13 ms·

I appreciate the way the book teaches the realities of nuclear war. Some interesting things I picked up from the myth/fact section: -Food & water isn't contami

I appreciate the way the book teaches the realities of nuclear war. Some interesting things I picked up from the myth/fact section: -Food & water isn't contaminated unless fallout particles enter into it. Thus any food/water stored in airtight containers is safe to consume. -The US & Russia likely don't have enough nuclear firepower to kill every human being on earth (a commonly cited "fact"). This is based off of misleading calculations. -Within a couple of weeks, fallout radiation would be reduced to the point that most people could leave their shelters. -A bomb said to be 1,000x more powerful than the one used on Hiroshima is not 1,000x more deadly or destructive (16x more deadly is apparently more accurate) -"Nuclear winter" is a discredited myth propagated by de-nuclearization supporters. -Airburst nuclear weapons produce basically 0 fallout. The bomb has to burst on the surface to pick up particles of earth and debris to create fallout. Nuclear war doesn't seem so bad now! :D

tyingq 9y ago
Heh. Of course, you'll emerge in a world run either by survivalists or the most well organized churches.
- mulmen 9y ago
  With a sufficiently loose definition of "church" is that so different from today?
  - tyingq 9y ago
    As US citizen, the Christian version of sharia law would be worse than what I have today, yes.
    - waynecochran 9y ago
      Yeah, that "love your neighbor as yourself" would be brutal.
      - nopreserveroot 9y ago
        If only that were the actual dogma they followed.
        flukus 9y ago
        They do, problem is they're masochists.
      - KGIII 9y ago
        The most vocal, notice I don't say majority, only seem to pay that ideal the barest minimum of lip service. The most vocal only want to love thy neighbor if the neighbor is Christian, heterosexual, and maybe even only if they are the same race. Those appear to be the most vocal. You and I know they aren't the majority, but perception matters a lot. I have absolutely no problem with Christians, though I don't share their faith. I'm just aware that the most vocal people professing to be Christians are everything from White Nationalists to the Westboro Baptist Church. We can probably agree that they aren't the best Christians to represent the faith, but they certainly are the most vocal and are the public face that many people see. For better or worse, you end up with virtual caricatures being the representatives.
        sfRattan 9y ago
        The most vocal, notice I don't say majority, only seem to pay that ideal the barest minimum of lip service. The most vocal only want to help the worker if the worker is Unionized, woke, and maybe even only if they are the right minority. Those appear to be the most vocal. You and I know they aren't the majority, but perception matters a lot. I have absolutely no problem with democrats/labor, though I don't share their politics. I'm just aware that the most vocal people professing to be on the left are everything from Antifa to Black Lives Matter. We can probably agree that they aren't the best people to represent the left, but they certainly are the most vocal and are the public face that many people see. For better or worse, you end up with virtual caricatures being the representatives. Do you see how that passage totally misrepresents the whole left and casts it in a bad light? It borders on concern trolling. Can somebody come up with a better name for this than 'the bigotry of hand wringing?' If not, that's what I'm going with. You only see Antifa or Westboro as representative of the groups they pervert if you only consume news from people who want to make you emotional and then show you ads.
    - RUG3Y 9y ago
      Just look at what Christian groups are doing in disaster zones this very minute: feeding, sheltering and clothing the needy. Terrible!
      - vacri 9y ago
        That's not "the christian version of sharia law". Think instead of something like the Spanish Inquisition. Also, it's not like the christians have a monopoly on disaster relief, nor is it like christians are always helpful in a disaster. Remember the megachurch that had to be socially shamed into opening its doors for victims of Harvey?
        RUG3Y 9y ago
        My point is that Christian people catch a lot of undeserved grief on HN for really no reason. I see a lot of people doing decent things in the name of Christianity, I don't see a push for "Christian Sharia Law" anywhere at all. And Joel Osteen is a tool and a fraud. I don't remember saying that Christians have a monopoly on disaster relief either.
        mikeash 9y ago
        I see milder forms of Christian Sharia all over the place. Just off the top of my head, birth control, abortion, drugs, assisted suicide, alcohol, and marriage are legally regulated based on Christian morality (not necessarily what the Bible says, but what self-professed Christians claim their religion to say) to various degrees. Christians in general are fine, but a certain subset of American Christians is hell-bent on forcing their religion on the rest of us, and they have a lot of power.
        gambiting 9y ago
        Don't forget widespread genital mutiliation of men in the US that's accepted as the most normal thing in the world - circumcision is straight from Abrahamic religions.
    - mulmen 9y ago
      This was more of a commentary on the political polarization we face where belief in the message of a chosen political party is accepted in the same way as a religious belief. Essentially there are people who worship their political affiliation. In the way religious beliefs are not often questioned neither are political beliefs. This is why we call them beliefs.
- mirimir 9y ago
  Also police departments, National Guard units and military.
  - fapjacks 9y ago
