5 ms·
I find calling the potential deployment of nuclear missiles at this point ”world war three” slightly misleading. A war has a beginning and an end. There is no e
by krig 8y ago
I find calling the potential deployment of nuclear missiles at this point ”world war three” slightly misleading. A war has a beginning and an end. There is no end other than the end of the world as we know it on the other side of such strikes.
As the exercise concluded in the article, ”Most of the world was destroyed. Billions were dead. Civilisation ended.”
- jmnicolas 8y agoSadly a nuclear war is "highly" survivable as long as you know to duck and cover once you see the flash. I say "sadly" because it's not as big a deterrent as we thought. You can read how to avoid 90% of the deaths here : http://www.ki4u.com/goodnews.htm http://www.ki4u.com/goodnews.htm
- TheOtherHobbes 8y agoThis is misleading nonsense. In a real war most targets would be barraged by MIRVs, some of which would be ground bursts specifically designed to maximise the effects of fall out plumes across otherwise survivable areas. One way or another, your initial duck-and-cover survival won't last long.
- pygy_ 8y agoAnd even if you survive the explosion and fallout, chances are you wont survive the logistic issues it would trigger, especially in large cities. Edit, for reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targetable_reentry_vehicle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targeta...
- krig 8y agoIt's also misleading because it's talking about a bomb 1/10th the size of the Hiroshima nuclear detonation, while today, even just India and Pakistan alone have nuclear capabilities that are a hundred times beyond that. The implications not just from the initial strikes but the infrastructural devastation that would follow are impossible to estimate.
- arethuza 8y agoI suspect the kind of civil defence training described on that page would probably help with a small scale terrorist level attack. However, I don't think it would achieve very much in a full scale attack and certainly not the scale of attacks likely during the 1980s and on densely populated areas of Europe. Where I sit now in Scotland is within range of about 5 different high value Cold War targets - I don't think Duck and Cover would achieve very much.
- NeedMoreTea 8y agoIf you'd left it at the first sentence I'd have read it as nicely pitched sarcasm. If it's a single Hiroshima scale device, sure, it'll probably help some. If countries are exchanging their deterrent missiles, no, you're not going to avoid 90% of the deaths.
- starbeast 8y agoThis all seems very similar to the public information services from Raymond Briggs rather depressing sequel to "The Snowman", "When The Wind Blows".