The true first world war occurred prior to the American War for Independence.
Continental European powers were involved in global wars from the mid-18th to mid-20th century.
The American War for Independence wasn't the root cause of any of them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Years'_War

Frenchmen served in the continental army and killed Englishmen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert_du_Motier,_marquis_de_Lafayette

The United States was successful during the War of Independence with French logistical and financial support. That didn't kill the legitimacy of the new government. Your argument is false.

You choose to avoid all insignificant risks to your health? I have to assume you are trolling.
You are going to miss your flight, be detained, then have pissed off nurses ever so gently probe your anal cavity, and if you resist the police will hold you down and they'll do it regardless of how much you resist? Getting cavity searched is extremely unpleasant, by design. Ever see crack dealers squirm when they know they are about to get cavity searched? It really sucks.
"The Health Physics Society (HPS) reports that a person undergoing a backscatter scan receives approximately 0.05 Sv (or 0.005 mrems) of radiation; American Science and Engineering Inc. reports 0.09 Sv (0.009 mrems). At the high altitudes typical of commercial flights, naturally occurring cosmic radiation is considerably higher than at ground level. The radiation dose for a six hour flight is 20 Sv (2 mrems) — 200 to 400 times larger than a backscatter scan. According to U.S. regulatory agencies, "1 mrem per year is a negligible dose of radiation, and 25 mrem per year from a single source is the upper limit of safe radiation exposure". Of course, this is assuming you flew without your trusty tin-foil hat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backscatter_X-ray
http://www.epa.gov/radtown/cosmic.html

The individual dose is insignificant. The only traveler receiving significant annual radiation doses are flight crew due to increased cosmic radiation. It is still stupid that pilots get screened, from both a radiation health and practical perspective.

Well, officially you can't kill mutants. We all know that medication is good, and even though it's essentially statistically impossible that someone prescribed more than 8 medications is not having potentially serious contra-indications, it's still a good idea to give a mutant as much medicine as possible.

Scattering is the process by which a radiation flux vector field is "diverted to where it wasn't originally aimed," to put it simply.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backscatter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scattering
I respect your understanding of the mechanisms of biological damage caused by radiation fields.
On the basis of your status as a doctor, I believe that you have a basic understanding of radiation. That doesn't include a quantitative or qualitative knowledge of the dynamics of flux scattering and typical doses with respect to flux density, particle energy, and distance. I am not going to attempt to calculate the annual dose to the average operator, because it is tedious and the outcome will be that it is safe. Safe is a relative term. By safe I mean the operator is more likely to die in an automobile accident on the way to work than from an excess cancer caused by the x-ray machine. Research the effects of these doses on your own, and as a rational physician, you will appreciate the relative danger.
Thank you for what you do.

The behavior of the radiation field is dependent on energy and the source configuration, and a backscatter x-ray machine is not going to behave like a medical source.
Exposure off-axis is highly dependent on flux scattering.
I managed exposure control and monitoring operations at a nuclear power plant and, having taken thousands of radiation surveys in a variety of environments, ionizing radiation field types, and during high-radiation dynamic evolutions, I should know. Thanks for playing doc!

Radiologists experienced dangerous occupational exposures prior to 1950. Exposure control and monitoring operations are significantly more advanced and it is not unsafe to be a radiologist. Thanks for the FUD though.
http://radiology.rsna.org/content/233/2/313.full

Now we have to tell paranoid schizophrenics that it is merely improbable that a microchip could be implanted in their body, monitoring various functions on behalf of the Illuminati, and transmitting to their underground city.

Destruction of an enemy ballistic missile submarine would not be detected for an extended period of time unless an emergency radio transceiver was able to be launched prior to destruction.
No singular and coherent enterprise in the history of mankind has seen greater mental and monetary resources invested into it than the business of nuclear war.
The sophistication of Western and Eastern strategic weapons vastly exceeds any engineered project you have ever encountered. I agree it is improbable that you can destroy all enemy launch vehicles, but that isn't really the point.
The primary purpose of strategic warfare is to deter strategic attack.
The secondary purpose of strategic warfare is to maintain a counter-strike capability sufficient to cause annihilation of the enemy's populace and strategic capabilities in the event of nuclear attack detection.
The unspoken purpose of strategic warfare systems is to maintain the ability to deliver a surprise pre-emptive counter-strike and deliver a counter-force or counter-command strike such that the resulting strike is less lethal than if the pre-emptive counter-strike had not been delivered. Bombers are good for this.

Everyone knows what mutually assured destruction is.
You are assuming that the enemy has ballistic missile submarines that are not tracked by friendly forces.

Yes, nuclear war probably won't happen.
The threat exists, and could be more effectively countered with a supersonic, long-range interceptor platform.
F-22 fills this fine right now, but there are scenarios where a YF-12 would be more desirable in terms of mission performance.
The Russians' latest advancements and threats to modernize their ICBM systems have little to do with defense contractor "pork" and much more to do with geopolitics.
The recent SS-26 use against Georgia, needless overkill, is concrete evidence of this.