    Right. Loads of Americans don't realize that a lot of people in their communities are members of some kind of emergency reserve component. And a lot of this sort of "hidden infrastructure" would mobilize relatively very quickly (on the scale of hours). In addition to slogging through tours overseas in shithole countries, I spent twelve years of my life preparing for large-scale natural or man-made disasters. People just don't realize how much of the community would mobilize in the event of an emergency.
    - mirimir 9y ago
      I'm not sure how you mean "mobilize". If things weren't too bad, that would be a good thing. But if things got really bad, at least some of them would go feral. Trained and armed. Or just be looking for work and food.
      - fapjacks 9y ago
        This scenario is a fun thought experiment in science fiction stories, but this is so astronomically unlikely, you can plan around it. It is fairly stupid to make plans for this kind of scenario, because you will probably die before it gets that bad. You live in a city? You will be dead long before "things got really bad". The worst case scenario worth planning for is a totalitarian government. Martial law that gets extended indefinitely, and a general that becomes "President". There would be famine generally, and loads of people will starve to death. But independent roving warlord raiding bandit tribes ("feral" authorities) like in Mad Max? Not happening.
1001101 9y ago
That's an interesting fact about power. Is this due to the inverse square law? I was recently reading about Russia's new ICBM, RS-28 Sarmat 2 (Satan 2). It is said that one could wipe out Texas or France. [1] I'm not as optimistic about our prospects. [1] http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/26/europe/russia-nuclear-missile-satan-2/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/26/europe/russia-nuclear-missile-...
- philipkglass 9y ago
  I don't know if something was lost in translation or if this ridiculous claim is straight from the Russian government. There is no way that a missile carrying a 100 tonne payload can "wipe out" 700,000 km^2. It wouldn't even be able to break every window in Texas. Not even with very high yield-to-mass ratio warheads and MIRVing. (OTOH, just hitting the top population centers of Texas or France would be devastating enough, so nuclear war is terrifying even after discarding the hyperbole.) EDIT: and the warhead mass is 10 tons, not 100. 100 tons is the mass of the whole vehicle. That makes a lot more sense, given that this is not a Saturn V-sized launch vehicle. It can carry up to 24 MIRVed warheads: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-28_Sarmat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-28_Sarmat
  - tyingq 9y ago
    The MIRV part is the reason they are saying "Texas". It's plausible a single rocket could launch warheads at multiple Texas cities all at once. So most of the population vs most of the landmass. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targetable_reentry_vehicle https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targe... Image: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targetable_reentry_vehicle#/media/File%3AMinuteman_III_MIRV_path.svg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targe...
  - vkou 9y ago
    Half of the population of Texas lives in just 10 cities. A single MIRV can kill most of the people in them. So no, one rocket won't reduce Texas to a smoking crater, but will have a 50/50 chance of killing you in the explosions and subsequent firestorms.
andrepd 9y ago
AFAIK Nuclear Winter isn't discredited, it's just been called into question and challenged. The question isn't settled one way or the other.
- Fej 9y ago
  It has not been discredited. Ultimately it is unknown what would happen since atmospheric testing was banned over half a century ago. However, I find it hard to believe that a thermonuclear war would not produce a very significant amount of atmospheric particles. The amount of cooling may be over- or under-stated, we really don't know, but there is probably some effect.
  - jorvi 9y ago
    I have a feeling its the same as pouring a few bottles of poison in a swimming pool. We just have so much atmosphere.. sure, there will be a minimal but significant drop in temperature and some plants may not grow as abundantly as normal, but globally, the consequences are not (as) cataclysmic. Edit: apparently people do not know how vast the amount of water that goes in a typical swimming pool is..
    - IAmGraydon 9y ago
      People at HN are typically analytical thinkers who appreciate fact over conjecture. Your post starts with “I have a feeling.”
      - jorvi 9y ago
        And any analytical mind can take some educated guesses and say 'well, if I pour 6L of a poison in an average public swimming pool of 30x2x10m, that's 1 part poison per 100.000 parts water, or 0,00001% poison. Same goes for the atmosphere and blasted up particles. Aside from that, most people would read'I feel like' ~= 'I guesstimate', but it seems these days some of us need explicitness past the normal verbal conventions.
  - archontes 9y ago
jly 9y ago
> Airburst nuclear weapons produce basically 0 fallout. The bomb has to burst on the surface to pick up particles of earth and debris to create fallout. Air bursts produce minimal localized fallout, but they have long-term global consequences, especially detonating many powerful fusion bombs. The fallout produces atmospheric carbon-14 and strontium-90, among other dangerous isotopes, that can have consequences for many future generations. This is part of the reason why the nuclear test ban treaty was created.
- cocoablazing 9y ago
  This fallout remained in the atmosphere at such significant concentrations that it intermittently interfered with terrestrial radiological contamination measurement for decades after above-ground testing was banned.
- kobeya 9y ago
  Nitpick, but those are the result of fission not fusion.
  - mikeash 9y ago
    Strontium-90 is, but carbon-14 is formed when nitrogen in the air absorbs a neutron, which could be from either fission or fusion.
  - sgt101 9y ago
    "fusion" bombs require a fission trigger.
  - arethuza 9y ago
