2 ms·

The Hiroshima bomb, which killed about 70,000 to 80,000 people instantly, was relatively small compared to today's standards. Currently, the most likely threat

The Hiroshima bomb, which killed about 70,000 to 80,000 people instantly, was relatively small compared to today's standards. Currently, the most likely threat to a major Western city is from a Russian ICBM. On average, a Russian ICBM warhead has a yield of about 400 kilotons, which is approximately 26 times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb. While survival in a strong concrete building, such as a bank, is possible, it's important to consider how many people in a city are actually in such fortified structures at any given time. Realistically, a very small percentage of the population would be in such strongholds during an attack. But okay, I have a few iodine tablets in the cupboard.

CuriousCosmic 2y ago
While yes modern weapons have higher yield, the point still generally holds the same. If you are in a heavy concrete structure, you actually have pretty decent odds. Now what access people have to that depends on where they live. From my experience on the east coast, a lot of the office buildings, etc in the DMV are mid 20th century brutalist concrete structures. So like even if you were in DC proper, your odds are surprisingly good as long as you are inside a building or in a metro station. My point wasn't so much that it's easy to survive. It's very much not. However it's not the guaranteed death a lot of people assume. Rather to quote, it's an earthquake, a tornado, and a wildfire all in one (plus radiation). If you are inside you lose the risk of radiation from the blast so now you just have to contend with the threat of 3 natural disasters at once. So if where you work is well suited for safety from a fire, from a tornado, and from an earthquake, you'll probably be in a reasonably safe space.
- randomtoast 2y ago
  We both agree that there's a chance of survival. However, an unresolved question remains: is it really better to survive, or would it have been better to have died instantly? If most of my friends and family have died, then I would rather chose the latter.

CuriousCosmic 2y ago

While yes modern weapons have higher yield, the point still generally holds the same. If you are in a heavy concrete structure, you actually have pretty decent odds. Now what access people have to that depends on where they live. From my experience on the east coast, a lot of the office buildings, etc in the DMV are mid 20th century brutalist concrete structures. So like even if you were in DC proper, your odds are surprisingly good as long as you are inside a building or in a metro station. My point wasn't so much that it's easy to survive. It's very much not. However it's not the guaranteed death a lot of people assume. Rather to quote, it's an earthquake, a tornado, and a wildfire all in one (plus radiation). If you are inside you lose the risk of radiation from the blast so now you just have to contend with the threat of 3 natural disasters at once. So if where you work is well suited for safety from a fire, from a tornado, and from an earthquake, you'll probably be in a reasonably safe space.

randomtoast 2y ago
We both agree that there's a chance of survival. However, an unresolved question remains: is it really better to survive, or would it have been better to have died instantly? If most of my friends and family have died, then I would rather chose the latter.