in Independence. Presumably an all out nuclear exchange would preclude such an event. Since it is prophesied, I have to conclude there will be no end of the US in an all out nuclear exchange.

It is semi-coherent but obviously what he is saying is that he takes the potential devastation very seriously rather than lightly. It would be foolishness for any President to say he/she would never use them. It's understood that is like inviting an attack. The above is typical Trump. He is not going to hide a power card in dealing with foreign powers. Was it Roosevelt who said "walk softly and carry a big stick." I agree that Trump has some worrisome tendencies, but this really is not one of them. 

He does not have to say he would never use them. He seems to want to keep it on the table as a negotiating tactic. Negotiating with who? Who is he planning to hold that threat over?

A thousand years is plenty of time to nuke the continental United States and have the radiation die down so a gathering can occur.

[RevTestament]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

He does not have to say he would never use them. He seems to want to keep it on the table as a negotiating tactic. Negotiating with who? Who is he planning to hold that threat over?

A thousand years is plenty of time to nuke the continental United States and have the radiation die down so a gathering can occur.

No, because it is not going to happen at the end of the thousand years but at the beginning.

[rodheadlee]

On 2/16/2017 at 10:40 AM, thesometimesaint said:

The living will envy the dead in a nuclear war.

I used to love living next to Seal Beach Weapons Station, guaranteed to be changed in the twinkling of the eye in a nuclear strike..

[rodheadlee]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

He does not have to say he would never use them. He seems to want to keep it on the table as a negotiating tactic. Negotiating with who? Who is he planning to hold that threat over?

A thousand years is plenty of time to nuke the continental United States and have the radiation die down so a gathering can occur.

Shirley you jest? We have been holding it over the whole world for 60-70 years and the Russians to us.