    Calling H-bombs "fusion" bombs is perhaps a bit of a misnomer in that while fusion is they key component of H-bomb designs most of the energy of these weapons actually comes from fission - the fusion in the secondary produces a large amount of neutrons and these then cause the fission of a uranium tamper around the secondary which is the main energy source.
- mirimir 9y ago
SapphireSun 9y ago
Nuclear winter is not a discredited myth. Alan Robock at Rutgers has been conducting climate simulations using a 100 Hiroshimas (~20kT) standard. This is supposedly similar to what an India-Pakistan conflict might produce. The results are something more akin to nuclear autumn, but it results in decreased agricultural production between 5-20% in year 5 after the war. The decrease is due primarily to soot in the atmosphere. Recall that nuclear weapons are hot and this causes air to rise. There is a suction effect immediately after the blast and firestorms can form. Here's a link to a summary of results: http://ippnw.org/nuclear-famine.html http://ippnw.org/nuclear-famine.html Simulations of a US-Russian war are more dire, and recent simulations are more in line with TAPPS. TAPPS was never discredited, its results were only somewhat moderated.
- jlmorton 9y ago
  How could this possibly be true given the fact that there have been >1,000 nuclear tests performed, including devices with orders of magnitude higher yield than in Hiroshima?
  - sandworm101 9y ago
    Because those were most all carefully controlled to prevent such damage. Top of the list: those that were above ground were tested above empty terrain. The bomb doesn't create most of the ash. The burning city under the bomb is where the bulk of sun-blocking ash comes from. No city, no ash, no nuclear winter issues.
    - cloakandswagger 9y ago
      I would expect that some of the predicted effects of a "nuclear winter" would start to appear after a series of forest fires--albeit smaller in scope and intensity--but AFAIK this is not the case. What gives?
      - Smudge 9y ago
        Most forest fires don't create strong enough firestorms (if they do at all) to funnel material high enough to have an effect -- most of the ash falls back down in a matter of weeks (even sooner if it gets rained out of the atmosphere). I'd compare nuclear blast firestorms with volcanic eruptions -- we do have a record of eruptions funneling material high enough into the troposphere and stratosphere to have a noticeable, longer-term effect on the climate (over the subsequent months and years).
beebmam 9y ago
Almost all of these points are based on cherry picked models. These models are very likely wrong. Models for something that has never happened are notoriously incorrect. I'd rather not find out how inaccurate these models are. I also find your expressions of joy about this quite troublesome. Why can't we just all agree to ban nuclear weapons? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Campaign_to_Abolish_Nuclear_Weapons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Campaign_to_Abol...
- stareatgoats 9y ago
  I second this. To your question, I believe it's because the notion is multifaceted, and there are many reasonable answers. The most common being that we need nuclear weapons for deterrence (defensive) reasons, same as the reason for having a war machine or military alliances at all. A reason less touted is that we need it for offensive reasons, but then again, the best defense is offence so the two are difficult to clearly distinguish. Another reasonable argument against a ban regards enforcement: how to you enforce something from a position of weakness (having vowed not to use nuclear against a ban-breaker)? I could go on but the point is not that these reasonable objections are insurmountable obstacles, but rather that there are real difficulties that need to be addressed in order to avoid the nuclear havoc that otherwise seems a probable end result some time this century.
- cocoablazing 9y ago
  Actually, all large nuclear weapons states have agreed to do that, they just ignore their treaty obligations in perpetuity. NPT: "Article VI Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control."
- duncan_bayne 9y ago
  "Models for something that has never happened are notoriously incorrect." I agree. But make the same point about the effects of AGW and people lose their cool.
Spooky23 9y ago
The book is propaganda intended to draw support for ideas of the era like SDI. You need to read it in context with the era and how people like Teller felt.
- Smudge 9y ago
  Worth noting that Teller was one of the inspirations for Dr. Strangelove.
cocoablazing 9y ago
Airburst nuclear weapons would be deployed against dispersed soft targets prone to firestorms - firestorms large enough to elevate soot into the region where it can mix with ionized fission products and weapon debris.
StanislavPetrov 9y ago
You completely neglect to mention the massive EMP effects which would, in effect, eliminate electricity globally and cause the instant collapse of society completely apart from any of the kinetic damage and fallout.
- dqpb 9y ago
  Loss of utilities does not result in instant collapse of society.
  - StanislavPetrov 9y ago
    No lights. No refrigeration. No gas pumps. No communication. No vehicles. The collapse would not only be instant, but within days there would be mass starvation and chaos.
    - hueving 9y ago
      Do EMP's affect generators that are not running during the blast?
      - notalaser 9y ago
        No, but they will affect most of the equipment connected to those generators.
    - s_kilk 9y ago
      People underestimate just how fragile civilisation actually is. From the description at the top of the thread it's as if we'll just come out of our shelters after a week and everything will go back to normal, we'll just drive down to Arby's for dinner, maybe catch a movie. More people need to watch Threads.
  - xcryogenicx 9y ago
    It absolutely does. Most US cities only have enough total food for three days, regardless of size. There are case studies of cities in China that run out of food. The first thing that happens is the annihilation of local animal populations, then starvation. When you're starving, you either die and fight, and most people would do both.
cocoablazing 9y ago
