Yes, it would be as bad as they say. Consider one nuke could wipe out an entire city like New York in a flash. That's 8.3 million deaths just inside NYC itself. Now consider that both the US and USSR each had thousands of nukes. Even if only a fraction of them had been used, untold millions, perhaps billions, of lives would have ended, either from the blasts themselves, or radiation sickness, or cancer-related deaths, etc. Plus all the soot and smoke swept up into the atmosphere from the major fires raging all over the planet could cause temporary climate change by reducing the Earth's temperature because of the partially blocked sunlight.

No one knows exactly how bad it would be if a nuclear war took place, but there is no dispute that it would definitely be bad for both the Earth and mankind as a whole if a major exchange of nuclear weapons took place. >> ^raverman:

LoL during the cold war everyone was afraid of the US and USSR nuking each other... all the while the US and USSR are actually nuking the crap out of THEMSELVES hundreds of times over.
If thousands of nukes over 50 years didnt cause the end of the world... would a nuclear war be as bad as they said?

LoL during the cold war everyone was afraid of the US and USSR nuking each other... all the while the US and USSR are actually nuking the crap out of THEMSELVES hundreds of times over.

If thousands of nukes over 50 years didnt cause the end of the world... would a nuclear war be as bad as they said?

The numbers for the US and the USSR don't surprise me, but I never realized France conducted as many nuclear tests as they did.

Maybe the title should be changed to Two Thousand and Fifty Four Nuclear Explosions - 2052 of them were tests, 2 of them were actual uses. Just ask Japan.

*doublepromote

From the transcript it seems the USSR would invade Europe regardless of Nazi aggression. Atleast the eastern part to secure the oil - as always.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'atomic, bomb, gas well, fire, peaceful, nuclear, explosion, ussr, russia, cold war' to 'atomic, bomb, gas well, leak, fire, peaceful, nuclear, explosion, ussr, russia, cold war' - edited by calvados

I get what you're saying, but a victim can and would sue for the court costs as part of their settlement. That's pretty routine.

It's routine in civil cases, not as much in criminal. If it's still innocent until proven guilty and shadow of a doubt, suddenly suing for costs is small consolation for the victim's worries about being stuck losing an honest case and being out both their innocence AND their cash. Child abuse cases are hard enough to prove already, making the victim pay actually creates more injustice.

The essentials are pretty clear.

You'd think so, but try and get a few million people to agree on it. I know here in Canada we already have removed taxes from 'essential' items. So there is no sales tax on milk, butter or flour, but there is on bread. I know for anyone living outside urban centres the only means of transportation available is automobiles, is it essential in those areas? Even if you say it isn't, what's done about the dissenting minority?


Is it a $30 million dollar home? Why not?

Tax shelter by any other name would sound as sweet?

How many times has Canada been invaded by foreign nations? Seriously. Think about that.

I certainly have. We survived the entire Cold War, and we were practically neighbouring the USSR and all we had was an army they could've defeated in 24 hours. It's almost as if there really were some other factor staying their hand against us, as we had also made it clear we were an active enemy of the USSR. You can chalk that up to some unknown force and declare that you don't need an army. I'm going to take the conventional and more mundane explanation that the USSR was pretty sure any invasion into Canada would've been met by more than just the Canadian armed forces. Take away America's army and my Russian would be better than my grandfather's was.

Now look at Afghanistan. It's a fraction the size of the US, and many nations have tried to occupy it. None have done it successfully. Now imagine a nation trying to take over this country where so many citizens are armed. First we have a sprawling land mass. Second we have an armed population. They'd never succeed. Never.

Yes, let's please take Afghanistan as an example. Afghanistan is a desolate waste land with no resources even worth taking, and nation after nation has invaded and occupied it over and over again. It is one the poorest, least educated places on the planet, with some of the highest infant mortality rates in the world as well. When they weren't being invaded by foreigners though, the civilians were being crushed between one warlord after another. Afghanistan is the perfect example of why any nation worth living in needs both a strong police force and army in order to stay that way. Does it really matter if the USSR could never have fully conquered the US without an army? Isn't the ability to turn it into a desolate, ravaged third world while trying incentive enough?

