8 ms·

NYC Releases Video Outlining Steps to Take During Nuclear Attack

21 points by chazeon 4y ago

fasteddie31003 4y ago
Most important step they missed was you probably don't want to be anywhere near NYC during a nuclear confrontation.
- delecti 4y ago
  Even discounting the broader metro, there are almost 9 million people living in NYC. It's unlikely that any meaningful fraction of them could possibly get out in the time between learning we were in a nuclear confrontation, and the first consequences of that confrontation for NYC.
  - SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
    > It's unlikely that any meaningful fraction of them could possibly get out in the time between learning we were in a nuclear confrontation, and the first consequences of that confrontation for NYC. I imagine it's very likely the two would happen simultaneously.
  - ohiovr 4y ago
    The NYC is telling people to get inside and pray to their "neon god". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_xWCJAtz3U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_xWCJAtz3U If most people believe, then traffic might not be impossibly bad.
    - delecti 4y ago
      > If most people believe, then traffic might not be impossibly bad. In that case, a meaningful fraction definitely wouldn't get out, because they wouldn't even be trying to.
- mdeck_ 4y ago
  I’m not sure how it could possibly be useful to anyone to hear that they shouldn’t be in the place where a nuclear explosion occurs.
- bpodgursky 4y ago
  New York is actually surprisingly uninteresting as a military target. You'd glass it if you were trying to kill US logistical capacity of course, but if you were trying to neuter a second-strike, you wouldn't really bother.
  - crmd 4y ago
    Port Newark is a primary industrial target, and the large cluster of defense contractors in northern NJ are a primary counterforce target. Unfortunately the fallout plumes from the Jersey targets covers all 5 boroughs.
- groby_b 4y ago
  As a child of the 80's - that's probably where you want to be. Right in the epicenter, if you can make it. At least it'll be over quick. I'm fairly certain that's preferable to the scenarios survivors of a large scale nuclear exchange will face in the weeks, months, and years after.
lsllc 4y ago
Previous discussion from a couple of days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32063652 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32063652
arthurcolle 4y ago
I really hope we don't actually have to deal with nuclear war in my lifetime. It would legit be fucking insane if any human would actually go ahead and launch a first strike.
- anon291 4y ago
  - nerbert 4y ago
    Except that Ukraine joining NATO is not a subject anywhere except in Putin's mind.
    - anon291 4y ago
      The US promised Ukraine membership in 2008, knowing full well what would happen if that occurred. It's not a subject often broached today, but the gears of war turn for a long time. However, recently the EU has made its intentions clear to annex Ukraine. This would immediately pull several NATO countries into a war situation with Russia which would mean the US would be as well. So even if it's not NATO directly, it will be indirectly. Like, if Ukraine is in the EU, and now Germany's at war with Russia, and Russia declares war on Germany, we'll be stuck in that too. EDIT: yeah yeah yeah... the EU is not a military union. People who honestly believe that should just keep telling themselves that war is never waged for trade and money. Maybe if they say it enough times it'll be true.
      - ceejayoz 4y ago
        > The US promised Ukraine membership in 2008 No, Ukraine submitted a Membership Action Plan in 2008. The US can't promise NATO membership, nor is a MAP a promise of completing the process. Later that year, the Dutch head of NATO at the time indicated the MAP wouldn't go forwards. > However, recently the EU has made its intentions clear to annex Ukraine. This is really silly framing. The EU doesn't annex countries. Annexations are "the forcible acquisition of one state's territory by another state, usually following military occupation of the territory". Someone's doing that right now, but it's not the US, NATO, EU, or Ukraine.
daenz 4y ago
In my mind, there are 2 conclusions you could come to: 1) There is an actual plausible nuclear threat, or 2) There is some benefit to making people irrationally fearful.
- mathgeek 4y ago
  There is also the more benign: 3) a group of employees whose job it is to think up and produce these videos thought it should be made.
  - rPlayer6554 4y ago
    How about option 4: we unfortunately live in a world with nuclear weapons which are controlled by humans and humans are not always predictable . Its good practice to communicate the emergency plan well in advance of needing it.
  - tootie 4y ago
    Yeah, it's literally the NYC Office of Emergency Management. Their whole jam is being prepared for disasters. NYC has seen enough of them already that they need an agency that can respond faster and more fit to the city's needs than FEMA.
  - daenz 4y ago
    Maybe but that job requires a basic understanding of public perception, so they must know how it could be perceived, yet they did nothing to account for that.
- bob1029 4y ago
  Upon review of Cold War history and the state of our media, I'd be inclined to select conclusion #2 at the moment.
  - daenz 4y ago
    I imagine it might persuade people to support Ukraine and pay attention to what's happening over there.
zahma 4y ago
As if there’s going to be a world left living in after a nuclear war ends. In the US, the most frightening aspect of life in a nuclear war would be the rapid regression to tribalism and infighting rather than the exposure to radiation, though with the winds and weather patterns, that would make it moot for the vast majority anyway. There will be all out panic and irrational behavior will predominate. Things will break with nobody to fix them. Services we take for granted will suddenly trap us or kill us indirectly. No communication will be easy or quick. Moreover, the long term effects on the environment from massive nuclear detonations and debris lingering in the atmosphere would make the country live in something out of a Cormac McCarthy novel. Abandon all hope even if you are rich enough to have a bunker; life just simply won’t be worth living once there’s a first strike.
- hdjjhhvvhga 4y ago
  Yeah, I'm living one of the places that would be targeted first. I considered moving, but after some pondering I arrived to the conclusion if the worst comes, I prefer to die first.
  - glitchcrab 4y ago
    I feel like there are far more immediate and important reasons to consider moving than the infinitesimally small chance of your city being targeted by a nuclear strike.
    - yablak 4y ago
      The probability is small but the expected loss is high.
- edmcnulty101 4y ago
  I assume things will revert to a medieval system like they did for the past millenia. Where single kings/warlords will amass huge power and people will flock to their banner's and countries for protection from other kings/warlords. After the dust settles in half a decade or so and power reasserts itself it might actually be pretty cool to live in a medieval depopulated society except with a lot more advanced technology.
andrewstuart 4y ago
When thinking about nuclear war its worth remembering that the USA, Russia and other countries have already exploded hundreds and hundreds of nuclear weapons around the earth. In a very real way we have already lived through a nuclear war except the bombs were not generally aimed at people. I raise this because when I was a kid we were taught that there would be a nuclear winter, the skies would grey with fallout. It appears however that despite exploding hundreds of nuclear weapons already, there was no nuclear winter.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  Hundreds of weapons spread out over decades isn't the same thing as thousands spread out over hours. (There may be reasons to doubt Cold War-era nuclear winter predictions, but “we’ve detonated much fewer bombs over a much longer period than would happen in a full-scale strategic exchange and that hasn't happened” is very much not one of them.)
- groby_b 4y ago
  You're willfully ignoring that atmospheric tests are banned since 1963, the devices weren't detonated at the same time, many had a much lower yield than what'd be used in a nuclear war, and many were detonated at altitudes preventing fallout. But most importantly, the vast majority of them didn't cause firestorms - which means no smoke particles, which is the major issue in how severe nuclear winter would be. It's probably also worth understanding that your misguided argument is a very deliberately placed piece of disinfo aimed at discrediting climate science. ("See, not even nuclear winter they got right")