A 20MT weapon detonation could result in disabling the global electrical production and distribution system, as well as permanently disabling the electronics necessary to move food, water, and medical supplies. Your thesis is that an instant global economic collapse, destruction of all advanced agricultural systems, transportation systems, waste management systems, water purification systems, etc. won't result in >= 20M deaths. You really have no idea what the effects of a significant nuclear exchange would be.
- Amezarak 9y ago
  > A 20MT weapon detonation could result in disabling the global electrical production and distribution system, as well as permanently disabling the electronics necessary to move food, water, and medical supplies. The Tsar Bomba was a 50MT detonation and no such thing happened. There certainly are more electronics around today, but the EMP from a 20MT blasts, or even many 20MT blasts, would not be global, and even many electronics in range would be fine.
QAPereo 9y ago
Citation on that “mythbusting” by any chance? Or on zero fallout from airbursts?
pokes 9y ago
I'd take some of their claims with a grain of salt. The OISM appears to have many crackpot types associated with it.
jandrese 9y ago
I had the impression the book was painting a slightly less grim picture of nuclear war to prevent people from getting discouraged and not even trying to follow the advice. While I agree that people have overstated the effects of nuclear war, he was IMHO excessively dismissive of the long term exposure risks from even low level fallout.
jdietrich 9y ago
Duck and Cover was widely derided, but it would have saved countless lives in the event of a nuclear attack. We learned from Hiroshima and Nagasaki that a very large proportion of deaths and the majority of injuries in a nuclear attack are caused by flying glass fragments and flash burns. The effects of both injuries are greatly exacerbated by the relative paucity of medical care - an injury that might be completely survivable in peacetime could prove fatal if medical care is unavailable. People at the hypocenter would be killed instantly, but a far greater number of people at the edge of the blast radius could be protected by remarkably simple means. Covering yourself with coat or blanket could be the difference between being completely incinerated and surviving unharmed. Crouching under a desk offers remarkably good protection from falling and flying debris.
- dTal 9y ago
  >Covering yourself with coat or blanket could be the difference between being completely incinerated and surviving unharmed I don't think this can be right. Surely it takes far less energy to vaporise a blanket than a whole person. It might protect you from surface burns caused by the infrared pulse, though. And flying shards of glass.
  - SapphireSun 9y ago
    The thermal radiation pulse is very short, on the order of seconds and it may arrive faster than the air blast. If you are close enough to the blast for your blanket to be vaporized and moved away from your body that quickly, you are likely being concurrently killed by the fireball, ionizing radiation, and overpressure.
  - jdietrich 9y ago
    "Incinerated" may be a slightly strong word, but "fatally injured by burns" is entirely accurate. Most of the fatal and life-altering burns suffered in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were effectively extreme sunburn. Most of the burns victims were burnt only on one side of their body - the side facing towards the blast. It doesn't take a lot of material to protect you from that flash. Many people suffered burns only to their face and hands, while the parts of their body covered by clothing was uninjured. Some people had the pattern of their clothing burned into their skin; the darker colors of the pattern acted as a photomask. Eye injuries were very common, because many people heard the bombers flying overhead and went out to look.
crazydoggers 9y ago
>-Nuclear winter" is a discredited myth propagated by de-nuclearization supporters. That it's been discredited is the myth actually. Most models indicate some level of global environmental impact. And a large scale exchange of thermo nuclear weapons (hydrogen bombs, not just atomic) would be pretty severe, probably leading to large scale global starvation. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter#Recent_modeling https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter#Recent_modeli...
grecy 9y ago
> Food & water isn't contaminated unless fallout particles enter into it Is that right? I had always thought objects absorb radiation, so it's actually inside the thing. Does this really mean If I have a bunch of apples in air tight plastic bags and plastic water bottles and things like that, I can just leave them outside during a nuclear blast and then eat them later? (Assume the plastic remains air-tight?) That... sits badly with me. Does that mean I can put an apple in am air-tight plastic container into an x-ray for a year then take it out and eat it... ?
- hansthehorse 9y ago
  It's possible to irradiate food at such high levels so as to degrade the nutritional value but it will never become radioactive itself. Over 60 countries use low level radiation to sterilize food.
- credit_guy 9y ago
  That is my understanding: yes, it would be safe to eat those apples. Also, yes, it would be perfectly safe to eat apples that were exposed to x-rays for one year. X-rays are not powerful enough to split atoms, so if the apple started out by not having unstable (i.e. radioactive) atoms, it will end up the same. Some molecules in the apple will split, but not the atoms themselves. The story would be different if you exposed the apple to neutron bombardment. During a nuclear explosion, a lot of neutrons are released, but the intensity of the neutron bombardment decreases with the square of the radius, so if you are far enough for the apples to not be physically destroyed, they'll most likely be safe to eat.
  - grecy 9y ago
    Oh wow, thanks very much for explaining that to me!
agumonkey 9y ago
Let's develop radio sensitive panels and enjoy the free radioactive energy everywhere.