Context via Neatorama!

The man singing is Edward Hill, also known as Eduard Khil’, or, better yet, [Cyrillic redacted -- ed.]. According to his Russian Wikipedia page, Hill was born in Smolensk in 1934, and finished his studies at the Leningrad Conservatory in 1960. By 1974 he had been named a People’s Artist of the USSR, and in 1981 he was awarded the Order of the Friendship of Peoples. He is best known for his interpretations of the songs of the Soviet composer, Arkadii Ostrovskii. As for the peculiar name, I could find no information, but imagine that he is descended from the English elite that had established itself in western Russian cities by the 17th century. He is not a defector of the Lee Harvey Oswald generation. He is entirely Russian.

The song he is interpreting, “I Am So Happy to Finally Be Back Home,” is an Ostrovskii composition, and it is meant to be sung in the vokaliz style, that is to say sung, but without words. I have seen a number of comments online, ever since a flurry of interest in Hill began just a few days ago, to the effect that this routine must have been meant as a critique of Soviet censorship, but in fact vokaliz was a well established genre, one that seems close in certain respects to pantomime.

Context via Neatorama!

The man singing is Edward Hill, also known as Eduard Khil’, or, better yet, [Cyrillic redacted -- ed.]. According to his Russian Wikipedia page, Hill was born in Smolensk in 1934, and finished his studies at the Leningrad Conservatory in 1960. By 1974 he had been named a People’s Artist of the USSR, and in 1981 he was awarded the Order of the Friendship of Peoples. He is best known for his interpretations of the songs of the Soviet composer, Arkadii Ostrovskii. As for the peculiar name, I could find no information, but imagine that he is descended from the English elite that had established itself in western Russian cities by the 17th century. He is not a defector of the Lee Harvey Oswald generation. He is entirely Russian.

The song he is interpreting, “I Am So Happy to Finally Be Back Home,” is an Ostrovskii composition, and it is meant to be sung in the vokaliz style, that is to say sung, but without words. I have seen a number of comments online, ever since a flurry of interest in Hill began just a few days ago, to the effect that this routine must have been meant as a critique of Soviet censorship, but in fact vokaliz was a well established genre, one that seems close in certain respects to pantomime.

This is rocknroll but http://www.videosift.com/video/Billy-Joel-Uptown-Girl-Big-Shot-Live-in-the-USSR isn't? Pfft.

If you haven't seen this Russian classic you really should.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Mimino-intro-classic-USSR-film-1977

>> ^Godless:
Premonitory!... I see no difference between this skit and any of Beck's rants at Fox.

This is comedy, the other is opinion. Pretty easy to tell the difference.


I really did love this show, I remember coming home from school to watch it. Despite what people think, Canadians did have a problem with the USSR(territorial soverignty issues, still ongoing, airspace violations--see Alert among other places) but we were also the main mediators between the US and the USSR.

>> ^dr_izzybizzy:
What a silly argument. Not only should the makers of this video learn the basic difference between correlation and causation, they should also have a history and anthropology lesson as well. The USSR, China, and North Korea were (and still are in the case of the latter two) "non-theistic," though certainly not classifiable as "peaceful."
I wonder what the correlation is between levels of violence and uncritical acceptance of mindless propaganda films...


>> ^dag:
This.>> ^conan:
someone teach those guys the difference between correlation and causality.



>> ^Psychologic:
"Extremely accurate statistical study"? How is that determined? I'll have to look further into their methodology... it's just an odd phrase to use with statistical analysis.

Anyway, I wonder about the causality in this correlation. For instance, religious belief tends to increase in the presence of adversity (poverty, high crime rate, internal wars, etc), so it's possible that religion is at least partially propagated by those factors being measured. Perhaps a trend towards atheism is caused by stability?
Unfortunately this particular list was created in 2007, so there isn't much data from which to derive trends. It would be more informative to see how things play out over time. My guess is that declining violence/war would lead to a situation more favorable to less religion, but I don't have enough background in this area to form any real conclusions.


Come on people. This does not say that atheism leads to peace. It shows there is a correlation between them. Regardless of peace leading to atheism or atheism leading to peace or anything else, the correlation exists.

