Anyone got something debunking the myth that a nuclear war either is world ending or reduces everyone to being cavemen or some shit.
Maybe OPpenheimer is around?
Japan experienced an atomic weapon whose damage is indistinguishable from the average firebombing we gave those nips. They built their cities out of paper and wood for christ sake.
>Anyone got something debunking the myth that a nuclear war either is world ending or reduces everyone to being cavemen or some shit.
Russians have about 1400 warheads, give or take.
The US has 500 Silos. Thats between 1000 and 1200 warheads right there. Airbases are another 150 or more, and then command and control centers will be the remainder, and that before a single urban target gets deliberately hit.
Now it will be catastrophic, but the vast majority of the country's economic assets remain largely unharmed.
There would be a slow recovery, and the US and the world would be changed drastically. The economic effects would be massive, even with the intact assets.
But it would not be anywhere close to Mad Max. It would be closer to Europe after the Second World War.
Depends on what watersheds/arable land gets hit with fallout. Plenty of people would survive and likely rebuild on a local basis but cancer would be alot more common and industrial/computer systems and their supply chain needs would be horribly interrupted until they could be re-linked or adapted to work like its the 1930's until things get more organized. If cropland is heavily contaminated large scale food production would be hard to replicate or would have to be altered significant (no more beef/soy/corn shit, more wheat, carefully grown vegetables, phytoremdiation of soils and careful tillage practices to keep fallout from making things any more toxic).
Fallout is not a major concern for crops and water supplies excluding those very close to the area of the surface burst.
You can remove the dust from most products during harvesting and processing. Other items can be stored until fallout reaches safer levels.
There would be a large amount of cropland unaffected by fallout that is still serviceable.
nuclear winter is a myth. full nuclear exchange will bring colder seasons, maybe extreme winters like volcanoes have through history, but will not endure.
there are not, or ever have been, enough nukes to glass the human race.
fallout is a real threat, though only if you're downward of the prevailing wind from the impact site. if you're in america, this means east of a target (harbor, industry, airfield...)
in the end, you're likelier to die of starvation/dehydration or lack of medical care and supplies coupled with injury and disease
emp knocking shit out, yes, but there are diminishing returns. it's not going to fry an entire continent, and most of your household shit doesn't have the components that will match wavelengths and induce a significant current. longlines will be cooked, along with neighborhood power lines and local power stations. if your shit is on a power strip though, it's still going to function fine for 95% of examples once you have power.
your biggest issue after an exchange is still the basics of survival. food, shelter, heat, defense, and wisdom. nothing new there
All I know is that if ever there is a nuclear war coming I'm sure as hell not gonna be inside Antman's storm shelter.
Pic related is Antman's storm shelter he posted a very long time ago.
You wouldn't happen to have a well-trusted source I could cite on that?
I'm having an argument with someone about the UK's Trident replacement and he's convinced that a nuclear war even now would kill 75% of the UK's population and the remainder would be killed by nuclear winter.
He's convinced that cities and non-war infrastructure are critical targets.
>They built their cities out of paper and wood for christ sake
a 10psi pressure wave, besides ripping your limbs off, will knock down your average building regardless of what it's walls are made of
upping the power just increases that pressure zone area
USA nukes, because of better guidance, stay in the few hundreds of kt range
Russia usually goes large because they can't the broad side of a barn
He was on /b/ and he show a pic that he implied that it was a hint or a clue to what was inside of it but it got deleted real quick by the mods.
But apparently whatever he posted that was in the shelter got people creeped out about it.
Here is a screenshot someone posted in another old thread.
>You wouldn't happen to have a well-trusted source I could cite on that?
These are the new numbers, so the Russians are reporting 1648 warheads.
As for how to fight a nuclear war, I'd start here:
>Russia usually goes large because they can't the broad side of a barn
Modern Russian weapons are actually pretty accurate. The larger yield was in response to their belief that US targets were especially difficult due to being super hardened.
I seen enough of antman's posts and people's stories about this guy to know for a fact that he would do something illegal for sure.
I hope he didn't kill anyone man because that is just wrong man.
have you ever seen any info about crop trials in irradiated areas? i'm sure ru and usa played with the effects on crops at different times, to understand what to expect with different degrees. so i wonder which common crop can take more sieverts.. i'd almost put all my money on potatoes, or one of the tubers. they're custom tailored to survive nature's bullshit
What the fuck is this fucking bullshit garbage shit fuck you stupid fucking niggers go away with this bullshit it's fake and gay go the fuck away you stupid thread derailment wannabe assholes.
>have you ever seen any info about crop trials in irradiated areas?
USDA has a ton of stuff from the 70's and 80's.
And your suspicions are correct, underground crops are the most protected.
Processing radioactive milk into cheese and waiting for it to decay sounds yummy too.
Well... seeing as how we've detonated hundreds of nukes already and we've even nuked the moon I'd say it's not as apocalyptic as movies, books, and video games would have you believe.
Of course, we could actually be dead already and living in the underworld so who knows what's real and what's fake.
Their numbers fluctuate all the time. SSBNs are the typical culprit, as they enter for overall or are launched.
The numbers have come down a great deal since the Late Unpleasantness, but they were never near "hundreds of thousands" even combined.
>and we've even nuked the moon
For the major players, what the step 2 in nuclear war after they do the initial blasting and wipe out the majority of each other bases and cities? Stop and assess the damage and try to pull whats left together, or keep going until the other side is wiped clean?
>but they were never near "hundreds of thousands" even combined.
i guess that's what i get for listening to pop culture.
But now i'm curious, whats the best estimate for the max amount of nuclear devices active at one time?
well i guess >>27516707
made the question irrelevant then.
Thanks a bunch for correcting my ignorance.
>The increase of 66 deployed warheads and nine launchers is most likely due to the deployment of Bulava missiles on the Alexander Nevskiy submarine that was completed in April 2015. Also, some older missiles were probably withdrawn from service.
Sure is Pavel Podvig here.
cool. glow in the dark cheese is eco-friendly natural lighting. cheese and a prius, you're doing OK.
ok thread, what if we got together all of the nukes for an experiment and glassed the northern icecaps? once the cracks start to break, it accelerates the process as we see today with warmer waters! i want to try, we only live once
>He's convinced that cities and non-war infrastructure are critical targets.
And what do you think is incorrect about that? Annihilating population centers and fucking enemy infrastructure is war 101. Why WOULDN'T enemy forces take their chance to completely fuck your country over when they want you to surrender ASAP?
How many nukes are you assuming hit the US in that scenario?
Even if only 10 hit New York is gone, Washington is gone, LA is gone.
So that's the global financial center, the seat of US government (even if the most important people sit it out in shelters) as well as the 2 most populous urban centers in the US.
It won't be like Europe after WW2, it'll be like New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina but on a national scale. Will there be a police or military force left to preserve order? Why would they when the destruction of the major cities and the attached jobs basically means that the US dollar as a currency is gone and everyone is unemployed suddenly?
The rate of illnesses goes through the roof with the level of healthcare devolving back to village witchdoctor standards. Everyone who has diabetes or a similar illness that requires regular medication is dead within a month.
Who organises the logistics of food transportation? Huge areas of US are food deserts, requiring food to be hauled cross-country if not internationally to feed the poulation, who is going to be doing that with no government, no jobs and no universally agreed concept of "money"?
Europe after WW2 had legitimate seats of power left with huge support from the US to keep peace and transitioning into peacetime, who the fuck is going to be doing that in the US if a full nuclear exchange happens? Think Canada won't have bigger problems to take care of?
It won't be an ice-age human extinction but the US will at best be brought back to the level of medieval times until the Indians/Chinese get their shit together to colonise the continent and subjugate the natives.
Its worth bringing up infrastructure.
Lets imagine miraculously the entire US power grid is left unharmed. Who is going to pay everyone to do their jobs and keep electricity flowing? With what money? Why would nuclear engineer Gary sit at work and run the power plant if his wife and child are now starving and at risk of being robbed by some dindus while he's at work, with the police/army being far too busy to protect them?
Same with water, that shit doesn't run itself.
What's going to happen to society then? Think everyone will just run off of gas generators?
What I find funny about nukes is that a simple slit trench, covered with logs and a 3 feet of soil will protect you from blast, thermal pulse and cut down the gamma rays by a factor of a few hundred..... Assuming you are say 10-15 miles from ground zero (ie almost anything but a direct hit).
OPpie has posted a few nuclear strike maps. They always focus on:
1) Nuclear weapons sites
2) Command and Control
3) Recovery Centers
A majority of the cities survive. A majority of the infrastructure and industry survives. There is not a chance in hell the US would backslide that far.
First, continuity of government is pretty well established. At the very least, most state governments would survive and call up the national guard to maintain order. Our own strikes would have gone out, so Russia would be in the same position.
Healthcare would take a hit, but at most it would backslide 50 years. Less, probably, since the manufacturing centers would be left intact. All the procedures and physical tools would remain.
The economy would tank, true. But the US has fairly large stockpiles of food, and we still have a lot of farmland under active tillage. Military would take over distribution of stocks and then buy from farmers. The money, as always, would be fiat, but if the government is smart and takes cash for a better cut of rations it will back it up with a tangible asset. Other ways to stabilize it as well. I have no doubt there are contingencies.
Yep, US would take a pounding. But the concept of "Nuking back into the Stone Age" is silly when you consider the number of nukes, the target list, and the fact each target will have to be assigned 2-3 backup warheads.
Martial law and National Guard call ups. The first gives the government the right to force Gary to do his job and shoot the dindus without due process. The second gives them the teeth to enforce it.
