DreamlandLividity

He says, after the Dems just had a presidential candidate that did not even run in the primaries.

No, a new party is 100% the way to go, though it shouldn't be hostile to the dems, e.g. not running for president until they have more congressman and senators then the Dems to avoid splitting the vote.

Due to the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, the majority of bombs since 1962 were detonated underground to limit fallout dispersion.

Ok, so we have data only on about 300 above ground nuclear detonations, instead of 2,000. And those 300 included H-Bombs.

Also keep in mind that A-bombs like were dropped in Japan killed everyone within a 1 mile radius. Modern warheads are H-bombs which kill everyone in a 5-10 mile radius.

And how far from a large city do you think the suburbs spread? Yes, anyone near the city center has no chance. That was not disputed by anyone.

And if we want to be pedantic, a hardened underground bunker would probably have chances for survival quite a bit closer than 5-10 miles.

Yeah, I really hope at least most of them are trolls...

Things talking about waiting a week or two and then it being basically safe to emerge are based on things like Chernobyl, not events where there is fallout being blown through the atmosphere from explosions across the globe.

There were about 2,060 nuclear warheads detonated as part of various nuclear tests by all countries combined. So we know how fallout behaves and it is not based on Chernobyl.

In addition, there is only about 13,400 warhead in the world, about 9000 of which are not actively deployed and therefore would not be part of an unexpected nuclear exchange. So no, the fallout would not be fun, but it would not kill that many people. Especially if they stayed in a bunker for a few weeks.

How many commercial technical failures and logistical failures is adequate for you?

Maybe fewer or equal than there were with government run NASA? Starliner turned out to be a safe spacecraft that was recalled due to abundance of caution. Which leaders at NASA were far more comfortable doing, since it reflects badly on Boing instead of them (which is a good thing).

On the other hand, while NASA run the launches itself, how many astronauts died in disasters?

You are seriously going to pretend one issue is somehow a failure of privatized spaceflight? A nonfatal issue that caused two astronauts to chill on the space station for longer than expected, most of it voluntarily?

It really depends. Nuclear bombs are powerful, but they are not as powerful as some people think. If you hit a city center, you would be able to survive in the suburbs easily. In addition, there is a good chance a portion of targets won't be cities, but military bases and other military targets.

So for me, the question that will decide if you survive or not (aside from whether you are unlucky enough to be hit directly) is whether you can secure a food source after your initial supplies run out.

If I am not mistaken, the President has a lot of authority over security clearances. So for the next 4 years, just like with many other things, it will depend on how a certain Orange feels that day.

Title: "expert warnings they aren't going to provide protection"
Rest of the article: Explains in detail how they are going to provide protection.

1. So a non-capitalist space program would have no technical issues ever? Sounds about as sound as most communist propaganda logic.
2. If you actually read the article, they are staying there to continue the science until replacement crew arrives. The capsule is ready and they are able to return any time. There wasn't another technical failure.

What does that have to do with capitalism?

Also, the drone falling could hit someone or something. So seriously, don't.