This correlation and causality crap is presumptions and not even applicable here.

What a silly argument. Not only should the makers of this video learn the basic difference between correlation and causation, they should also have a history and anthropology lesson as well. The USSR, China, and North Korea were (and still are in the case of the latter two) "non-theistic," though certainly not classifiable as "peaceful."

I wonder what the correlation is between levels of violence and uncritical acceptance of mindless propaganda films...

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Robert McNamera, Cuba, USA, USSR, Nukes, Missile Crisis, Cold War, War, Annihilation' to 'Robert McNamara, Cuba, USA, USSR, Nukes, Missile Crisis, Cold War, War, Annihilation' - edited by kulpims

First of all, being "good" has nothing to do with religion. The simple concept of reciprocal altruism explains being good, and why atheists don't all go around killing and raping.

Religion has an organized system with which it attempts to train and instruct people in how to 'be good'. Atheism does not. Is religion perfect at it? Of course not. But having a group that teaches a moral system is more likely to result in a moral people. The simple concept of reciprocal altruism without an underlying moral system to support it is rhetorical.

Second, if our problems were being solved by compassionate people at an individual level, we wouldn't have problems big enough to be addressed by collective (government) action.

This is an 'either or' point of view I reject. Using your logic, is it not equally fair to say that "If the problems were being solved by putting them in the hands of government, the USSR wouldn't have had problems that needed addressing?" Clearly the problems are NOT 'solvable' under ANY system. Therefore your statement is a logical fallacy. We do not need government programs merely because private ones have difficulties.

People place these responsibilities in the hands of PRIVATE CHARITY because most feel completely unable to help individually, so we choose to give a portion of our income so that we may, as a group, fund PRIVATE CHARITIES that have a chance of helping. And if they are flawed, then it is our responsibility to try to fix them.

See whut I did ther?

I would love for you to define "personal freedom".

Sure - the ability to think and act as I wish. That includes all levels of the human condition including social, personal, intellectual, emotional, physical, and FINANCIAL freedom.

Like the struggle now for health care, which is overwhelmingly supported by the majority.

That 'overwhelming support of the majority' explains why 52% oppose it I guess...

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform

So let me summarize, the conservatives who are "rugged individualists" say if you are unlucky and $#it happens to you, well then you are ****ed.

And you say my perspective is warped. Such didism as you spew here is the epitome of warped, even brainwashed, perspective. Conservatism says "If you can take care of yourself - you should." People who can afford insurance (even if it isn't 'convenient') should pay their way. Conservatives are more than willing to volunteer time, money, and help to those who need it - but that aid is not in the form of an involuntary, confiscatory tax going to a wasteful government program. It is in the form of personal, individual, freely-given time, talent, and resources.

Whereas the liberals say that any one of us at any time could face difficulties, so we should collectively try to support those that are worst off.

That isn't a liberal approach. That's a CONSERVATIVE approach. Your problem is that the FORM of your 'collective support' is politically liberal - I.E. an involuntary, forcible tax going to an iefficient, ineffective program. And you don't see how wrong that is. 'Collective aid' does not have to be 'forced taxes' or 'government programs'.

Now it may be the case that every program we try to implement is a "spectacular failure", but at least we are trying.

Private, volunteer efforts are also 'just trying' - and they don't strip away your freedoms.

In conclusion, if you feel that PRIVATE programs are not working, then you should be working to fix them or supporting people with plans on how to fix them, rather than simply giving up and trying to remove them.

C whut I did ther again?

Killing a program like social security may save you ten bucks a month, but it wouldn't help anybody.

It would save me over $100 a month. That is $1,200 a year I could be investing in my own retirement plan. Then when I retired I could be a multi-millionaire and wouldn't need Social Security. Now imagine millions of retired people who DON'T NEED SOCIAL SECURITY because they are all multi-millionaires. These people would have money for thier own medical care, to purchase goods & services, travel, or whatever else they want. They could also contribute to charity, and help out the needy because they were in a position to lend a helping hand instead of need government subsistence checks just to pay for utilities. I'd call that helping EVERYBODY. Would there be a few hard luck cases? Sure. Again - they could be helped without the spectacular failure that is the Social Security program.