I find it pretty optimistic to assume that on the state level so many moving parts will work in tandem perfectly given such a crisis, and for fiat currency to boot.
Enough national guard decide to desert to be with their families and your entire system fails. A sufficient number of government clerks deciding to flee to other parts of the country rather than stay and your system fails.
We're talking about an event here that's been played up as the literal apocalypse for 3 generations straight, people's reaction will make it a self-fulfilling prophecy even if the tangible effects aren't that bad. Enough people decide to kill themselves or go Mad Max and that'll cascade down to the rest of the population.
Yeah but even that decays using the law of 7's pretty quickly. And the three feet of soil will attenutate gamma-emitting fallout particles on top of the shelter by a factor of 200-300, whilst 100% blocking alpha and beta radiation.
Two weeks in the shelter and fallout will have dropped considerably. You'll be able to spend several hours a day outside usually around now. Obviously the longer you spend in the shelter the better. I can't guarentee you wont get cancer in 20 years, but the time window for acute radiation sickness levels of fallout is quite short all things considered.
The most active (most dangerous) isotopes have short half lives and aren't around for too long. They are like racecar engines, high power for a short amount of time, but blow up after a short period.
>We're talking about an event here that's been played up as the literal apocalypse for 3 generations straight, people's reaction will make it a self-fulfilling prophecy even if the tangible effects aren't that bad. Enough people decide to kill themselves or go Mad Max and that'll cascade down to the rest of the population
>3 generations of people have been scared of this happening
>you think that not one person has tried to figure out how to stop if not mitigate it
You do understand that the point of states is autonomy right? even with a right butfucking the Feds have been doing for a few decades all of these things are still in place, right?
if losing a few cities could bring down the nation, it wouldn't have lasted this long.
They have? That's a relief.
What's the plan to mitigate panic, what's the plan to enforce loyalty and a sense of duty after the perceived end of the world?
Martial law? If the national guard were robots then sure, but they're not. How much do you really trust each and every one to do his job and not give under crisis conditions?
And assuming they do, what about the civilian population. National guard starts rounding up dindus and lining them up against a wall, how does the American public react to that? What experience do they have of living under martial law? How many will try to riot? What about the gun owners who see the prophecy of government tyranny come about first hand and decide that it's finally time to invoke the 2nd?
What about the shit-tier cities? People get shot in Chicago on a good day, if the bomb drops is the state of Illinois just going to quarantine the entire city and let the gangs sort their shit out, civvies be damned?
>What's the plan to mitigate panic, what's the plan to enforce loyalty and a sense of duty after the perceived end of the world?
Why would they tell that to us. If during the Cold War someone were to leak it to the USSR, it would be incredibly easy for them to plan against the contingency and sink the US even deeper.
Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Because nuking cities doesn't stop the enemy from shooting nukes back at you. The only sensible targets are enemy nuclear weapons (silos, subs ships, airfields etc) and their associated command and control.
Hey Oppenheimer, what would a retaliatory strike look like, would it be counter value or counterforce. If the enemy has launched a majority of their missiles, would the most obvious thing be a revenge counter value strike on major population centers?
>America post nuclear war
>Get sick, seek medical help
>Insurance company refuses to cover expenses since I missed my payment because banking networks were down and the contract said nothing about post nuclear medical care
>Hospital prices jacked up 5000% because of supply & demand issues and free market, Martin Shkreli be rollin' in the dosh.
>Can't afford, proceed to Die
Such is life in the zone.
It's not so much the blasts themselves making us cave men, it's the radiation particles killing off people and making large areas uninhabitable, food un consumable and stuff like clothes cars guns, anything touched by radiation un usable do to radiation poisoning.
Then those not killed in the initial decade may have medical problems later like various cancers and the next generation having high numbers of birth defects or health problems down the line.
People focus too much on nukes being just a big bomb that destroys stuff by just being a big explosion like TNT bomb, but is really a chemical weapon that spreads a poison cloud.
I don't think it's a myth that a nuclear war and following winter won't fuck up the earth and kills lots of people
But calling it the end of the world is wrong, it's just the end of a chapter of the world's history. I feel that humans will survive, but be forever changed, and even if it was the end of humans, well, heck there were once dinosaurs and now there is not, whatever happens; happens.
Probably not the answer your looking for, huh?
That was just a couple of weak nukes, the OP is asking about a fully global nuclear war, he's talking saturation bombing or at least one for every major city.
If you need to know places like nuclear power plants that melt downed were uninhabitable for a few generations but eventually the radiation particles from the blast disapation and is reabsorbed into the earth via plants just gotta deal with some people dying of cancer or having their cell structure fall apart and animal mutations.
A TV show Jericho shows how a small town outside the blast zone and was lucky enough to experience only a little bit of radioactive rain due to lucky weather patterns carry on after a supposed nuclear war caused by Corrupt Homeland Security chief wanting to start a second Civil War.
Mad max is more about the collapse of society as a whole.
Food, water and oil shortages and high levels rampant crime was already in full swing to the point of roaming gangs of bandits and police being stretched too thin.
The world had already gone to shit before the bombs dropped.
Fallout casualties are well established as only making up a small fraction of the blast casualties.
No, I was asking about counterforce because only an idiot would go for counter-value when their country is still mostly in-tact.
Well if you think about in Fallout 1 it was roughly 200 to 250 years after the bombs and the survivors were about pre-industrial revolution save for the technology that was scavenged and still working and maintained, all of the guns pre war relics/artefacts, and only the gun runners had gunsmiths who could repair them or mod them, but I don't know about making new guns. Economy was barter based mostly but had small metal bits (bottle caps and pull tabs) as currency. And transportation is animal drawn carts but there was mention of steam wagons steam powered or assisted wooden wagons? I imagine wooden framed sail cars could exist.
80 years layer in fallout 2 people use cash money, new computers, generators and engines, though most guns are still prewar and some people managed to restore pre war cars and the brother hood had refurbished museum pieces and of course there is the enclave, but they don't count because they lived underground and we're unscathed.
Long story short Fallout 1 and 2 shows that humans and civilization quickly recovers after the nuclear winter and really in fallout 2, law and order brought by governments has returned and society exists again just as it did, albeit with a slight 1890's wild west vibe.
I'd think people will still survive and rebuild society.
But not before we have a phase involving cannibal people, motorized warlords, roving pirate-states and societies organized around post-offices.
If Oppenheimer is still around, why types of nukes are targeted to what types of targets?
From the American perspective I assume:
W76 (100kt) - Used on soft targets. In airburst mode it is used on probable mobile ICBM locations and radar systems. Used in groundburst mode on runways (cratering) and pop-up antennas.
W78 (335kt - are they still in service?), W87 (300kt) and W88 (475kt) - Primarily for hardened targets in groundburst mode such as missile silos.
W80 (150kt) - Primarily C3 targets. Designed to be fired 'quietly' without the enemy launching an attack. Would detonate just before launch of ICBMs and SLBMs.
B61 (0.3-170kt in tactical mods, 0.3-340kt in strategic mods) - Same as W80 but more useless strategically. Still a good tactical weapon though.
B83 (1.2Mt) - For hitting the hardest of C3 targets such as bunkers in the Urals.
Why would ICBM's target silos? By the time they got there the missiles would already be far away from the explosion because NORAD.
Targeting population, industrial and military centers is much more intelligent because it makes countries unable to wage a conventional war.
From a first-rate power, it's a real threat. From NK or Iran, not.
A nationally-effective EMP requires a large warhead delivered with considerable position in altitude (and a knowledge of current conditions in the target area.)
It's something the Russians or Chinese could probably pull off (though not without retaliation.)
Targeting industrial and population centers doesn't stop nukes from landing on your country.
Cruise missiles and depressed trajectory light SLBMs (W76s) at this point should have blinded and crippled their command and control, delaying the launch of ICBMs. They would then be mopped up with the your heavy SLBMs and ICBMs.
Because if you are going to win, then you have to blunt the opponents ability to inflict damage to you.
Your primary targets in your first strike would be your opponents nuclear forces. Only after that do you hold the possibility of attacks on economic targets over them to reach war termination.
No one is trying to win hearts and minds.
New York is not a primary target.
You can hit every city over 100,000 population in the US and you would not have any effect on their ability to use their strategic nuclear forces.
All you have done by hitting those cities is reduce the number of warheads you have available.
I don't think you know much about Katrina. I was in the city at the time.
Well the plan was that the treasury would issue IOUs to critical workers.
But failing that order them to do it at gun point.
There are many unforseen things that would arise, but there was extensive plans in place.
Someone from FEMA once said that they had an in depth plan, and you may not think it will work, but you couldn't say they didn't have a plan.
The Government will be the only entity with any access to food, medical care, and other support.
Why wouldn't you let them give you help?
It would be a mix. You would be hard pressed to even get orders to launch to your forces let alone target changes.
Without the means or time to perform a proper analysis you might not know the best way to deploy the weapons. You might hit empty silos, or the same refinery multiple times.
Hey OPPENHEIMER, I just heard a very interesting theory.
You remember the huge steel plate "manhole" that got launched past escape velocity during nuke tests in the 50s or 60s?
I heard someone say that could be the Black Night Satellite.. lol
If the pictures of it are legit, it does look like a chunk of scrap metal.
I thought it was a funny theory and I wanted to mention it.
We all know that Sputniknews debunked that bit of American propaganda.
I heard a guy on a radio program, a so called "Geo-political Expert" claim the US used EMP weapons to cause them to crash.
For the most part that's accurate. B61 can have a strategic role.