tyingq 9y ago

Heh. Of course, you'll emerge in a world run either by survivalists or the most well organized churches.

mulmen 9y ago
With a sufficiently loose definition of "church" is that so different from today?
- tyingq 9y ago
  As US citizen, the Christian version of sharia law would be worse than what I have today, yes.
  - waynecochran 9y ago
    Yeah, that "love your neighbor as yourself" would be brutal.
    - nopreserveroot 9y ago
      If only that were the actual dogma they followed.
      - flukus 9y ago
        They do, problem is they're masochists.
    - KGIII 9y ago
      The most vocal, notice I don't say majority, only seem to pay that ideal the barest minimum of lip service. The most vocal only want to love thy neighbor if the neighbor is Christian, heterosexual, and maybe even only if they are the same race. Those appear to be the most vocal. You and I know they aren't the majority, but perception matters a lot. I have absolutely no problem with Christians, though I don't share their faith. I'm just aware that the most vocal people professing to be Christians are everything from White Nationalists to the Westboro Baptist Church. We can probably agree that they aren't the best Christians to represent the faith, but they certainly are the most vocal and are the public face that many people see. For better or worse, you end up with virtual caricatures being the representatives.
      - sfRattan 9y ago
        The most vocal, notice I don't say majority, only seem to pay that ideal the barest minimum of lip service. The most vocal only want to help the worker if the worker is Unionized, woke, and maybe even only if they are the right minority. Those appear to be the most vocal. You and I know they aren't the majority, but perception matters a lot. I have absolutely no problem with democrats/labor, though I don't share their politics. I'm just aware that the most vocal people professing to be on the left are everything from Antifa to Black Lives Matter. We can probably agree that they aren't the best people to represent the left, but they certainly are the most vocal and are the public face that many people see. For better or worse, you end up with virtual caricatures being the representatives. Do you see how that passage totally misrepresents the whole left and casts it in a bad light? It borders on concern trolling. Can somebody come up with a better name for this than 'the bigotry of hand wringing?' If not, that's what I'm going with. You only see Antifa or Westboro as representative of the groups they pervert if you only consume news from people who want to make you emotional and then show you ads.
  - RUG3Y 9y ago
    Just look at what Christian groups are doing in disaster zones this very minute: feeding, sheltering and clothing the needy. Terrible!
    - vacri 9y ago
      That's not "the christian version of sharia law". Think instead of something like the Spanish Inquisition. Also, it's not like the christians have a monopoly on disaster relief, nor is it like christians are always helpful in a disaster. Remember the megachurch that had to be socially shamed into opening its doors for victims of Harvey?
      - RUG3Y 9y ago
        My point is that Christian people catch a lot of undeserved grief on HN for really no reason. I see a lot of people doing decent things in the name of Christianity, I don't see a push for "Christian Sharia Law" anywhere at all. And Joel Osteen is a tool and a fraud. I don't remember saying that Christians have a monopoly on disaster relief either.
        mikeash 9y ago
        I see milder forms of Christian Sharia all over the place. Just off the top of my head, birth control, abortion, drugs, assisted suicide, alcohol, and marriage are legally regulated based on Christian morality (not necessarily what the Bible says, but what self-professed Christians claim their religion to say) to various degrees. Christians in general are fine, but a certain subset of American Christians is hell-bent on forcing their religion on the rest of us, and they have a lot of power.
        gambiting 9y ago
        Don't forget widespread genital mutiliation of men in the US that's accepted as the most normal thing in the world - circumcision is straight from Abrahamic religions.
  - mulmen 9y ago
    This was more of a commentary on the political polarization we face where belief in the message of a chosen political party is accepted in the same way as a religious belief. Essentially there are people who worship their political affiliation. In the way religious beliefs are not often questioned neither are political beliefs. This is why we call them beliefs.
mirimir 9y ago
Also police departments, National Guard units and military.
- fapjacks 9y ago
  Right. Loads of Americans don't realize that a lot of people in their communities are members of some kind of emergency reserve component. And a lot of this sort of "hidden infrastructure" would mobilize relatively very quickly (on the scale of hours). In addition to slogging through tours overseas in shithole countries, I spent twelve years of my life preparing for large-scale natural or man-made disasters. People just don't realize how much of the community would mobilize in the event of an emergency.
  - mirimir 9y ago
    I'm not sure how you mean "mobilize". If things weren't too bad, that would be a good thing. But if things got really bad, at least some of them would go feral. Trained and armed. Or just be looking for work and food.
    - fapjacks 9y ago
      This scenario is a fun thought experiment in science fiction stories, but this is so astronomically unlikely, you can plan around it. It is fairly stupid to make plans for this kind of scenario, because you will probably die before it gets that bad. You live in a city? You will be dead long before "things got really bad". The worst case scenario worth planning for is a totalitarian government. Martial law that gets extended indefinitely, and a general that becomes "President". There would be famine generally, and loads of people will starve to death. But independent roving warlord raiding bandit tribes ("feral" authorities) like in Mad Max? Not happening.

