h a l f b a k e r yWhat was the question again?
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Using likely target info that would be hit in the event of
a
nuclear war, it would take your location and tell you
when you
could expect to snuff it in the event they push the
button.
At the center of a major city? Buh-by.
In the suburbs? Probably survive the blast and starve to
death
after the food, (including pets and squirrels) runs out.
Month
and a half maybe?
In the mountains living off the land? 6 to 12 months. The
time it takes for those mountains to be invaded by
millions of people looking to survive off the land just like
you.
A fun game the whole family can play! (Inspired
by kdf's
nuke map.
See
link)
Based on this.
https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/
[doctorremulac3, Jul 24 2020]
Tzar Bomb
https://en.m.wikipe...org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba
[xenzag, Jul 24 2020]
The show that made me think this might be interesting.
https://youtu.be/XetplHcM7aQ
[doctorremulac3, Jul 25 2020]
Dr. Strangelove
magnet:?xt=urn:btih...s%3A6969%2Fannounce
[Voice, Jul 25 2020]
Tzar Bomba destructive radius map.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-k6p-haJ-lU
[xenzag, Jul 25 2020]
We will all go together when we go
https://www.youtube...watch?v=frAEmhqdLFs
[Voice, Jul 26 2020]
Good luck trying to hide in a hill from this....
https://www.youtube...watch?v=4R7pZOAWQrk
[xenzag, Jul 26 2020]
Blast / fallout map
https://images.app....l/pCTzZeZM8nNEzmDv9
But you're not home free if you're not in these areas. [doctorremulac3, Jul 26 2020]
[link]
|
| |
Read the entire link to confront the true reality of
a large nuclear bomb explosion. Forget about
putting in your address if you live in any city
anywhere in the world as even 100 miles from the
epicentre of such a blast you will be incinerated. |
|
| |
// even 100 miles from the epicentre of such a blast you will be incinerated // |
|
| |
Not so; while the size of the device and its deployment mode are the principal determinants, there are a number of paradoxical effects as determined by numerous US and USSR tests/during the Cold War. In many cases, a simple deep slit trench can give excellent prospects of survival even close to Point Zero. |
|
| |
If the heat flash and the blast don't kill you, then you're at no risk from the radiation, only contamination. |
|
| |
So, you need to be well below ground level, and have suitable protective equipment. Hiding in a sewer is a good option. |
|
| |
//Civil defense planning and nuclear survivalism (both
serious as well as "games") have existed since the Truman
administration.// |
|
| |
So you can go to a website and type in where you live and
it
will tell you how long you have to live after a nuclear war
taking factors beyond blast radius such as deterioration of
food supplies, utilities, clean water into consideration
telling you not only when you will die but how? |
|
| |
Just kidding, there isn't one. |
|
| |
I'll clarify: There are a lot of ways people will die after a
full on nuclear war depending on where they are.
Somebody living in a survival bunker in Idaho with 5 years
of food and plenty of ammo is going to do better than
somebody living on an Air Force base, but there are
gradients between the two. Somebody living in a rural
area outside New York City might wonder what's in store
for them. |
|
| |
//Not so; while the size of the device and its
deployment mode are the principal determinants,
there are a number of paradoxical effects as
determined by numerous US and USSR//
Did you read the link? Here's a tiny section:
"All buildings in the village of Severny (both
wooden and brick), located 55 km (34 mi) from
ground zero within the Sukhoy Nos test range,
were destroyed. In districts hundreds of kilometres
from ground zero, wooden houses were destroyed,
stone ones lost their roofs, windows, and doors,
and radio communications were interrupted for
almost one hour. One participant in the test saw a
bright flash through dark goggles and felt the
effects of a thermal pulse even at a distance of
270 km (170 mi). The heat from the explosion
could have caused third-degree burns 100 km (62
mi) away from ground zero. A shock wave was
observed in the air at Dikson settlement 700 km
(430 mi) away; windowpanes were partially broken
for distances up to 900 kilometres (560 mi).[32]
Atmospheric focusing caused blast damage at even
greater distances, breaking windows in Norway and
Finland. Despite being detonated 4.2 kilometres
(2.6 mi) above ground, its seismic body wave
magnitude was estimated at 5.0–5.25 |
|
| |
Kdf, again, you need to understand an idea before
commenting.
The idea wasn't "Think about the aftermath of nuclear
war and possible survival techniques." |
|
| |
//I understand you did have an original idea, once, but it
died of loneliness.// I understand you did had
an interesting, well thought out comment once but... just
kidding. |
|
| |
Kdf, seriously, based on where you live, do you know how
you'd die?
