4 ms·

The FEMA simulated strike maps from the 70s show common targets. Mostly in the midwest, large concentrations in the coasts. This of course assumes civilians are

The FEMA simulated strike maps from the 70s show common targets. Mostly in the midwest, large concentrations in the coasts. This of course assumes civilians are mostly left alone, which is unlikely in a large scale nuclear war. The strike maps also show the fallout zones. Wind channels [1] take a large portion of fallout that will cover a significant amount of land mass. The map in [1] shows the case ONLY if strategic targets are hit. That doesn't include hitting major production centers, cities, places of national significance, etc. If 1/3 of Russia's nuclear arsenal made contact with CONUS [1] would most likely be nearly 100% red. There's no doom posting here (other than the doom of nuclear war). I fully understand what they are capable of. 800Kt bombs may cause small immediate destruction (relative to other large Mt+ bombs) but it's the fallout that will kill majority of people. Further, hiroshima and nagasaki were isolated events and the US was the only nuclear superpower. They were attacked with roughly 15kt bombs that had inefficient reaction designs, roughly 1/10th to 1/100th the size of the weapons in most superpowers arsenals today. ICBM lifted devices are so much larger than little boy and fat man we can only suppose the level of damage. SLBMs aren't much smaller. [1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fallout_map_USA_(FEMA).jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fallout_map_USA_(FEM...

xyzzyz 4y ago
Your theory is that fallout will kill more people than the explosions themselves. Let’s test it on Hiroshima and Nagasaki explosions, each of which causes immediate casualties on the order of 100 000 people. Did the fallout from each of them kill millions of people? No. Did it rendered any part of Japan uninhabitable wasteland? No, in fact both cities were continuously inhabited from immediately after the bombing to the present day. Fallout is not some magic poison that kills everyone on contact. It mostly causes extra cancers. People will die from cancers, of course, but I guarantee that in case of nuclear war, more people will die to starvation due to the collapse of production and supply chains resulting from large scale infrastructure and human capital destruction.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- Test0129 4y ago
  In locations of significant fall out the Sv./hr could be high enough to induce radiation poisoning. Inhalation of fallout allows alpha particles to bypass your skin and cause cancers faster (or again, radiation poisoning). A better example than those bombings is chernobyl which despite it's relatively small sized (compared to actual nuclear weapons) induced significant levels of radiation sickness and long term cancers due to the fallout. Certainly fallout is less dangerous than starvation. However, it also isn't something to just hand wave as not a big deal. It hinders your travel, can cause various degrees of sickness, etc. I dont think it's a far stretch to say that the total effect of a large scale nuclear war will primarily be felt in the fallout which will cause deaths in places completely uneffected by the war.
  - xyzzyz 4y ago
    > In locations of significant fall out the Sv./hr could be high enough to induce radiation poisoning. Yes, but those won’t be the vast red marked areas on the map you posted, it will be much more localized. > A better example than those bombings is chernobyl which despite it's relatively small sized (compared to actual nuclear weapons) induced significant levels of radiation sickness and long term cancers due to the fallout. To the contrary, Chernobyl again provides arguments against your theory. First, the number of people who got radiation sickness is rather low (between 100 and 200), and it only affected people who actually worked directly on the site of the disaster. Second, there is in fact very little evidence of increased cancer due to Chernobyl disaster among people other than the few hundred people on site on the day of disaster. One exception is good evidence for few thousand extra thyroid cancers, These are very easily treatable (90%+ success rates) in normal circumstances, so the might cause some problems in the nuclear war scenario, but an easy way to avoid it is to not eat fresh grown food for a few weeks right after the disaster (you can store it and it eat later). > However, it also isn't something to just hand wave as not a big deal. It hinders your travel, can cause various degrees of sickness, etc. Of course, but observe how you are backpedaling from your original “everyone is dead” claim. Look, if you think I am arguing that nuclear war is no biggie, you are much mistaken, and you need to read more carefully. All I’m saying is that it is very much false that everyone will die, either directly from bombs or later from fallout. Plenty of people will die, but given the realities of scale, plenty will survive too.

xyzzyz 4y ago

Your theory is that fallout will kill more people than the explosions themselves. Let’s test it on Hiroshima and Nagasaki explosions, each of which causes immediate casualties on the order of 100 000 people. Did the fallout from each of them kill millions of people? No. Did it rendered any part of Japan uninhabitable wasteland? No, in fact both cities were continuously inhabited from immediately after the bombing to the present day. Fallout is not some magic poison that kills everyone on contact. It mostly causes extra cancers. People will die from cancers, of course, but I guarantee that in case of nuclear war, more people will die to starvation due to the collapse of production and supply chains resulting from large scale infrastructure and human capital destruction.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Test0129 4y ago
In locations of significant fall out the Sv./hr could be high enough to induce radiation poisoning. Inhalation of fallout allows alpha particles to bypass your skin and cause cancers faster (or again, radiation poisoning). A better example than those bombings is chernobyl which despite it's relatively small sized (compared to actual nuclear weapons) induced significant levels of radiation sickness and long term cancers due to the fallout. Certainly fallout is less dangerous than starvation. However, it also isn't something to just hand wave as not a big deal. It hinders your travel, can cause various degrees of sickness, etc. I dont think it's a far stretch to say that the total effect of a large scale nuclear war will primarily be felt in the fallout which will cause deaths in places completely uneffected by the war.
- xyzzyz 4y ago
  > In locations of significant fall out the Sv./hr could be high enough to induce radiation poisoning. Yes, but those won’t be the vast red marked areas on the map you posted, it will be much more localized. > A better example than those bombings is chernobyl which despite it's relatively small sized (compared to actual nuclear weapons) induced significant levels of radiation sickness and long term cancers due to the fallout. To the contrary, Chernobyl again provides arguments against your theory. First, the number of people who got radiation sickness is rather low (between 100 and 200), and it only affected people who actually worked directly on the site of the disaster. Second, there is in fact very little evidence of increased cancer due to Chernobyl disaster among people other than the few hundred people on site on the day of disaster. One exception is good evidence for few thousand extra thyroid cancers, These are very easily treatable (90%+ success rates) in normal circumstances, so the might cause some problems in the nuclear war scenario, but an easy way to avoid it is to not eat fresh grown food for a few weeks right after the disaster (you can store it and it eat later). > However, it also isn't something to just hand wave as not a big deal. It hinders your travel, can cause various degrees of sickness, etc. Of course, but observe how you are backpedaling from your original “everyone is dead” claim. Look, if you think I am arguing that nuclear war is no biggie, you are much mistaken, and you need to read more carefully. All I’m saying is that it is very much false that everyone will die, either directly from bombs or later from fallout. Plenty of people will die, but given the realities of scale, plenty will survive too.