For the most part, SLBMs are for time critical targets and SEAD for strike aircraft. ICBM are for hardened targets and cruise missiles and the like for soft targets.
It can vary depending on option but for the most part it's the same.
As for Russian deployment, it's hard to say.
The flight time of the missiles and the response time of the command and control systems are pretty close. You can get a substantial number of missiles still in their silos or just boosting.
Well, who would refuse?
The US had similar failure rates for Tomahawk
How do you respond to claims that the Russians have a tactical nuclear arsenal nearly matching their deployed strategic arsenal?
Apparently these are never mentioned at strategic arms talks so in reality the Russians have far more nuclear weapons than the US deployed.
Given the choice between doing their job and getting paid for it in food or medical care or whatever, and being forced to do the job at gun point, I think most people would pick the first.
You might not even need the gun point. You could say work and receive shelter food and medical care.
If you don't then you are on your own.
Most people work for shelter, food, and medical care now anyway.
>The economy would tank, true. But the US has fairly large stockpiles of food, and we still have a lot of farmland under active tillage. Military would take over distribution of stocks and then buy from farmers. The money, as always, would be fiat, but if the government is smart and takes cash for a better cut of rations it will back it up with a tangible asset. Other ways to stabilize it as well. I have no doubt there are contingencies.
>Large stockpiles of food
>Military would buy from the farmers
Those rose colored glasses....
You're in for a rude awakening, Anon.
Black people. Nuff said. Even in insignificant small scale crap like Ferguson they looted and raped entire city. Imagine in a disaster like this. But that's good, gives us a reason
Makes me glad that I live so far from cities....and in a small town with a swing bridge.
Makes me a little sad for the town across the river from me. That won't stop me from scuttling every boat that I see, though.
Verified former State Department policy wonk that now works for a private sector non proliferation organisation. Seems to monitor the board for the words 'nuke, nuclear, GBI' and shows up and contributes helpful information. Can't tell you a lot of things because he still has a security clearance, at least until they find out he's been posting on a Mongolian water ballet forum. Can save you alot of time reading through really boring books.
Pretty much generally accepted as the only useful trip.
Some years back some people sat down and tried to figure out the most likely outcome of a full nuclear war on the UK.
Then they made a drama-documentary based on that, called Threads. It's a good one, go watch it.
Long story short: thee be fucked good and proper. Population minimum for the UK, somewhere 3 to 8 years after it all, may end up around 4 to 11 million.
I did until the archive went down.
Now I just post as anon until something pops up on the catalog.
Or I visit other boards.
>Pretty much generally accepted as the only useful trip.
The ones that don't take anything too seriously can be genuinely funny, in my opinion, but I get why some people don't appreciate those who do it constantly in a community framed in the context of anonymity.
>30 minutes from Ft. Stewart
>"No shelter Required"
Apparently the second largest port on the East coast right next to a major military base is a pretty safe place to be.
You nuked the archive, didn't you? Spoopy stuff.
Community is not really framed in anonymity, used to be loads of trips from looking at old screenshots. It's mainly because they're annoying cunts, which is why they trip in the first place.
>Who is going to pay everyone to do their jobs and keep electricity flowing?
Utility companies won't stop existing after the bombs drop. Most have some sort of plan for it leftover from the cold war, and in the event of a real war it's unlikely that 100% of their staff would actually get killed. Worst case scenario is that the army corps of engineers come in and do their job.
>With what money?
Money doesn't stop existing after a nuclear war either. Regardless, if for some reason a utility can't or won't issue IOUs the feds can just walk in and "assist" them. Again, the army corps of engineers are all enlisted who get court marshaled if they don't do their jobs.
>Why would nuclear engineer Gary sit at work and run the power plant if his wife and child are now starving and at risk of being robbed by some dindus while he's at work, with the police/army being far too busy to protect them?
Because Gary is still getting paid and if shit really did hit the fan the national guard would be deployed to take care of niggers while everyone gets food coupons for their food rations. Gary, being a highly paid professional, probably also has a victory garden and probably is smart enough to own a gun or live inside a gated, well policed community.
>Same with water, that shit doesn't run itself.
True but water is life. Which is to say, everything stops when it doesn't work. In the event of a real war besides actually defending the country the military's goal will be keeping utility systems functional so that chaos doesn't occur. If we were to ever get close to ever having a nuclear war, you can bet that utility companies would take "emergency planning" more seriously, like they did after 9/11. And should a nuclear war ever occur, the first priority (besides first responders around ground zero) would be to get all the utility services back up.
Map is from the height of the Cold War. It misses all of the Dakota silos and assumes the Russians have a hell of a lot more missiles than they do today. Also, talks about 3 GT worth of surface detonations when the majority would probably be air-burst. Ground burst is only useful against hardened targets.
>Annihilating population centers and fucking enemy infrastructure is war 101
Not even during WW2 did we just destroy cities for the hell of it(Unless you were RAF Bomber Command). If you have a list of targets and a finite number of delivery options, you're gonna want to work over the targets that let the other guy hit you back.
That's how he got the "most nukes will land on ICBMs and relatively few will end up in cities" conclusion.
Hell, what reason is there to nuke, say, NYC or Boston in a nuclear war? Financial sector? As if the USD won't be gone anyway once that cloud of fallout drifts over the Upper Midwest and global famine sets in?
On another note, when it comes to utilities the larger issue is getting power plants fed. At least twice a week coal trains roll through southern DC to feed the big coal plant in Maryland. Those trains themselves are fed with oil. Fixing a downed power line requires at least one diesel truck to drive out there.
As a result, the issue with infrastructure isn't repairing it when it breaks, it's getting enough fuel to do so. Back in 2013 an oil tanker blew up underneath a major overpass outside of SF. It was fixed in 72 hours, but only because multiple diesel powered cranes, trucks, and a cement mixer could be brought in.
This is one of the reasons why people in the 50s liked nuclear power so much, while it's an expensive and complicated technology plants that operate off uranium don't need to be constantly refueled. If you have electric trains, then you've eliminated a substation portion of your diesel usage. In fact, you could probably run the entire US on trains alone (as was the case before the twentieth century).
>choo choo motherfucker
>Hell, what reason is there to nuke, say, NYC or Boston in a nuclear war?
It would, at the very least, make all the people employed in those cities unemployed as their offices would be physically destroyed. Moreover it would do significant economic damage to them, as there would be less consumers (due to people dying) as well as less trained people to work at large companies, who are now crippled by a staffing shortage. Also it's a symbolic thing to destroy a major city. More importantly, the top targeted cities aren't cities like NYC or San Francisco, they're oft-overlooked industrial centers like Sacramento, Houston and Cincinnati.
However, the suburbanification of society and the rapid growth of cities means that the damage would be more contained unless more nukes are built.
This is why countries still have strategic nukes.
just gonna drop this here fam
>More importantly, the top targeted cities aren't cities like NYC or San Francisco, they're oft-overlooked industrial centers like Sacramento, Houston and Cincinnati.
why do people think downtown cities are going to be nuked? The targets are ports, power plants, rail hubs, and war factories. Places that directly supply the war effort. Bombing civilians comes second.
I'm in Fort Smith AR and my family is near the Nuclear One plant in Russellville AR, roughly 25 miles away. What would be our best bet of where to go, what to do in the event it all goes tits up?
Maybe. Assuming my abilities to hunt, fish, trap, and garden all vanish overnight, and all I have is my pantry. It's still better than dying in a flood of urban "youth", hipsters, progressives, and soccermoms.
Maybe now. During the 60's and 70's NYC was like #4 on the hit list. Chicago was like #7. #'s 1, 2, and 3 were DC, Cheyenne Mountain, and Norfolk VA.
Whether it was due to simply having a humongous population (and the massive infrastructure that goes with that) or the fact that everything strategically important in America just happened to have a massive population in/near it, pretty much all the top-10 (with the exception of NORAD out in Cheyenne) were major metro areas.
I respect OPpenheimer and he is a great resource for the board, but this is showing a lack of understanding about the nature of deterrence and the modern use and deployment of strategic nuclear weapons.
These targeting strategies and strike plans were developed during the Cold War, at a time when a massive conventional war in Western Europe was considered a likely event, and a strategic nuclear war was considered a possibility. This is no longer the case today. The threat to Western Europe was based on Stalinist-Leninist doctrine of liberation of oppressed peoples, by military means if necessary, and Soviet paranoia over a re-armed Germany. Russia currently has far different military goals.
Those goals do not involve winning a direct conventional or nuclear conflict with the US. Due to the destabilization of post-Soviet Russia and the economic disruption that entailed, the US has surged far past Russia in both strategic and conventional armament. Russia doesn't want to fight the US, Russia wants the US to not intervene. As such, deterrence for Russia is different.
Counter-force targeting is a zero sum game for Russia. Our deployed SLBMs alone can win a strategic conflict. Furthermore, while our publicly available ABM technology is not enough to stop Russian ICBMs, the course of Russian missile development and procurement would suggest they don't believe that to be the case.
This leads to a change in targets. Since effective counterforce for Russia is off the table, targeting of population centers and the ability to defeat countermeasures and reliably hit them is a more effective deterrence strategy. Will these targets be in the mainland US?
It's possible, but Western Europe is a more likely target. Basing missiles in Venezuela is a possibility, and they're already deployed in Kamchatka and on surface ships in the Pacific, of course, without nuclear warheads (for now).
These targeting maps are fun but they're based on old conflicts and old data. It's far more effective for Russia to be able to threaten major Western population centers than attempt counterstrike on the US. True, they'd be turned into rubble afterwards, but that would happen anyways. The question now is would a US CINC risk the loss of a major population center, even one in Europe, over an Eastern European conflict? That is Russias new deterrence strategy, or at least what they are working towards.