Blast? Radiation exposure?
Starvation? If it's something simple like being incinerated
in
a fireball, well, that's it. But how do you fare as systems
break down further away from the targets? How do you
get food? DO you get food? Do you have clean water? Are
you on a well or does your area get water from a central
location that's now been destroyed? How much fallout
does your area get? How much of a factor to your survival
is
that? Is there any preparation you might do to mitigate
these disasters? Is it even worth trying in your area? That's
what
might be kind of interesting and that's what this would
explore. |
|
| |
Further, there might be some utility to this. Nuclear war
seems about as real as the second coming to most people.
Putting a little fear about this into the people of the
world might be a good thing no? And if there IS any
chance of survival for some, this
might offer some help to those lucky few. Might even save
a few lives.
Hey, at the very least it would be a great way to sell
disaster survival food kits or something. |
|
| |
Put it this way, tell me you wouldn't put your address into
this thing and read all the gory details. |
|
| |
One more way this might be used: real estate rankings.
With people moving out of the deteriorating cities to
more rural areas, a "Nuclear Survivability Rating" for real
estate maps could become a thing. |
|
| |
I looked. Nothing at all out there even close to this. |
|
| |
Through a carefully planned program of preparation, diet
and denial, I plan on living forever. |
|
| |
And you can too. It's all in my $29.95 book: "How I Plan To
Make $29.95". |
|
| |
Just curious, what's your story? Judging by the tenor of your
criticisms you must be reaaaaaaaaaaaaaalllllllllly smart. |
|
| |
Are you? I mean, if so that's great. So how smart we talkin'?
Like, super smart 'n stuff or just kinda? Smart people are
awesome. If you're like, mega smart, you should be proud of
your awesome
smartanaity. |
|
| |
// I'm reading this as "You won't get instantly incinerated or die of radiation sickness directly from the fireball . // |
|
| |
Correct. If you're far enough away, or protected sufficiently, that you survive the thermal pulse (non-ionizing) then the dose of ionizing radiation you receive will not even be harmful, let alone dangerous. The ionzing radiation doesn't actually propagate very far, due to a process called radiation transport; the plasma is actually opaque to some radation which results in "downshifting" to the visible and thermal bands. |
|
| |
ERWs are a bit different, but even so a thick layer of soil or concrete will cut the neutron dose right down. |
|
| |
Analysis of Japanese casualties showed that those who received dangerous or lethal radiation doses also had potentially lethal burn and blast injuries, but critically had also inhaled and ingested fallout nuclides. |
|
| |
This isn't about direct blast effects so much as
being
about
effects of systems that will collapse. How they'll
collapse,
when they'll collapse, how one system's collapse
will lead
to
another's due to how they're interconnected. Then
how
those systems will affect the people
they're keeping alive. |
|
| |
New York for instance doesn't need a direct hit
from a
nuclear bomb to kill off its population. It's
artificially
supported by an interconnected system of life
support
technologies that would stop working in a nuclear
war.
You can't feed New York by planting potatoes in
central
park. Not for long anyway. Or maybe you could.
For a
little while. This would explore that concept.