1001101 9y ago

That's an interesting fact about power. Is this due to the inverse square law? I was recently reading about Russia's new ICBM, RS-28 Sarmat 2 (Satan 2). It is said that one could wipe out Texas or France. [1] I'm not as optimistic about our prospects. [1] http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/26/europe/russia-nuclear-missile-satan-2/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/26/europe/russia-nuclear-missile-...

philipkglass 9y ago
I don't know if something was lost in translation or if this ridiculous claim is straight from the Russian government. There is no way that a missile carrying a 100 tonne payload can "wipe out" 700,000 km^2. It wouldn't even be able to break every window in Texas. Not even with very high yield-to-mass ratio warheads and MIRVing. (OTOH, just hitting the top population centers of Texas or France would be devastating enough, so nuclear war is terrifying even after discarding the hyperbole.) EDIT: and the warhead mass is 10 tons, not 100. 100 tons is the mass of the whole vehicle. That makes a lot more sense, given that this is not a Saturn V-sized launch vehicle. It can carry up to 24 MIRVed warheads: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-28_Sarmat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-28_Sarmat
- tyingq 9y ago
  The MIRV part is the reason they are saying "Texas". It's plausible a single rocket could launch warheads at multiple Texas cities all at once. So most of the population vs most of the landmass. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targetable_reentry_vehicle https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targe... Image: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targetable_reentry_vehicle#/media/File%3AMinuteman_III_MIRV_path.svg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targe...
- vkou 9y ago
  Half of the population of Texas lives in just 10 cities. A single MIRV can kill most of the people in them. So no, one rocket won't reduce Texas to a smoking crater, but will have a 50/50 chance of killing you in the explosions and subsequent firestorms.

andrepd 9y ago

AFAIK Nuclear Winter isn't discredited, it's just been called into question and challenged. The question isn't settled one way or the other.

Fej 9y ago
It has not been discredited. Ultimately it is unknown what would happen since atmospheric testing was banned over half a century ago. However, I find it hard to believe that a thermonuclear war would not produce a very significant amount of atmospheric particles. The amount of cooling may be over- or under-stated, we really don't know, but there is probably some effect.
- jorvi 9y ago
  I have a feeling its the same as pouring a few bottles of poison in a swimming pool. We just have so much atmosphere.. sure, there will be a minimal but significant drop in temperature and some plants may not grow as abundantly as normal, but globally, the consequences are not (as) cataclysmic. Edit: apparently people do not know how vast the amount of water that goes in a typical swimming pool is..
  - IAmGraydon 9y ago
    People at HN are typically analytical thinkers who appreciate fact over conjecture. Your post starts with “I have a feeling.”
    - jorvi 9y ago
      And any analytical mind can take some educated guesses and say 'well, if I pour 6L of a poison in an average public swimming pool of 30x2x10m, that's 1 part poison per 100.000 parts water, or 0,00001% poison. Same goes for the atmosphere and blasted up particles. Aside from that, most people would read'I feel like' ~= 'I guesstimate', but it seems these days some of us need explicitness past the normal verbal conventions.
- archontes 9y ago

jly 9y ago

> Airburst nuclear weapons produce basically 0 fallout. The bomb has to burst on the surface to pick up particles of earth and debris to create fallout. Air bursts produce minimal localized fallout, but they have long-term global consequences, especially detonating many powerful fusion bombs. The fallout produces atmospheric carbon-14 and strontium-90, among other dangerous isotopes, that can have consequences for many future generations. This is part of the reason why the nuclear test ban treaty was created.

cocoablazing 9y ago
This fallout remained in the atmosphere at such significant concentrations that it intermittently interfered with terrestrial radiological contamination measurement for decades after above-ground testing was banned.
kobeya 9y ago
Nitpick, but those are the result of fission not fusion.
- mikeash 9y ago
  Strontium-90 is, but carbon-14 is formed when nitrogen in the air absorbs a neutron, which could be from either fission or fusion.
- sgt101 9y ago
  "fusion" bombs require a fission trigger.
- arethuza 9y ago
  Calling H-bombs "fusion" bombs is perhaps a bit of a misnomer in that while fusion is they key component of H-bomb designs most of the energy of these weapons actually comes from fission - the fusion in the secondary produces a large amount of neutrons and these then cause the fission of a uranium tamper around the secondary which is the main energy source.
mirimir 9y ago