Here's a fun exercise.
Live off the land near you for a week. It's fun, right? A lot of work and you're craving salt, but totally doable.
Next year, get 10 people together to do the same thing.
Then imagine hundreds.
Your ideas are flawed.
This. Even if you blasted a manhole cover clean into space, it would ultimately follow a ballistic trajectory and eventually fall back onto Earth.
Well, unless it somehow achieved escape velocity and didn't immediately ablate into dust, but that's another problem--it would be gone out of Earth's sphere of influence.
They did actually shoot a projectile back into space. Project HARP shot a 180 kg projectile to an altitude of 180 km. Of course, the initial velocity was only 3.6 kps, That's less than half the speed and a quarter of the energy needed to achieve orbit, even neglecting drag. It's not impossible to do, but it would be horribly inefficient and you wouldn't be able to launch anything worth while.
>Our deployed SLBMs alone can win a strategic conflict.
Not accurate. Our SLBM warheads would be unable to damage Russian command and control to such a degree that they could limit any response, and they lack the ability to ensure the destruction of Russian warheads in place.
Never mind that option purity restricts the targeting of SLBM warheads.
>Since effective counterforce for Russia is off the table,
Except its not. Russia still has an effective counterforce capability.
>targeting of population centers and the ability to defeat countermeasures and reliably hit them is a more effective deterrence strategy.
Not really, because you leave the US strategic forces intact, and they can do proportionally more economic damage to Russia due to a smaller number of countervalue targets.
> It's far more effective for Russia to be able to threaten major Western population centers than attempt counterstrike on the US. True, they'd be turned into rubble afterwards, but that would happen anyways.
This is false.
A Russian first strike could deal massive amounts of damage to US strategic forces, and if executed under some circumstances might very well prevent any response from US forces given the current state of US command and control.
For Russia, for whom defense of their nation has always been at the forefront of their operational art, the idea that they would willingly lose the conflict is silly.
Russia's primary goal with strategic warfare has always been, and continues to be, lessening damage sustained and mitigating the effects of what is sustained.
As for the idea that Russia fears US ABM technology is capable of blunting a Russian first strike, I would respond that the Russians can count, and do many types of math.
Their developments have been solely to restore the SSKp of their individual RV's.
Would it not be better in some ways, for the survivors at any rate?
I recall reading that life for European peasants was much improved after the black death. Heavy labor shortage and lots of available land increases quality of life for the survivors until the population recovered, at which point life went back to being shit.
>Russia has effective counterforce
Are you suggesting that Russia has counterforce ability against our SSBNs and B-2s? And that those two systems alone are incapable of damaging Russian command and control to such a degree? I find that to be difficult to believe. No, impossible.
>Proportionally more economic damage
This is certainly true, but the deterrence factor of a strike on a large population center remains. Deterrence means exactly that. The game has changed. Their goal is to be able to intervene militarily in what they regard as their sphere of influence and prevent the West from intervening politically in the same. If their ICBM force becomes an invalid threat they need other options. You can say thats tinfoil, and there is certainly no source, but the thing is far from physically impossible. As an aside, what do you think the X-37b is up to?
>The Russians can count and do math.
Yes they can. They can see what we've spent on missile defense and have inspected our interceptor bases in California and Alaska and seen the results. These things do not match up. No, there is no proof of this. I think you know something about this and aren't allowed to say. Either way, it's bound to be the next development in strategic planning. The Russians either know something or are anticipating something. Hence the focus on long-range cruise missiles.
>solely to restore the SSKp
Despite the fact you pointed out the other day that the development cycle of these missiles far predates the current troubles, I don't think it's correct to state that the Russians haven't been focusing very hard on cruise missile development since we pulled out of the ABM treaty. Of course, some of that goes towards their naval strategy but it seems clear they're working towards a post-ICBM strategic world.
>I think the Scots would be rather glad if most of England got wiped out.
No mate, the porridge wogs would be fucked if England got wiped out. There'd be no one going to work to pay the tax that covers the cost of their JSA, and no more Jeremy Kyle for them to watch.
>Are you suggesting that Russia has counterforce ability against our SSBNs and B-2s?
It isn't necessary for you to continue posting.
DC getting nailed sounds fabulous actually, and I live 15 minutes from it.
Just think what a boon all those dead politicans and government bureaucrats would be to the post catastrophe free market
It's not quite as good as your strategy of babbling incoherently about a topic you clearly know very little about, but you do seem to be a much more experienced idiot than I. It's natural that you'd be better at this.
You're not even having a discussion. You're continuing the same Cold War bullshit that nuke threads always turn into, followed by 'hurr durr I live here how fucked am I'
I'm not impressed with someones knowledge of 30 year old targeting maps, and 50 year old strategic doctrine. If you have something to say, say it. If it's gibberish, tell me why. If you're implying that strategic doctrine is a static matter that hasn't changed since the Cold War, then you're an idiot.
Haven't you noticed that literally every one of your posts goes something like this?:
"[Invent insane strawman] [relentlessly attack it for the remainder of the post using made-up terms and concepts] [insist that the other people stop replying]"
You're not even participating in the discussion, you're just babbling to yourself. Quit it already.
There is no discussion. You are not having a discussion. You are having a circle jerk. A discussion implies an opposing viewpoint. Literally the only discussion that ever comes out of these threads is when I argue with OPpenheimer, which is why I do it. Continue your circle jerk and shut the fuck up.
>Are you suggesting that Russia has counterforce ability against our SSBNs and B-2s? And that those two systems alone are incapable of damaging Russian command and control to such a degree? I find that to be difficult to believe. No, impossible.
I'm telling you that while Russia can do little to stop our SSBNs short of sinking them, they are entirely capable of destroying the US command and control systems that will make it difficult if not impossible to issue orders to them.
While it would be possible for some of them to still launch their missiles, it would be difficult to change their assigned target package, and depending on the state of the crisis, that means that whatever SLBM warheads are launched may hit targets that will not be very useful in that stage of the conflict.
>If their ICBM force becomes an invalid threat they need other options.
Their ICBM force will remain a credible threat for years to come. Barring some sort of technological breakthrough, ABM defense will be a losing venture. You need several interceptors per target to give you a decent Pk, so that means that in order for the US to render the Russian ICBM force invalid, they would need somewhere in the neighborhood of 3000 GBI missiles.
Not to mention the fact that a preemptive conventional SLCM attack on the radar installations would render the entire system useless.
US missile defense as it currently stands is effect only to stop accidental launches, launches by smaller powers, and to reduce to some degree the SSPk of all other warheads.
> These things do not match up
They do in the context of the Russians restoring their slipping SSPk. Thats all. It's either than or building more silos, and since more silos is more expensive than improving your ability to penetrate defenses, it makes more sense to restore your SSPk in that method.
CONT CONT CONT
>post-ICBM strategic world.
Again, barring some technological breakthrough, it will remain impossible to remove ICBMs in that way. The US would need an order of magnitude more GBI at least to have even a slight chance and upsetting that apple cart, and the entire system remains vulnerable to disruption of its detection systems.
>what do you think the X-37b is up to?
I believe its functions as an MASINT or IMINT system that can be upgraded and tailored for specific long term missions.
>50 year old strategic doctrine.
I think you are off by a few decades.
>If it's gibberish, tell me why.
Because you are assuming that the US has some sort of magic technology on the horizon that will render the Russians incapable of carrying out a nuclear attack on the US when there is no known technology that anyone can point to that can feasibly do that anytime in the next few decades.
>If you're implying that strategic doctrine is a static matter that hasn't changed since the Cold War, then you're an idiot.
It has changed and that why the concept of limited nuclear war and protracted exchanges is still the prevailing strategy. It began in the late 1970's and really came into its own in the late 1980s.
The precepts and strategies can be applied at any varying force level. It works for all different nuclear postures and force levels unlike any previous types of strategic thought.
Unless there is some sort of technological marvel weapon that changes in a fundamental way the weapons this type of war is fought with, then it will remain the only viable concept of operations for nuclear war.
I understand where you're coming from, but since the initial drag acts as an outside force it alters the orbit. It will be highly elliptical, yes. But it won't intersect the initial launch point like a true ellipse would. I'm trying to do the math to figure out where the point of closest approach would shift to, but it won't be the start.
You're aware of the accuracy revolution in missile technology, and the changes that has made to deployed forces. Some would argue that this is what has made New START possible, as greater confidence in the ability of warheads to hit means less of them are required. This accuracy revolution also has an effect on ABM systems.
No, I'm not implying that the current US missile defense force as it is publicly known renders the Russian ICBM force not a credible threat. However, this is using our current hit to kill plans, which are in place only because the idea of detonating a nuke over Europe was judged politically unacceptable. Use of a nuclear warhead would increase the effectiveness of the system tremendously. However, I don't think missile-missile will be the end of ICBMs. I think there is another program in place, and while it may not be deployed for some time, it's the logical next step in strategic doctrine. As destabilizing as such a system would be, I doubt we will know of it's existence. How would you even test such a system? Why would you make such a system public if you couldn't test it?
Here is a good resource for missile defense news
Notice the constant failures, pulled tests, which mainly seem to involve missiles failing to launch. I find this suspicious. We've been launching missiles since the 50s and got RV kills in the 60s. Why are we suddenly unable to launch target missiles? Why do you think this program is such an utter failure?
It's not magic. Absolutely nothing I've described is even technologically challenging. It just hasn't been large-scale tested.