21 points by chazeon 4y ago

fasteddie31003 4y ago

Most important step they missed was you probably don't want to be anywhere near NYC during a nuclear confrontation.

delecti 4y ago
Even discounting the broader metro, there are almost 9 million people living in NYC. It's unlikely that any meaningful fraction of them could possibly get out in the time between learning we were in a nuclear confrontation, and the first consequences of that confrontation for NYC.
- SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
  > It's unlikely that any meaningful fraction of them could possibly get out in the time between learning we were in a nuclear confrontation, and the first consequences of that confrontation for NYC. I imagine it's very likely the two would happen simultaneously.
- ohiovr 4y ago
  The NYC is telling people to get inside and pray to their "neon god". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_xWCJAtz3U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_xWCJAtz3U If most people believe, then traffic might not be impossibly bad.
  - delecti 4y ago
    > If most people believe, then traffic might not be impossibly bad. In that case, a meaningful fraction definitely wouldn't get out, because they wouldn't even be trying to.
mdeck_ 4y ago
I’m not sure how it could possibly be useful to anyone to hear that they shouldn’t be in the place where a nuclear explosion occurs.
bpodgursky 4y ago
New York is actually surprisingly uninteresting as a military target. You'd glass it if you were trying to kill US logistical capacity of course, but if you were trying to neuter a second-strike, you wouldn't really bother.
- crmd 4y ago
  Port Newark is a primary industrial target, and the large cluster of defense contractors in northern NJ are a primary counterforce target. Unfortunately the fallout plumes from the Jersey targets covers all 5 boroughs.
groby_b 4y ago
As a child of the 80's - that's probably where you want to be. Right in the epicenter, if you can make it. At least it'll be over quick. I'm fairly certain that's preferable to the scenarios survivors of a large scale nuclear exchange will face in the weeks, months, and years after.

lsllc 4y ago

Previous discussion from a couple of days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32063652 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32063652

arthurcolle 4y ago

I really hope we don't actually have to deal with nuclear war in my lifetime. It would legit be fucking insane if any human would actually go ahead and launch a first strike.