SapphireSun 9y ago

Nuclear winter is not a discredited myth. Alan Robock at Rutgers has been conducting climate simulations using a 100 Hiroshimas (~20kT) standard. This is supposedly similar to what an India-Pakistan conflict might produce. The results are something more akin to nuclear autumn, but it results in decreased agricultural production between 5-20% in year 5 after the war. The decrease is due primarily to soot in the atmosphere. Recall that nuclear weapons are hot and this causes air to rise. There is a suction effect immediately after the blast and firestorms can form. Here's a link to a summary of results: http://ippnw.org/nuclear-famine.html http://ippnw.org/nuclear-famine.html Simulations of a US-Russian war are more dire, and recent simulations are more in line with TAPPS. TAPPS was never discredited, its results were only somewhat moderated.

jlmorton 9y ago
How could this possibly be true given the fact that there have been >1,000 nuclear tests performed, including devices with orders of magnitude higher yield than in Hiroshima?
- sandworm101 9y ago
  Because those were most all carefully controlled to prevent such damage. Top of the list: those that were above ground were tested above empty terrain. The bomb doesn't create most of the ash. The burning city under the bomb is where the bulk of sun-blocking ash comes from. No city, no ash, no nuclear winter issues.
  - cloakandswagger 9y ago
    I would expect that some of the predicted effects of a "nuclear winter" would start to appear after a series of forest fires--albeit smaller in scope and intensity--but AFAIK this is not the case. What gives?
    - Smudge 9y ago
      Most forest fires don't create strong enough firestorms (if they do at all) to funnel material high enough to have an effect -- most of the ash falls back down in a matter of weeks (even sooner if it gets rained out of the atmosphere). I'd compare nuclear blast firestorms with volcanic eruptions -- we do have a record of eruptions funneling material high enough into the troposphere and stratosphere to have a noticeable, longer-term effect on the climate (over the subsequent months and years).

beebmam 9y ago

Almost all of these points are based on cherry picked models. These models are very likely wrong. Models for something that has never happened are notoriously incorrect. I'd rather not find out how inaccurate these models are. I also find your expressions of joy about this quite troublesome. Why can't we just all agree to ban nuclear weapons? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Campaign_to_Abolish_Nuclear_Weapons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Campaign_to_Abol...

stareatgoats 9y ago
I second this. To your question, I believe it's because the notion is multifaceted, and there are many reasonable answers. The most common being that we need nuclear weapons for deterrence (defensive) reasons, same as the reason for having a war machine or military alliances at all. A reason less touted is that we need it for offensive reasons, but then again, the best defense is offence so the two are difficult to clearly distinguish. Another reasonable argument against a ban regards enforcement: how to you enforce something from a position of weakness (having vowed not to use nuclear against a ban-breaker)? I could go on but the point is not that these reasonable objections are insurmountable obstacles, but rather that there are real difficulties that need to be addressed in order to avoid the nuclear havoc that otherwise seems a probable end result some time this century.
cocoablazing 9y ago
Actually, all large nuclear weapons states have agreed to do that, they just ignore their treaty obligations in perpetuity. NPT: "Article VI Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control."
duncan_bayne 9y ago
"Models for something that has never happened are notoriously incorrect." I agree. But make the same point about the effects of AGW and people lose their cool.

Spooky23 9y ago

The book is propaganda intended to draw support for ideas of the era like SDI. You need to read it in context with the era and how people like Teller felt.

Smudge 9y ago
Worth noting that Teller was one of the inspirations for Dr. Strangelove.

cocoablazing 9y ago

Airburst nuclear weapons would be deployed against dispersed soft targets prone to firestorms - firestorms large enough to elevate soot into the region where it can mix with ionized fission products and weapon debris.

StanislavPetrov 9y ago

You completely neglect to mention the massive EMP effects which would, in effect, eliminate electricity globally and cause the instant collapse of society completely apart from any of the kinetic damage and fallout.

dqpb 9y ago
Loss of utilities does not result in instant collapse of society.
- StanislavPetrov 9y ago
  No lights. No refrigeration. No gas pumps. No communication. No vehicles. The collapse would not only be instant, but within days there would be mass starvation and chaos.
  - hueving 9y ago
    Do EMP's affect generators that are not running during the blast?
    - notalaser 9y ago
      No, but they will affect most of the equipment connected to those generators.
  - s_kilk 9y ago
    People underestimate just how fragile civilisation actually is. From the description at the top of the thread it's as if we'll just come out of our shelters after a week and everything will go back to normal, we'll just drive down to Arby's for dinner, maybe catch a movie. More people need to watch Threads.
- xcryogenicx 9y ago
  It absolutely does. Most US cities only have enough total food for three days, regardless of size. There are case studies of cities in China that run out of food. The first thing that happens is the annihilation of local animal populations, then starvation. When you're starving, you either die and fight, and most people would do both.

cocoablazing 9y ago

A 20MT weapon detonation could result in disabling the global electrical production and distribution system, as well as permanently disabling the electronics necessary to move food, water, and medical supplies. Your thesis is that an instant global economic collapse, destruction of all advanced agricultural systems, transportation systems, waste management systems, water purification systems, etc. won't result in >= 20M deaths. You really have no idea what the effects of a significant nuclear exchange would be.