>Incapable of carrying out a nuclear attack
No, I think we're working toward rendering ICBMs obsolete, which is why they are focusing on supersonic cruise missiles. This will change their deterrence posture, as traditional targets become less viable.
>You are assuming
I am not assuming anything. I am interested in the development and future of strategic doctrine, and I'm suspicious of the way we have behaved since we pulled out of the ABM treaty. Looking at the future of things involves speculation. That's the nature of the game. I find it more interesting than regurgitating old targeting maps and escalation doctrines.
>Off by a few decades
>Only viable concept of operations.
Let's say the Russians pull 200 of their deployed warheads out of their ICBM silos, leaving the silos there, as we've done with our 500 to 450. They place these warheads on one missile boat apiece (obviously treaty implications there but ignoring that for a moment, it's doable as long as they stay under their caps). Now, our naval assets are clearly capable of splashing any of their cruise missiles, but how do we deploy them? Especially if they're needed in the South China Sea or another hot spot. We're forced to make the choice of leaving population centers vulnerable to a Russian strike or deploying our assets where we want to project force.
Is this the right way for Russia to fight a nuclear war? No. Can we afford to just ignore it? Would a CINC do so nowadays? I doubt it. The strategies of limited nuclear war are changing due to US hegemony in projecting force at sea.
I don't quite get where you're going with that. Please explain. Also:
1) My area (not just my town) is largely farmland & dairy, beef, and chicken farms, with a large portion of residents who also hunt, fish, and trap.
2) I grew up "primitive" camping, and poor. We hunted & foraged to supplement what was bought and grown.
3) The ocean is ten miles from town. Salt is a non- issue.
Where do you get your chicken feed from?
What do the cows eat in winter?
Supplementing is not surviving.
Try making your own salt and preserving your own food for awhile. It takes more work than you'd think.
>It's not magic. Absolutely nothing I've described is even technologically challenging. It just hasn't been large-scale tested.
If ABM isn't enough for ICBM, what other tech could it be? Lasers and railguns are still in their infancy, and their expected targets range from UAVs to MRBMs. Any target further than short range will have a low SSPk for several decades with these systems.
>He doesn't remember the Great Moon Nuking.
I think some variation of Brilliant Pebbles is the most likely, as it would be the easiest to deploy and test clandestinely. A large scale test would be impossible but a number of smaller tests would be easy to hide.
Jesus Christ just shut the fuck up. Stop ruining every nuke thread with your ill thought bullshit. You're not contributing anything, you just turn every conversation to shit by refusing to consider reasonable arguments until everyone leaves; take your social disorder and get the fuck out. Go validate your pseudointellecutal insecurities elsewhere. Fuck.
I didn't say that I had a farm. I live in a farming community.
I also imagine that the livestock would get reduced pretty quickly, making the silage and feed last longer.
Considering the life expectancy of Americans after a nationwide disaster, anyone who makes it through the first 6 months will be able to forage a wide area for food. So, folks will just have to make it through the first bad patch.
>You're aware of the accuracy revolution in missile technology, and the changes that has made to deployed forces.
Yes, I am. This increase in accuracy is what spurred the new thinking in strategic nuclear doctrine.
>I think there is another program in place
Thats ok, I do not, and I have not seen anything,
>I find this suspicious.
I don't. The systems in question are a lot more complex and the policy makers appetite for explosive failures is limited.
They err largely on the side of caution.
>No, I think we're working toward rendering ICBMs obsolete
Good luck with that.
Several decades away at a minimum, and it might not be a good idea anyway.
You fail to understand the constant refinements in doctrine since the end of the Cold War.
I have explained how it changes to you.
>They place these warheads on one missile boat apiece (obviously treaty implications there but ignoring that for a moment, it's doable as long as they stay under their caps).
Are you saying that they will build 200 missile boats with 1 warhead apiece?
>Now, our naval assets are clearly capable of splashing any of their cruise missiles, but how do we deploy them?
Depends on how the Russians deploy their forces. If they keep them in the bastions as they have for a few decades then we patrol the borders of the bastions.
CONT CONT CONT
>Especially if they're needed in the South China Sea or another hot spot. We're forced to make the choice of leaving population centers vulnerable to a Russian strike or deploying our assets where we want to project force.
Why would these Russian weapons be aimed at population centers? Why wouldn't you take advantage of the limited warning time low trajectory weapons give you and target EW and command and control centers the US conveniently built near the coasts?
What you are describing make no real sense at all. It does not present a situation that wasn't present when Soviet missile boats patrolled off the US coast so why would it present some new conundrum for planners?
Am I missing something in your description?
Much like the rest of the retarded shit you can't seem to stop spewing, this too is flawed. It only protects me from one of your moronic posts, after I've read it.
It would be much more effective if you quit whining about how your opinion is valid and shut the fuck up, or better yet kill yourself. If every time you open your mouth, every person you're talking to lets you know you don't grasp what you're talking about, that should be a clue.
Shut up, kill yourself, or act like this in a public place so someone with a large grip can get their hands around your fat neck and strangle you until the world is free from your moronic drivel.
I think it would depend on the current security climate. It's difficult to argue that the tech isn't there. But like you said in a previous thread, using untested systems in strategic calculations fucks up planning. No, I don't think it's a good idea. But I think we're doing it anyways.
Yes, you're missing something. I'm not speaking of SLBMs. I'm talking about cruise missiles, which can be put on something as small as a corvette. I'm not talking about a doctrine for strategic nuclear warfare, I'm talking about a way to spread US naval assets thin with minimal expense to Russia. Targeting population centers, or having the ability to do so, is enough of a threat to force dispersion of US forces, as our AEGIS systems can take these missiles down, but not if they're not there. There isn't enough punch in these systems to make a significant dent in EW and C & C systems, it's not a credible threat. Nuking LA, Anchorage or San Francisco is.
Well, it's possible for one person. It grows more difficult with 10, and when it becomes a whole town it grows close to impossible.
My point is you need to keep that swing bridge open. You need trade, and fuel, and salvage, and labor. Isolating yourself as a community would be a death sentence.
from the link you posted
'Making sea salt from saltwater is very easy, although quite time consuming. It's not necessarily cost effective, but it's a lot of fun and a rewarding learning experience.'
He said he's 10 miles from the ocean.
Small missile boats do not make good blue water platforms.
They do not have the endurance or range to operate independently far from support.
Even if you could, the US could respond with a small class of patrol craft as well, designed to hunt these small cruise missile craft down.
Your plan only works if the US navy remains static while the Russians undertake this massive shift in strategy.
There are three cities to the north on the other side of the river, with a combined population over 200,000. I hope that bridge can be left wide open until things settle down. Historically, people haven't left the cities because government takes care of population centers. If that were to change I don't want any percentage of that heading towards me. It can be closed again later.
It may not be cost effective now, but in the event of a shortage of salt, it would be worth paying people just to keep that production going.
They don't need to operate independently, having a few oilers in a small battle group is perfectly adequate to keep them at sea for months.
This small class of patrol craft is going to have the capability to shoot cruise missiles? They're certainly capable of hunting them down, but not of sinking them pre-launch. In order to splash the missiles you need an AEGIS-like system. And no, this isn't a long-term viable doctrinal change. This is something that would be deployed prior to a move in Eastern Europe or elsewhere by Russia, likely in coordination with China making a move.
Like you said, you're more likely to be going to the cities than swarms of 'urban' youth fleeing to the farmlands. Historically that's what happens.
It would be far more effective to just keep up trade lines rather than start making your own sea salt.
>>making large areas uninhabitable, food un consumable and stuff like clothes cars guns, anything touched by radiation un usable do to radiation poisoning.
This is wrong, though, in the long term, I do believe. Certainly for the first few weeks you shouldn't go rubbing up against the ground nude, but after the radiation has died down there should be no problems, in a matter of months rather than years.
Hopefully someone knowledgable could help out here (witness me).
Circling back to a true doomsday scenrio is there a way is could happen with current nuke stockpiles ?
Q1 Enhanced radiation bombs ? cobalt salted , neutron , etc . How bad ?
Q2 Say all nuclear power plants are targeted worldwide (google says 437) , with the cores and fuel pools that would be a lot of Fukushimas and Chernobyls ?
Q3 Triggering a fault line like San Andreas or New Madrid , or Yellowstone or somehow initiating a natural disaster like a tsunami ?
>but not of sinking them pre-launch.
Using a networked approach, you can have the boats using off board sensors for engagement, drones with tracking systems extending the engagement horizon out so that they can be engaged.
All the time it takes for the Russians to build this fleet of missile boats and oilers, and create this new concept of operations from whole cloth, the US wll not be static and will look at measures to counter them.
You seem to think that you can build platforms in the blink of an eye and that capability is equal to having the hardware.
The Russian Navy is not experienced in distant operations and extended UNREP. It will take time to develop the skills to do this. It will take time for them to develop the best methods to operate.
All this time the US can respond, just as the Russians can build small combatants, so can the US, and this actually plays into the new US concept of networked operations.
This idea actually plays right into the US playbook. Decentralized platforms sharing information is exactly what the US navy is aiming for.
Not unless they have ill intent toward Iran, and if they do, I would tell them to change their mind.
But that goes both ways.
Not in the idea that they will nuke everyone else if they are on the verge of defeat.
I mean we've had nuclear Pakistan for decades and most terrorist groups operate out of Pakistan, so I don't see the issue even with a nuclear armed Iran. Israel is just terrified of a Muslim state in the region that can't be pushed around.
Russia and the USA decimate and behead each other.