Probably
say it won't work, but it could explore that. |
|
| |
A civilization is an interconnected series of systems
making one living organism. How removal of those
systems in various areas affects the organism is
interesting. |
|
| |
It was well touted in the '70s or '80s that a USSR ICBM headed for New York would get intercepted by US defenses over Toronto. |
|
| |
Oh yea, SDI, the “Star Wars” controversy. Good
times. |
|
| |
See the link for the show that made me think this
might be interesting. |
|
| |
[doc3] instead of arguing, maybe you could clearly restate what the idea is, because there is an obvious issue understanding how it differs from many existing sources and sites. I for one can't see what's unique about it. |
|
| |
Well, thank you for asking nicely, but I'm not arguing,
I'm responding to snarky, insulting comments from kdf
in kind. Which is fine, that can be fun too. |
|
| |
As far as the idea, if there's a nuclear war, we all
know what happens if one of these lands on your
house, or a mile from your house, or three miles etc. |
|
| |
But what about areas nowhere near the nuclear
blasts? Every area will be affected differently but
they will be affected, this would look into how. Your
survival will be determined by where you live. How
you DIE will be determined by factors such as when
systems that deliver food collapse, central water
systems will stop working so if you're on a well that
will be a factor in your survival. Putting your address
into a database that has all these considerations
factored in might tell you what might happen to
YOUR particular area even if you aren't anywhere
near an actual nuclear blast. |
|
| |
Put in 123 Sunshine Lane Happytown USA. |
|
| |
Scenario: Warheads land at Airforce base 30 miles
away, major city 100 miles away. |
|
| |
Day 1: Power off, sporadic radio from ham radio
operators if you have the appropriate radio gear. |
|
| |
Day 15: Food supply gone. Farm grain stores being
raided. Law breaks down. |
|
| |
Day 30: Starvation starting to kill people in the area. |
|
| |
Now another area might say Day 1: Power,
communications and water off. Death from thirst
within one week after supplies on hand, soft drinks,
water heaters etc run out. |
|
| |
Anyway, that's the idea. I thought it might be mildly
interesting. |
|
| |
The main problem, I suggest, is that we don't know how the
nuclear exchange itself will play out, nor even who the players
will be. |
|
| |
For example, a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan
(only) could, I've heard, fuck us all up in the end - but the details
of civilisational collapse would be vastly different from those
arising from the good ol' Russia/America scenario. And even in
that latter scenario, some warheads would get through and
others might not - so the airforce base down the road might not
be hit, and it would be the burst over the state capital that would
get you, or vice versa. |
|
| |
The idea is indeed interesting, but it over-estimates the
knowability of the future. |
|
| |
For the UK, I seem to remember a Soviet planning assumption,
coming to light post Cold War, that four warheads would be
enough to annihilate it. France, being larger, was allocated five.
But would China allocate the same numbers, if China were the
enemy? And could Putin, with his Belgium-sized economy, still
afford them? And would he even bother, having already bought
the House of Lords, allegedly? |
|
| |
//The idea is indeed interesting, but it over-
estimates the knowability of the future.// |
|
| |
Probably right, there are so many scenarios that it
would be impossible to come up with every
permutation so you'd just have to pick one and model
the aftermath. I guess the thing that's interesting is
not so much the morbid aspect of the post nuclear
consequences to civilization as
the
interaction
of all these systems that keep civilization working. |
|
| |
Maybe a better model would be one where you could
shut off say, crude oil and see what happens. Shut
down power and see what happens etc. Just
concentrate on the systems and model what occurs
when they variously get shut down. All these parts
make the whole work, like a human body. What
happens if you remove the liver? The spleen? The
heart? Which systems can be bypassed, which can't.
We're doing a real life experiment with various
systems now because of this pandemic. Movie
theaters, schools etc. Maybe not as consequential as
power or food production, but these are systems we
depend on too. Guess that's what has me thinking
about this stuff. |
|
| |
There's these video game ads that pop up showing for
instance a guy trying to save a princess, but there's
lions in one chamber, snakes in another, bowling balls
in another and you have to open the chambers in the
right sequence to get to the princess. Open the
bowling balls to fall on the snakes first, then the next
correct chamber until you get to the princess. A
model of civilization where you could shut things off
in various sequences to see what would happen might
be interesting. |
|
| |
That's something that's probably been explored in
depth especially by military forces hacking into
computer systems running infrastructure to disable
them in time of war. Would be interesting to be able
to fiddle with
though. |
|
| |
//It's all in my $29.95 book: "How I Plan To Make $29.95".// |
|
| |
Will you update us on progress? Do you have an estimated time-frame for achieving this ambitious life-goal? |
|
| |
See link.... If a bomb this size landed on New York,
there would be nothing left for a 100 mile radius.
This was a single 50 Megaton detonation.