Amezarak 9y ago
> A 20MT weapon detonation could result in disabling the global electrical production and distribution system, as well as permanently disabling the electronics necessary to move food, water, and medical supplies. The Tsar Bomba was a 50MT detonation and no such thing happened. There certainly are more electronics around today, but the EMP from a 20MT blasts, or even many 20MT blasts, would not be global, and even many electronics in range would be fine.

QAPereo 9y ago

Citation on that “mythbusting” by any chance? Or on zero fallout from airbursts?

pokes 9y ago

I'd take some of their claims with a grain of salt. The OISM appears to have many crackpot types associated with it.

jandrese 9y ago

I had the impression the book was painting a slightly less grim picture of nuclear war to prevent people from getting discouraged and not even trying to follow the advice. While I agree that people have overstated the effects of nuclear war, he was IMHO excessively dismissive of the long term exposure risks from even low level fallout.

jdietrich 9y ago

Duck and Cover was widely derided, but it would have saved countless lives in the event of a nuclear attack. We learned from Hiroshima and Nagasaki that a very large proportion of deaths and the majority of injuries in a nuclear attack are caused by flying glass fragments and flash burns. The effects of both injuries are greatly exacerbated by the relative paucity of medical care - an injury that might be completely survivable in peacetime could prove fatal if medical care is unavailable. People at the hypocenter would be killed instantly, but a far greater number of people at the edge of the blast radius could be protected by remarkably simple means. Covering yourself with coat or blanket could be the difference between being completely incinerated and surviving unharmed. Crouching under a desk offers remarkably good protection from falling and flying debris.

dTal 9y ago
>Covering yourself with coat or blanket could be the difference between being completely incinerated and surviving unharmed I don't think this can be right. Surely it takes far less energy to vaporise a blanket than a whole person. It might protect you from surface burns caused by the infrared pulse, though. And flying shards of glass.
- SapphireSun 9y ago
  The thermal radiation pulse is very short, on the order of seconds and it may arrive faster than the air blast. If you are close enough to the blast for your blanket to be vaporized and moved away from your body that quickly, you are likely being concurrently killed by the fireball, ionizing radiation, and overpressure.
- jdietrich 9y ago
  "Incinerated" may be a slightly strong word, but "fatally injured by burns" is entirely accurate. Most of the fatal and life-altering burns suffered in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were effectively extreme sunburn. Most of the burns victims were burnt only on one side of their body - the side facing towards the blast. It doesn't take a lot of material to protect you from that flash. Many people suffered burns only to their face and hands, while the parts of their body covered by clothing was uninjured. Some people had the pattern of their clothing burned into their skin; the darker colors of the pattern acted as a photomask. Eye injuries were very common, because many people heard the bombers flying overhead and went out to look.

crazydoggers 9y ago

>-Nuclear winter" is a discredited myth propagated by de-nuclearization supporters. That it's been discredited is the myth actually. Most models indicate some level of global environmental impact. And a large scale exchange of thermo nuclear weapons (hydrogen bombs, not just atomic) would be pretty severe, probably leading to large scale global starvation. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter#Recent_modeling https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter#Recent_modeli...

grecy 9y ago

> Food & water isn't contaminated unless fallout particles enter into it Is that right? I had always thought objects absorb radiation, so it's actually inside the thing. Does this really mean If I have a bunch of apples in air tight plastic bags and plastic water bottles and things like that, I can just leave them outside during a nuclear blast and then eat them later? (Assume the plastic remains air-tight?) That... sits badly with me. Does that mean I can put an apple in am air-tight plastic container into an x-ray for a year then take it out and eat it... ?

hansthehorse 9y ago
It's possible to irradiate food at such high levels so as to degrade the nutritional value but it will never become radioactive itself. Over 60 countries use low level radiation to sterilize food.
credit_guy 9y ago
That is my understanding: yes, it would be safe to eat those apples. Also, yes, it would be perfectly safe to eat apples that were exposed to x-rays for one year. X-rays are not powerful enough to split atoms, so if the apple started out by not having unstable (i.e. radioactive) atoms, it will end up the same. Some molecules in the apple will split, but not the atoms themselves. The story would be different if you exposed the apple to neutron bombardment. During a nuclear explosion, a lot of neutrons are released, but the intensity of the neutron bombardment decreases with the square of the radius, so if you are far enough for the apples to not be physically destroyed, they'll most likely be safe to eat.
- grecy 9y ago
  Oh wow, thanks very much for explaining that to me!

agumonkey 9y ago

Let's develop radio sensitive panels and enjoy the free radioactive energy everywhere.