Everyone else with nukes says "FUCKIT" and bombs the people they REALLY don't like.
China saves some nukes though, if it can.
Good probability nobody is going to be able to flatten China, Russia and America are far too busy lighting each others intestines on fire.
China probably heads straight for now-flattened Russia, either to render "aid" and "eternal friendship" in the form of governance and control, or to just straight up invade the shit and take it over.
While Russia is doing Partisan War 3: Electriced Boogalon't 2, America is busy trying to rebuild itself in some way, shape or form. Expect a bunch of smaller countries, depending on the level of overall damage.
Canada is probably a lil bit warm near the border (AKA the parts that people can survive) but I dare say the nastier parts could handle a few hundred million new tenants without the hassle of clearing out wrecked crap and picking all of the Trinitite out of the fields. As capabilities grew, people could go clear out a chunk of "genuine American Wasteland $4.99/km^2" and do whatever the fuck they want with it, including starting up a country.
Imagine North America divided into tiny little countries like in Europe. I hope Florida gets a good head-shaft ratio.
BUT WAIT! Where is China? Well, as we all know, China will grow larger. And it just ate 87% of Russia's landmass and 61% of its population. Tula and Izhevsk are now owned by NorInCo.
By now, China may be putting pressure on Europe, to distract them from Africa.
Africa is where China really DOES grow much, much larger.
South Africa catches on pretty quick and starts gobbling up territory. They make a hard push and end up with a fairly peaceful border with China, around halfway through where Angola used to be, straight across, as near as makes no difference.
South African diplomats and generals will laugh about that one for centuries to come, but the Chinese will laugh for even longer.
The Russians have enough vessels to implement this strategy right now, although they'd have to transfer some boats to the Pacific Fleet. This is not a new concept of operations to be built from whole cloth. They just did a launch in the Caspian. All that remains is for them to implement it. You're again missing the point. The point is not to build a fleet of small missile boats to swarm the US coast. The point is to be able to divert US Naval assets away from areas the Russian wish to project power in. Being able to target European and mainland US population centers with cruise missiles gives them that option. This is not a new doctrine, they've been planning it for years.
Why do you think they just launched from the Caspian?
The Iranian nuclear programme is a red herring for the sole purpose of diverting Western attention. Obama and his sycophantic fanboys are correct when they say that Iran has no need for nuclear weapons. However, they completely fail to understand that Iran's main tool for regional domination lies with its proxies and expeditionary forces in Arab and other countries. This is the central fatal flaw in the nuclear deal, because Obama is too naive to fully comprehend the true intent of the rulers of Iran.
>The Russians have enough vessels to implement this strategy right now,
1 Aircraft Carrier.
Thats 120 surface combatants for their entire Navy.
Show me the oilers equipped for UNREP.
If you want to threaten the US with their missiles, then they now need to be in range of the targets in the US. You aren't going to do that in the Caspian Sea.
And it is a new concept.
Show me Russian naval missile boats operating within cruise missile range of the US for extended periods with UNREP ships in battle groups.
What you are describing makes absolutely no logical sense.
>the US will at best be brought back to the level of medieval times
Pre WW1 era US would be more accurate, with recovery to 1960s level within a decade. Your videogame fantasy of mass die-offs and tech regression is unrealistic. For that matter, your strike scenario is bad movie script tier.
If the US is out of the global picture, China and India are going to concentrate on each other.
You said that last year about the Russians deploying intermediate range nuclear capable missiles in response to the planned Aegis Ashore systems and they're doing exactly that, one year later.
I suppose we can wait a year and see what happens in the Pacific.
I think you have a flawed idea of what is necessary in an oiler.
Either way I have to go. Good chatting with you again.
So where the hell is Europe in all this, eh?
Besides being distracted from Africa by the Chinese?
Well, soon after the shit hit the fan, the EU knew what was up with China. They knew that they should make a big show of throwing some nuclear fire around, but keep a tight reserve at hand. And so, they all seperately make their bangs and boms and pow!s and pops, those without nuclear weapons using plain old explosives. After the show was over, the real plan set in place.
Newfoundland was put under "Protective Government" by the EU. It was treated as any other country in the EU. Atlantic Canada got a cleanup, a fresh coat of paint, and some nice Europeans to work there. Maine was next, with a general push south-southwest to the area around Nashville, leaving the EU's North American territory looking a bit like Nova Scotia is trying to stab Tennessee. All the while, they were quite "busy" honestly yes, being "distracted" from the goings-on in Africa.
Nobody's really sure when everyone in Liberia turned into a loyal British Subject, but the Chinese could only laugh and move on.
BUT WAIT, you say, WHAT ABOUT SOUTH AMERICA?
I don't like South America. It fell off and we lost it.
WHO BLEW UP THE MIDDLE EAST?
Just about everyone, mostly locals.
WHAT ABOUT AUSTRALIA?
Nothing. Changed. Whatsoever.
As far as anyone knows.
Nuclear war is never an option if you think having the majority of the world's cities uninhabitable due to nuclear fallout.
>Ports, raillways, and major economic centers inaccessible and shut down indefinitely.
Nuclear war would literally send us to the stone age.
Don't blame me, I didn't take it.
It was sitting there all peaceful(lol) and then BAM it just fell off. Probably flying around in space somewhere.
Maybe that's what happened to Atlantis. One hell of a way to make a starship.
The US has many more warheads, they're just deactivated, due to the fact that actual disposal is extremely difficult (correct me if im wrong i might be talking out of my ass here)
>What's the plan to mitigate panic, what's the plan to enforce loyalty and a sense of duty after the perceived end of the world?
First off, you can bet your ass the emergency broadcast network will be up and running nonstop. When shit goes all wahoonie-shaped, people will listen to the voice that sounds like it knows what it's doing.
As far as the loyalty/duty thing, people will hang in there and keep plugging along for no reason other than it's what they know. It also helps that the US is a high-trust culture.
I'm under the impression that you're young, and that you've never been through a major crisis event.
Please Notice Me Senpai !
Also furthering the topic of a total doomsday scenario I'm looking into just How many deaths would result from striking the 3000 most populous cites , not sure about the other 2900 but the top 100 has about 700-800 million , I don't know how to guesstimate the remainder but a proper decimation is not that bad in the context of this discussion that I may be having with myself (end of all life / extinction).
How many do they need honestly?
Russia could do critical irreversible damage with a dozen or less of their most powerful warheads. Given of course that they don't get shot down first. But I suppsed that means they would have to launch upwards of 100 per target just for one to hit.
I'm just doing this in my head and on scratch paper, but height of pedigree wouldn't matter if the launch was in a vacuum because the orbit would intersect the launch point. But with air resistance, the trajectory is flattened. It's as if you fired it at a shallower angle, but from a higher altitude.
But since the vector change was from the atmosphere, the orbit would still intersect the fringes, at minimum, unless you could somehow use the moon's gravity to alter the course.
>Cities are primary nuclear targets
>Nuclear winter isn't a pseudoscientific myth
>Le epic nuclear war means instant global apocalypse mem
>I'm a huge faggot and I can't even bother to read one thread, but I must spout my opinions anyway
Oppie, you've mentioned multiple times that many targets would have multiple warheads designated for them, and that the first to hit would probably fratricide the rest. Would this significantly increase fallout, with the nuclear materials of the destroyed weapons acting as dirty bombs? Or would the casings remain intact until they hit the ground, thus heavily contaminating a much smaller area?
Why did the US and soviet union have so many nuclear weapons in their stockpiles during the cold war anyhow?
No way they had the launch systems for even for a fraction of it or get to use them all even in a case of total war.
this fucking thread is a moot point because nuclear war is not likely to happen in your lifetime.
If you can't accept someone else's opinions then you're literally a raging autist.
>No way they had the launch systems for even for a fraction of it
Perhaps you are including tac warheads in the count? Most of those could just be slung under an F-105 or your strike craft du jour. Just a guess, unless you already accounted for that.
Apparently at the height the total stockpiles was more than 30 000 each. Even with tactical warheads what the hell are you going to do with all of them.
Maybe stockpiles in different places so in case of war they are ready and do not require transfer? I don't know.
Back in the day there was only, two, three, four sides, maybe?
>the first to hit would probably fratricide the rest
They don't all launch at exactly the same time for the same target. If they did that then even a miss would kill the others and reduce Pk to 0.
They launch several at the same target based on predicted failure rate and chance of interception. The dynamics of a nuclear exchange (use them before you lose them) means all the missiles are fired in a very short period of time.
Oppenheimer, how would non nuclear allied states be dealt with if things decided to kick off. On the one hand, you don't have any fear of retaliation, but that means you are throwing less at your main target. On the other, I'm guessing you don't want significant hostile conventional forces still alive after receiving a counterforce blow
They launch multiple warheads at a single target but not from the same missile. MIRVs from the same bus will not be aimed at the same target. Instead you will cross target with a different missile and MIRV bus.
They will time the arrival of the different RVs to reduce the chance of fratricide.
In the Cold War you might hit them to deny their assets to your opponent.
These days you have a limited number of warheads and cant afford to use any on things like that.
With the reduced number of warheads in mind then, would France, the UK, and China actually be safer in a nuclear conflict if they abandoned their deterrent? (Of course I'm ignoring the stabilization their deterrent might bring in the first place.)
You said multiple times in the past there would be quite a bit of fratricide. I'm only asking for clarification on what you've said in the past.
Now, how much testing has actually gone into determining how close an RV could survive to a blast, both in terms of proximity and in passing through a recent detonation?
30 seconds with a nuke is not going to cut it.