anon291 4y ago
- nerbert 4y ago
  Except that Ukraine joining NATO is not a subject anywhere except in Putin's mind.
  - anon291 4y ago
    The US promised Ukraine membership in 2008, knowing full well what would happen if that occurred. It's not a subject often broached today, but the gears of war turn for a long time. However, recently the EU has made its intentions clear to annex Ukraine. This would immediately pull several NATO countries into a war situation with Russia which would mean the US would be as well. So even if it's not NATO directly, it will be indirectly. Like, if Ukraine is in the EU, and now Germany's at war with Russia, and Russia declares war on Germany, we'll be stuck in that too. EDIT: yeah yeah yeah... the EU is not a military union. People who honestly believe that should just keep telling themselves that war is never waged for trade and money. Maybe if they say it enough times it'll be true.
    - ceejayoz 4y ago
      > The US promised Ukraine membership in 2008 No, Ukraine submitted a Membership Action Plan in 2008. The US can't promise NATO membership, nor is a MAP a promise of completing the process. Later that year, the Dutch head of NATO at the time indicated the MAP wouldn't go forwards. > However, recently the EU has made its intentions clear to annex Ukraine. This is really silly framing. The EU doesn't annex countries. Annexations are "the forcible acquisition of one state's territory by another state, usually following military occupation of the territory". Someone's doing that right now, but it's not the US, NATO, EU, or Ukraine.

daenz 4y ago

In my mind, there are 2 conclusions you could come to: 1) There is an actual plausible nuclear threat, or 2) There is some benefit to making people irrationally fearful.

mathgeek 4y ago
There is also the more benign: 3) a group of employees whose job it is to think up and produce these videos thought it should be made.
- rPlayer6554 4y ago
  How about option 4: we unfortunately live in a world with nuclear weapons which are controlled by humans and humans are not always predictable . Its good practice to communicate the emergency plan well in advance of needing it.
- tootie 4y ago
  Yeah, it's literally the NYC Office of Emergency Management. Their whole jam is being prepared for disasters. NYC has seen enough of them already that they need an agency that can respond faster and more fit to the city's needs than FEMA.
- daenz 4y ago
  Maybe but that job requires a basic understanding of public perception, so they must know how it could be perceived, yet they did nothing to account for that.
bob1029 4y ago
Upon review of Cold War history and the state of our media, I'd be inclined to select conclusion #2 at the moment.
- daenz 4y ago
  I imagine it might persuade people to support Ukraine and pay attention to what's happening over there.

zahma 4y ago

As if there’s going to be a world left living in after a nuclear war ends. In the US, the most frightening aspect of life in a nuclear war would be the rapid regression to tribalism and infighting rather than the exposure to radiation, though with the winds and weather patterns, that would make it moot for the vast majority anyway. There will be all out panic and irrational behavior will predominate. Things will break with nobody to fix them. Services we take for granted will suddenly trap us or kill us indirectly. No communication will be easy or quick. Moreover, the long term effects on the environment from massive nuclear detonations and debris lingering in the atmosphere would make the country live in something out of a Cormac McCarthy novel. Abandon all hope even if you are rich enough to have a bunker; life just simply won’t be worth living once there’s a first strike.

hdjjhhvvhga 4y ago
Yeah, I'm living one of the places that would be targeted first. I considered moving, but after some pondering I arrived to the conclusion if the worst comes, I prefer to die first.
- glitchcrab 4y ago
  I feel like there are far more immediate and important reasons to consider moving than the infinitesimally small chance of your city being targeted by a nuclear strike.
  - yablak 4y ago
    The probability is small but the expected loss is high.
edmcnulty101 4y ago
I assume things will revert to a medieval system like they did for the past millenia. Where single kings/warlords will amass huge power and people will flock to their banner's and countries for protection from other kings/warlords. After the dust settles in half a decade or so and power reasserts itself it might actually be pretty cool to live in a medieval depopulated society except with a lot more advanced technology.

andrewstuart 4y ago

When thinking about nuclear war its worth remembering that the USA, Russia and other countries have already exploded hundreds and hundreds of nuclear weapons around the earth. In a very real way we have already lived through a nuclear war except the bombs were not generally aimed at people. I raise this because when I was a kid we were taught that there would be a nuclear winter, the skies would grey with fallout. It appears however that despite exploding hundreds of nuclear weapons already, there was no nuclear winter.

dragonwriter 4y ago
Hundreds of weapons spread out over decades isn't the same thing as thousands spread out over hours. (There may be reasons to doubt Cold War-era nuclear winter predictions, but “we’ve detonated much fewer bombs over a much longer period than would happen in a full-scale strategic exchange and that hasn't happened” is very much not one of them.)
groby_b 4y ago
You're willfully ignoring that atmospheric tests are banned since 1963, the devices weren't detonated at the same time, many had a much lower yield than what'd be used in a nuclear war, and many were detonated at altitudes preventing fallout. But most importantly, the vast majority of them didn't cause firestorms - which means no smoke particles, which is the major issue in how severe nuclear winter would be. It's probably also worth understanding that your misguided argument is a very deliberately placed piece of disinfo aimed at discrediting climate science. ("See, not even nuclear winter they got right")