Speculating as who would be safe or survive is
simply laughable in the face of such overwhelming
destructive power. The true face of atomic warfare
is too horrible to ever permit to be realised. |
|
| |
I think a better title of my $29.95 book would be:
"How Anyone Can Make $29.95 selling a book.” |
|
| |
Appeal to the entrepreneur crowd. |
|
| |
// there would be nothing left for a 100 mile radius. // |
|
| |
Not so. There would be very little left above ground in the vicinity of Ground Zero, but there is hilly terrain to the east and north of the city; inevitably, even with a high airburst, there will be blast and flash shadows, though predicting exactly where is difficult. But any protective structure installed in the reverse slope of a hill will provide adequate protection. |
|
| |
If you increase the altitude of the burst to try and "reach out" further, the slant range between Point Zero and the target increases by simple trigonometry. There's an optimum height to maximize the effects, too low and it's contained by geography (see Nagasaki), too high and inverse-square law diminishes the more distant effects. |
|
| |
As [kdf] pointed out, increasing the yield beyond the point where the fireball becomes exoatmospheric is just a waste of Lithium Deuteride. And that's shame, it's expensive stuff. |
|
| |
// increasing the yield beyond the point where the fireball
becomes exoatmospheric is just a waste of Lithium
Deuteride. // |
|
| |
Indeed. And a nuclear power that truly cares about the
product and service they provide would thoughtfully target
a separate warhead on the lee side. It's the only way to be
sure. |
|
| |
Best check beforehand if their targeting policy is ISO9000 compliant ... |
|
| |
Underground ? In a tectonically unstable zone ? Smooth.... |
|
| |
There are so many natural and anthropogenic threats in Cascadia that it's tricky to know which one you need to protect against most. Quake ? Tsunami ? Volcano ? Incoming nuke ? |
|
| |
You digs your bunker, and you takes your choice. |
|
| |
Not knowing or euphorically painfully. |
|
| |
Well, there's a verb, and two adjectives. However, an archetypal English sentence should have a subject and an object. |
|
| |
You don't necessarily need nouns, but subject - verb - object is the minimum for coherently conveying specific meaning. |
|
| |
Perhaps you could try to make the concept you're trying to express a little less clear? Making it clearer would require so little effort as to be trivial, so go for something you have to work at... |
|
| |
//How Will You Die In A Nuclear War//
Not knowing or euphorically painfully. |
|
| |
//Not so. There would be very little left above ground in the vicinity of Ground Zero, but there is hilly terrain to the east and north of the city; inevitably, even with a high airburst, there will be blast and flash shadows, though predicting exactly where is difficult. But any protective structure installed in the reverse slope of a hill will provide adequate protection. // I think you are totally underestimating the power of equivalents to the Tzar Bomba and have not really looked at the extent of the devastation it caused. No hill will protect you from this monster even if it's many miles from the epicentre. see link for explosion film |
|
| |
//No hill will protect you from this monster// |
|
| |
Which part of the monster? The firestorm? Direct flash damage? Immediate alpha, beta, or gamma? Blast damage to my building? Blast damage to myself? The earthquake? Fallout from the dirt? What height would it theoretically explode? What is the hill made of? |
|
| |
You can't just say "big boom kill everyone". |
|
| |
The Tzar Bomba was half the size of Russia's biggest weapon, the 100 megaton bomb! Read the details. There is no safe place anywhere within 100 miles from the detonation of these ultimate weapons. |
|
| |
//You digs your bunker, and you takes your choice// |
|
| |
Not me. MY bunker is highly resistant to volcanos, earthquakes, tornadoes, zombies, direct hit by a strategic warhead, forest fires, immersion in water, and a hundred other scenarios. It has differing redundant supplies of air, food, water, and every other necessary (or not!) commodity, enough to last me, my staff, and my family 200 years. The only disadvantage is, it doesn't actually exist. |
|
| |
Anything outside of the actual crater has a chance to survive depending on many factors. Also the Tzar bomb wasn't detonated on the ground. The sound is dubbed in and that's not even a video of the Tzar bomb. |
|
| |
// There is no safe place anywhere within 100 miles from the detonation of these ultimate weapons. // |
|
| |
The occupants of Cheyenne Mountain would disagree with that. |
|
| |
// have not really looked at the extent of the devastation it caused. // |
|
| |
On the contrary; we have extensively studied the technology, its effects, and most importantly its limitations. The extensive atmospheric testing carried out by the US was partly to evaluate weapons design, but also to evaluate effects. Subsequently, some limited data - which is generally confirmatory - has become available from the former USSR. Such devices are only useful for city-bashing, not much more; deployment against hardened tactical targets is wasteful and ineffective. |
|
| |
That's right, [kd] ... humans obsess about coronavirus, and giant nukes, and other crazy stuff, and yet are doing nothing to address, let alone correct, your planet's growing slood imbalance. |
|
| |
And that asteroid's still on the way towards you. Perhaps it would be good to nudge it into a different trajectory, and sooner rather than later ? If you can't do it yourself, you could always contract to have it done professionally. |
|
| |
Reasonable terms to regular customers, all major forms of payment accepted. |
|
| |
//You can't just say "big boom kill everyone".// |
|
| |
Exactly! That's gist of this idea. And athough a large
number of people would survive the initial blasts of
an all
out nuclear exchange, their worries don't stop there.