No, I understood exactly what you said. Oppie in the past had said there would be fratricide for those reasons. And I would tend to think the minute or two using RVs from different warheads wouldn't help much.
Nope. His exact words and I remember quite well. Flat out asked him if multiple RVs on the same target in one of his scenarios would cause multiple detonations and he said they'd just fratricide.
I think you misunderstood.
You were asking about simultaneous arrival of multiple warheads. Of course they would fratricide.
In reality they would be cross targeted as described to limit that.
I don't think I was. You had outlined a scenario (I think against a target in California) and had designated X warheads to each target. I asked the question and you gave the answer. I also saw you give similar answers in other threads over the years.
>I don't think I was.
I'm not really sure why you are arguing this point. If thats what you took from my reply then you either I misunderstood the question or you misunderstood the answer.
I have always been clear that while fratricide is a worry, it can be minimized.
In some cases it can't and perhaps the questions pertained to those specific scenarios. Other than that I don't know what I can tell you.
How do dial-a-yield systems in nukes work?
Do these systems change how much of the nuclear material in the bomb goes critical to control the strength of the detonation? And would that mean that the same bomb would, with a lower yield dialed in, produce more fallout, as less nuclear material gets actually used up in the detonation and rather is dispersed in the area?
That's adorable. I have 20 years in the Bering Sea. Navy UNREPs are a joke in comparison.
In addition, there's absolutely no need for them to stay on station for months.They can steam out from Kamchatka and divert resources and offer the population center threat then steam back in when it's no longer needed.
>I have 20 years in the Bering Sea.
So you have experience then?
Imagine having to do it having little to no experience.
>Navy UNREPs are a joke in comparison.
I guess you are welcome to your opinion.
>In addition, there's absolutely no need for them to stay on station for months.They can steam out from Kamchatka and divert resources and offer the population center threat then steam back in when it's no longer needed.
I'm just going by what was stated earlier in the thread.
Thats even better then. They can all be taken out preemptively. Or you can mine the approaches and keep them bottled up while the mine sweepers do their thing.
This is a silly idea. Its success depend on the US doing nothing while the Russians build all these ships. At the same time, it plays directly into the US naval strategy of decentralized combatants using networked sensors to defeat a numerically superior opponent.
Builds all what ships? I already said they can do it with what they have available now. How many times do I need to state this. This isn't a long term viable strategic option, this is a threat to either
1. Prevent the US from responding to a questionable Article 5 in a recently joined NATO country
2. Spread out US naval assets to accomplish the same thing.
They don't need to stay on station for years. They can take up several different stations along the west coast (although like I said previously I think Western Europe is a more likely target) threaten population centers, then withdraw when Russia no longer needs to cut up. Are you telling me we won't deploy assets to meet that threat?
>defeating a numerically superior
I'm interested as to how you think this shit will go down. The only way it plays into anything is if we're willing to start a war with Russia by firing the first shot. This isn't about total war with Russia anymore, it's about Russia being able to project force in Europe without a US/NATO response, a la Turkey, Baltics, or another recently added member state. You people are stuck in Reagan times.
Fine, it's silly. If Russia deploys a nuclear tipped cruise missile in the Pacific or North Sea in the next year, can I get a 'You were right anon'?
>Builds all what ships? I already said they can do it with what they have available now. How many times do I need to state this. This isn't a long term viable strategic option, this is a threat to either
You've said that they can, but you are yet to prove it.
No conjecture, give some hard data or pack-of-fags math that they can.
It's difficult to say.
My guess would be a combination of reducing the amount of Tritium injected into the core and deliberately mistiming the primary stage detonation to reduce yield.
The guy you replied to was speaking if the american firebombing of japan, specifically tokyo.
all the houses caught fire easily, it became so large a firestorm was created, sucking in so much O2, that it sucked people into the blaze, outside that range it was so hot womens hair caught fire, fingernails melted.
that bombing killed as many people as the bombing of Hiroshima.
>I already said they can do it with what they have available now.
They have 120 surface combatants.
You stated that they would take 200 warheads and put them on missile boats at one apiece.
Here is your direct quote:
>Let's say the Russians pull 200 of their deployed warheads out of their ICBM silos, leaving the silos there, as we've done with our 500 to 450. They place these warheads on one missile boat apiece
So how are they going to do that with less that 200 missile boats and less than that in their entire fleet?
>They don't need to stay on station for years. They can take up several different stations along the west coast (although like I said previously I think Western Europe is a more likely target) threaten population centers, then withdraw when Russia no longer needs to cut up. Are you telling me we won't deploy assets to meet that threat?
They will need to stay on station for months.
What happens if the crisis lasts longer than the boats are provisioned for?
Let me guess your magical fleet replenishment ships?
>I'm interested as to how you think this shit will go down.
What are you talking about? How what will go down? The 200 missile boats they don't have?
The crisis that exists only in your mind?
I have no idea what you are talking about.
>The only way it plays into anything is if we're willing to start a war with Russia by firing the first shot.
I thought we were talking about your plan to magic up 200 missile boats the Russians don't have?
> This isn't about total war with Russia anymore, it's about Russia being able to project force in Europe without a US/NATO response, a la Turkey, Baltics, or another recently added member state.
And you think that your plan gives the Russians a capability to threaten US targets that they do not currently posses?
What does putting the warheads on ships do that keeping them on mobile launchers and silos and SSBN tubes doesn't?
>You people are stuck in Reagan times.
No, I'm in the 21st century with 21st century weapons and capabilities.
You are in some fantasy land where the Russians find 200 boats and put nuclear weapons on them for a capability they already have.
>Fine, it's silly.
I'm glad we agree.
>If Russia deploys a nuclear tipped cruise missile in the Pacific or North Sea in the next year, can I get a 'You were right anon'?
No, because that doesn't have anything to do with what you are talking about as far as I can tell.
They have the missiles, the ships, the warheads.
US can counter by
Sinking the ships before they fire, starting world war 3 over Turkey or some pissant Baltic state.
Stationing an AEGIS ship group in a position to intercept, thus withdrawing conventional assets from another theater.
Completely ignoring the threat and relying on a strategic counterattack for deterrence, which is going to go over like a fart in church for the American public.
What fucking math are you asking for?
Range of missiles is known.
Targeting and guidance are nothing if we don't preemptively knock out satellites.
Range of available ships and capability of launching said missiles are known.
Look at a map of the Pacific for once.
>Sinking the ships before they fire, starting world war 3 over Turkey or some pissant Baltic state.
Why would this be different that plans to sink SSBNs when they were found in a crisis?
You need to do a little more research about Russia's maritime capabilities before you keep discussing this.
>magical replenishment ships
Look into how Russia conducts it's Arctic fisheries before you continue along this line
>I have no idea what you're talking about
OK. People that work at your organization do, so maybe you should close a few tabs and go to the water cooler a bit more.
Again, stuck in Reagan times
>No, because that doesn't have anything to do with what you are talking about
Yes, it does. As I stated earlier in the thread, they are moving away from traditional strategic targets because of the lack of effectiveness of that strategy for their current goals and their inability to keep a parity with the US there. They will deploy a nuclear tipped cruise missile on surface ships in both of those areas in the next year. Screenshot that.
Difference. The nuclear bomb of that day can be matched by general ordnance we have today in terms of explosive force.
No nation currently targets 'cities'. Most of Russia's targets happen to be agricultural centres and major aquifiers and rivers and it's also the same with US targets in Russia.
The reason? In MAD, you aim to kill and destroy as much national infrastructure as possibly and the best way to do that is target water, food and power.
What's the point in nuking New York or Washington DC when political headquarters can, and do, move in minutes to another city. Instead you aim for shit that matters to the country such as power stations, water filtration and military bases while also ground bombing major agricultural centres so that after the bombing, your enemies population does all the fighting for you and your opponent spends more energy on fighting off his nigger and poverty stricken and starving hordes than you.
It's why China will never start shit because all the US or someone else has to do is plant a few bunker busters into the 3 gorges dam and MILLIONS of chinks die instantly, let alone those left starving.
Russia is a bit harder but in realistic terms, they still have most of their agriculture within geographical distance of Moscow.
Read article, report back
Because the nature of crisis has changed drastically since those times. Turkey, the Baltics, Romania, Poland, these are new members of NATO, formally Soviet states(not Turkey), and the question is not whether or not we would sink threats in a crisis but whether or not a crisis is actually occurring.
>You need to do a little more research about Russia's maritime capabilities before you keep discussing this.
Are you serious?
They guy who thinks that Russia has 200 Missile boats is telling me to do more research?
>Look into how Russia conducts it's Arctic fisheries before you continue along this line
Thats not unrep. Thats not even close.
>OK. People that work at your organization do, so maybe you should close a few tabs and go to the water cooler a bit more.
No, they think you are a moron.
>Again, stuck in Reagan times
Yes, why don't you show me these 200 missile boats the Russians have?
>lack of effectiveness of that strategy for their current goals
They do not lack any effectiveness. I'll ask again. What capability does this give the Russians that they do not already have?
>and their inability to keep a parity with the US there.
You have yet to point out any capability this will give the Russians that they do not already have.
>They will deploy a nuclear tipped cruise missile on surface ships in both of those areas in the next year. Screenshot that.
And it will have nothing at all to do with your idea that Russian nuclear forces are losing effectiveness.
Demonstrate in any why how the Russians nuclear forces are losing effectiveness.
Demonstrate in any way how Russian nuclear forces are losing parity with the US.
Demonstrate in any way how your idea about using their entire surface fleet (including some 80 platforms that you can't seem to explain) to carry a single nuclear weapons enables the Russians to do anything they can't do right now, or in the next decade.
Demonstrate where the Russians will get the 200 missile boats you seem to think that they will have.
You have those four things to show me before I will believe that this debate can move forward.
>Because the nature of crisis has changed drastically since those times. Turkey, the Baltics, Romania, Poland, these are new members of NATO, formally Soviet states(not Turkey), and the question is not whether or not we would sink threats in a crisis but whether or not a crisis is actually occurring.
Do you think about things before you type them?
Your own link disproves what you said
>Yes, it does. As I stated earlier in the thread, they are moving away from traditional strategic targets because of the lack of effectiveness of that strategy for their current goals and their inability to keep a parity with the US there. They will deploy a nuclear tipped cruise missile on surface ships in both of those areas in the next year. Screenshot that.
>A defense official said the missile that concerns the Northcom commander is the Russian KH-101 cruise missile which Russia has developed as a weapon to attack critical infrastructure in the United States, such as the electrical grid.
So why would they be develop a weapon that isn't effective?
Again, your link still doesn't prove how 120 > 200
How does that prove it?
>They will deploy a nuclear tipped cruise missile on surface ships in both of those areas in the next year. Screenshot that.
Hi, I am jumping into this late and without ready the whole chain. So forgive me if this has already been covered: why would actually deploying these systems into theatre be worth it, compared to holding it in reserve? It seems to me like deployment would be a provocation and an escalation, without providing much benefit in return. It also would paint a bullseye on every Klub-carrying warship in the event of hostilities breaking out. I think Russia is in a much better and more flexible position by simply having the capability as an option. If the situation warrants their use bring them out quickly and in secret instead of advertising it.
It's 100% a game. In a Fallout world, the new industrial revolution will be hampered by a lack of easy energy sources. There's no crude oil and no gasoline. The trees are dead, there's no easy charcoal left, no natural gas, et cetera. For the survivors to produce power, they have to rely either on pre-war nuclear reactors or start building their own. The latter is a difficult proposition without the energy or raw materials to use the existing industry to produce new power plants. Other aspects, like guns, are perfectly serviceable for decades to centuries. Items that resist wear and damage tend to resist age as well.
But of course, it's just a post-apocalyptic retro-futurist video game.
>he Kh-101 and Kh-102 are air-launched cruise missiles currently being developed by Russia. Sources suggest that the development program is a follow-on design to the Kh-55 program. The Kh-101 is a conventional system, whereas the Kh-102 is a nuclear system. This appears to be the missile that will eventually replace Kh-55 conventional and nuclear variants.
>air-launched cruise missiles
So, fired from ships and boats eh?
The Soviet Merchant Marine?
So your idea is that they will put nuclear weapons on cargo ships?
>I'm not going to continue along this line due to your recent troubles but you may want to rethink this
Don't threaten me. Thats not okay.
You going to give my work a call?
Are you the guy who did it in the first place?
>I'm not going to continue along this line due to your recent troubles but you may want to rethink this
On second thought, you win, asshole.
Debating you on the internet is not worth having another uncomfortable conversation with my bosses.
Congrats, you have convinced me to stop posting again.
Oh, it gets better.
>Kh-101/102 (Izdeliye 111) - developed as a very stealthy replacement for the Kh-55SM in the late 1980s, the Kh-101 has a conventional warhead and the Kh-102 is nuclear. A propfan version with 5000 km range was cancelled in 2000. Accuracy is reportedly 6–9 m. Speeds reach over 800km per hour. Estimates range that it will outnumber the Russian nuclear missile fleet by 5:1, making them some of the most numerous and effective cruise missiles in the world. They are expected to be in service in those numbers by 2023. The new missile complex has been successfully tested and in recent years put into series production to equip modernized Tu-95MS bombers.
Opper don't listen to him, nobody else is taking him seriously.
>Demonstrate in any way how Russian nuclear forces are losing effectiveness
>Demonstrate in any way how Russian forces are losing parity with the US
They are a static deterrent prohibiting large scale nuclear war with Russia. They don't give Russia any strategic advantage by existing. We are far ahead of them in submarine technology. We are far ahead of them in surveillance technology. FFS, they don't even have any early warning satellites.
We are far ahead of them in heavy bomber ability to penetrate air defenses and hit targets. They have ICBMs. If they lose that as a tool, as unrealistic as that might be, they would be helpless. They aren't the ones that pulled out of the ABM treaty. They aren't the ones that brought up Star Wars.
>Demonstrate in any way how your idea about using their entire surface fleet (including some 80 platforms that you can't seem to explain) to carry a single nuclear weapons enables the Russians to do anything they can't do right now, or in the next decade.
We have a counter for this in the AEGIS system. Political pressure would force these systems to be deployed to protect our coasts instead of to project force elsewhere. Currently there is no way for Russia to do that. Even their boomers have to come up to depth, likely followed by a US attack submarine, and give some slight warning as to their intentions before launch. A cruise missile in a shipping container requires none of that. This is not about nuclear warfighting. This is about dispersal of USN anti-missile assets.
We'd drown in a sea of our own blood if it meant the Brits fucked off.
U.S mil vet 10 yrs.
CBRN Instructor for 2yrs
the alpha particles or "fast" particles are the most dangerous part besides initial blast wave and heat in the immediate area but these degenerate or breakdown quickly the problem is the forms of radiation that don't break down quickly.
these fast particles do immense damage to cells and cause bad radiation related problems and quick death...if you dare call radiation poisoning anything near fast..
the beta and other particles are the issue.
the radio nucleates in the kicked up soil, dust and debris are the big threat to greater areas, they carry in the wind, rain, and stay in the soil for decades to come and irradiate living things for decades.
most animals don't live long enough for major medical issues to result from this exposure to "slow" particles these have a half-life of up to but not limited to half a century or more they stay around and effect living tissues and animals.
these "slow" particles cause damage or mutation inn cells and DNA this can cause irregularity in immune systems and sperm of males.
the slow long term exposure to the radiation in the dust and ambient radiation that can carry in the air for decades becomes the problem.
we as humans live long enough to suffer the breakdown of our immune system, dna that gets passed onto our offspring.
young children get thyroid cancer and other major medical issues from this and most of the adults who suffer long term exposure don't usually die from the exposure itself you die from your heart giving out or some other ailment similar to what happens to an AIDS carrier.
so even the cave man bit is a long shot.
the military plan is to go underground and wait out the fallout.
radioactive particles sink into soil over time but are brought back to the surface by plants and trees growing, only a few plants can absorb them and be buried to seal them away.
sadly any form of "containment or control" of radiation is BS.
Being respectful about what happened and the difficult situation it put you in means refraining from using certain sources. As silly as you may think my ideas are, you can at least give me a certain amount of respect for refraining from citing anything from a number of sources. This somewhat hamstrings my arguments, but they're just interesting speculations. Nobody wants a repeat of what happened.
>We'd drown in a sea of our own blood if it meant the Brits fucked off.
and yet u didn't vote for independence.
wtf was up with that??
once exposed an amount of radiation is absorbed into your body, there is no removing it.
hence why nuclear workers wear film badges, once they receive their annual amount the cannot work any more exposure hours in their "year" in an incident or accident they can receiver their "life total" and never be able to work in the industry again.
during the Chernobyl incident one nuclear worker was exposed to 5 lifetimes worth of radiation and still to this day there is no rel knowledge of how he survived as long as he did.
so personal resilience does come into play but it is extremely rare.
many of the soldiers who helped with the cleanup in the Ukraine after the accident live with one health issue or another, many are disabled because of it.
it is best to not let the nukes fly.
how did the soviets place their static IRBMs and ICBMs? did they place them in Wing/Regiment sized clusters like USAF silos?
>Difference. The nuclear bomb of that day can be matched by general ordnance we have today in terms of explosive force.
No it can't you fuckwit.
We don't have any conventional weapons that output 15,000 tonnes of tnt equivalent in a 4 tonne package.
>the alpha particles or "fast" particles are the most dangerous part besides initial blast wave
Except they can be blocked by a piece of paper. Helium nuclei are pretty big in the whole scheme of charged particles and it doesn't take much to stop them. The outer layer of the skin will do the trick, and won't cause any significant injury. Oh, and they tend to be fairly slow compared to beta particles. They're around 10x the speed.
>the beta and other particles are the issue
Beta is more dangerous than alpha because while lower energy, it can penetrate skin and damage living cells. A leather jacket will stop them, though, because while small and fast, they're charged particles and highly susceptible to the electric fields around atoms in solid objects.
Neutron emission, however, will kill you. They have similar energy levels to alpha particles but none of the electric charge that tends to stop the other particles. They only stop when they slam into another nucleus, often causing it to become radioactive.
Gamma radiation is nasty as well, but not a particle so I'm tabling it.
Now, I think you were talking about inhalation or ingestion of alpha and beta emitting material. That will screw you up. But any particles generated by the initial blast will have been absorbed by the atmosphere long before they reach anyone who isn't already dead from the thermal pulse.
Went with a US advisory team to study the effects of fukashima accident on people.
the results are staggering.
even though the media are under control and the japanese government keep information censored the long term effects are subtle and slow but often the slower cumulative effect is more horrible than you can imagine.
Again, likely ingested/inhaled particulate matter. External sources of alpha and beta particles are not going to do more than give you the equivalent of a sunburn with the same inherent risk of skin cancer.
I'm thinking that we could look at losing 30-50% of the US population to the strikes and aftermath. I figure most of the die-off would be in the 12 months following the exchange.
>Look into how Russia conducts it's Arctic fisheries before you continue along this line