You might look at a blast map (link) and see that
you're not at an impact point or downwind of the
fallout and think you're OK but you're not. Many of
the
systems that keep people alive would go away after a
nuclear exchange and with them, their lives. This
would explore how and when based on where you live
in
what I think is an interesting way. |
|
| |
There's a number someplace of how many
people can survive as hunter gatherers per square
mile without technology to support our currently
vastly inflated numbers. That may be what we're
looking at eventually. |
|
| |
Not including nuclear winter theories which I
won't comment on. My second favorite scientist,
Ernst Mach,
pointed out that perceived data is affected by the
observer's
vantage point and nuclear winter scientists are
political humans prone to downplay or overplay the
effects of a nuclear war depending on their politics. I
just go with the "Nuclear war's bad, um kay?"
evaluation and leave it at that. |
|
| |
I'm a "prepper" in that I think the best way to
prep for nuclear war is to get back to the table and
limit the number of these things and the likelihood
of their use as much as possible.
The payoff to the power brokers would be money. If
one takes the world economy seriously enough to
take steps to protect commerce by avoiding nuclear
war as much as possible, there is financial benefit to
the parties that facilitate a "peace through
commerce" based planet. |
|
| |
That's my two cents anyway. |
|
| |
7.8 billion inhabitants, 2 cents each. $156 million. |
|
| |
This isn't obsessing about anything or weighing risks,
it's about analyzing system interaction. |
|
| |
Thought I had mentioned that about a thousand
times. |
|
| |
//To revisit// Once was enough. Time to get back in your box. |
|
| |
I'll throw him a bucket of fish heads. Maybe that'll
keep him busy while the rest of us engage in friendly
conversation. |
|
| |
//I'm a "prepper" in that I think the best way to prep for
nuclear war is to get back to the table and limit the
number of these things and the likelihood of their use as
much as possible.// |
|
| |
I wonder what we do and don't know. My perception is
that a disgruntled US Navy technician isn't driving out of a
base with a Nuke-tipped cruise missile any time soon.
Even then, I'd hope it was beyond even extremely capable
technical people to jury-rig it for nefarious use.
Ultimately the physical material is still there and could
be made to work. My perception is also that there is a
former Soviet warehouse somewhere that can be entered
with a couple of modest bribes. |
|
| |
Anyhow, I thought of a publicly accessible list of what is
where, except I'm sure everyone would lie. |
|
| |
I hear ya. I think it's a miracle we haven't had a one off
terror
attack at this point. I can't imagine every single drunk
Russian guard in charge of nuclear bomb stuff turning
down a million bucks and a one way ticket to Bora Bora,
but hasn't happened yet. Knock on wood. |
|
| |
I've only known one person with actual nuclear missile
launch authorization, the navigator on the Nautilus on its
famous trip under the North Pole (my aunt's second
husband) and later the captain of various boomers. Ask
him a question, any question about nukes and he'd just
smile and at MOST say "I can neither confirm or deny..."
etc. We were at a dinner party where my cousin was
getting his
Lt Colonel stripes and I had a martini or two. Every
question I asked got a smile, a shrug or the standard
"Confirm or deny" speech. They don't give the keys to
somebody who would crack that easily. |
|
| |
No, shirley not ? What possible reason could anyone have for being untruthful ? |
|
| |
// I'd hope it was beyond even extremely capable technical people to jury-rig it for nefarious use. // |
|
| |
Unfortunately not, because security involves complexity - and ultimate reliability (the fundamental system requirement) requires extreme simplicity. |
|
| |
So in the end, it always comes down to "remove all the clever stuff, connect the blue wire to the yellow wire, and touch a PP3 battery between the red wire and the black wire" |
|
| |
If you have the thing on a bench, and time to sit there and take it to bits, then any competent electrical engineer can figure out how it works. |
|
| |
// a former Soviet warehouse somewhere that can be entered with a couple of modest bribes. // |
|
| |
Former USSR, no. Other places ? Quite possibly. |
|
| |
The one bright point is that all sophisticated weapons have a finite shelf life, and after a few years they have to be dismantled, refreshed, and put back together. Thus, while they don't exactly self-inert, their operational effectiveness degrades to the point that they are likely to fizzle, rather than go properly supercritical. That does mean that it's still a dirty bomb, with a few kilos of Plut and U sprayed around, but that's much more manageable than a mushroom cloud ... |
|
| |
8th. I read somewhere that early 60's warheads were
stored after being flushed with N2 as an inert gas
corrosion inhibitor. Now N can be converted to O & H
under alpha bombardment (available from Pu). That
would be outstandingly corrosive. For that reason I
heard a lot of the 60's warheads wouldn't have
worked. Any truth to that? |
|
| |