6 ms·

Sure, but there must always be a fear that the military and public would not want to die in a nuclear inferno to defend national sovereignty. And may tolerate

by 7952 9mo ago

Sure, but there must always be a fear that the military and public would not want to die in a nuclear inferno to defend national sovereignty. And may tolerate a coupe instead. Which then reduces the madness and the deterrent effect. The extra step the Dprk have taken is to try and build bunkers so that the regime could survive the destruction of the country. A step further into madness that goes beyond what western countries have been willing to accept.

andy_ppp 9mo ago
“And may tolerate a coupe instead.” I could tolerate a coupe but I’d prefer a sports car :-/
westmeal 9mo ago
Aren't there bunkers near dc for that reason though?
- defrost 9mo ago
  According to some deep dives into the budget figures for the East Wing Ballroom .. there are new bunkers going in as we type .. and likely being networked underground.
  - culi 9mo ago
    Feels like our politicians and MIC higher ups are preparing themselves for nuclear war but not building the rest of us any bunkers
    - bigyabai 9mo ago
      It's felt like that for more than half a century: https://youtu.be/zZct-itCwPE https://youtu.be/zZct-itCwPE
    - mkoubaa 9mo ago
      Why would anyone build bunkers for cattle?
- clanky 9mo ago
  Not to mention the bunkers being built by various Silicon Valley billionaires, who by rights should be considered appendages of the U.S. state.
moffkalast 9mo ago
> the military and public would not want to die in a nuclear inferno to defend national sovereignty Erm, it's kind of demanded for people to go out and die to defend national sovereignty in nations that have a draft. For myself, I'd prefer to be vaporized than bleed out in a trench if it really comes down to it.
- SiempreViernes 9mo ago
  Realistically speaking you'll die of an infected and untreated burn wound though, the severe blast and burn area is just much much bigger than the fancy "everything just goes poof" core.
  - LargoLasskhyfv 9mo ago
    Yah, but you could enter the ruins of some shop, get some booze there, and walk straight into ground zero. Feeling the buzz. Getting tired...drifting away...
  - nostrademons 9mo ago
    Realistically speaking you're going to die of starvation or get shot by marauding gangs, or die of cancer a few decades later from radiation in the food change. NukeMap [1] has good visualizations of the relative fireball vs. blast vs. thermal radiation vs. fallout radiuses. One thing that stands out: most of the suburbs is going to survive the initial nuclear exchange. At worst, they'll have a few broken windows. The problem is that if you eliminate ~20% of a nation's population, supply chains, continuity of government, and the economy aren't going to last long. Social organization breaks down much more widely than people die. The resultant pullback of all the trapping of society - reliable food supply, clean water, transportation infrastructure, electricity, heat - is going to kill many more people than the nukes will. [1] https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/ https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/
    - actionfromafar 9mo ago
      Not only 20% of the population, but wiping out cities is going to make everything grind to a halt. Best case, tiny pockets of social order is going to remain in very hard to reach, remote rural areas which also has local access to food. We are talking about maybe thousands of people in a population of hundreds of millions. The rest are in for a decade of pure hell.
mandevil 9mo ago
The US built a lot of bunkers like this back in the 1950's. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Weather_Emergency_Operations_Center https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Weather_Emergency_Operat... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven_Rock_Mountain_Complex https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven_Rock_Mountain_Complex https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Greek_Island https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Greek_Island https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheyenne_Mountain_Complex https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheyenne_Mountain_Complex With the rise of solid fuel ICBM and then MIRV leading to the truly massive number of warheads pointed at the US, the US switched to airplanes for the most important continuity of government issues, figuring that the skies 30,000 above the US will largely be secure (presuming the plane is appropriately EMP shielded) due to the many US geographic advantages, and so it is the best place to ride out the initial attack and then take stock, get to somewhere safe, and figure out what to do from there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Looking_Glass https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Looking_Glass https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TACAMO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TACAMO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_E-6_Mercury https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_E-6_Mercury But the North Koreans can have no illusion that the skies above their country will be safe: there are several major enemy airbases a few minutes from their border, their entire airspace is routinely surveilled and powers hostile to them have made large investments in stealthy air superiority fighters, so the air is not a safe place for the DPRK continuity of government plans. The DPRK does have trains but I would not consider those safe in the event of a major war, since rails are difficult to keep secret. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taeyangho_armoured_train https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taeyangho_armoured_train So bunkers are the best they can do, given their circumstances.
- themafia 9mo ago
  Watching a civilized nation drop a nuclear bomb on an enemy really got into peoples heads. What's worse is.. it worked.
  - yakbarber 9mo ago
    there's a fair argument to make that a nation that drops a nuclear bomb on a city isn't "civilized"
rbanffy 9mo ago
> And may tolerate a coupe instead The US is vulnerable to that scenario as well, even though the military’s willingness to comply with literally textbook illegal orders is not encouraging.
yuuu 9mo ago
coup

by 7952 9mo ago

andy_ppp 9mo ago

“And may tolerate a coupe instead.” I could tolerate a coupe but I’d prefer a sports car :-/

westmeal 9mo ago

Aren't there bunkers near dc for that reason though?

defrost 9mo ago
According to some deep dives into the budget figures for the East Wing Ballroom .. there are new bunkers going in as we type .. and likely being networked underground.
- culi 9mo ago
  Feels like our politicians and MIC higher ups are preparing themselves for nuclear war but not building the rest of us any bunkers
  - bigyabai 9mo ago
    It's felt like that for more than half a century: https://youtu.be/zZct-itCwPE https://youtu.be/zZct-itCwPE
  - mkoubaa 9mo ago
    Why would anyone build bunkers for cattle?
clanky 9mo ago
Not to mention the bunkers being built by various Silicon Valley billionaires, who by rights should be considered appendages of the U.S. state.

moffkalast 9mo ago

> the military and public would not want to die in a nuclear inferno to defend national sovereignty Erm, it's kind of demanded for people to go out and die to defend national sovereignty in nations that have a draft. For myself, I'd prefer to be vaporized than bleed out in a trench if it really comes down to it.

SiempreViernes 9mo ago
Realistically speaking you'll die of an infected and untreated burn wound though, the severe blast and burn area is just much much bigger than the fancy "everything just goes poof" core.
- LargoLasskhyfv 9mo ago
  Yah, but you could enter the ruins of some shop, get some booze there, and walk straight into ground zero. Feeling the buzz. Getting tired...drifting away...
- nostrademons 9mo ago
  Realistically speaking you're going to die of starvation or get shot by marauding gangs, or die of cancer a few decades later from radiation in the food change. NukeMap [1] has good visualizations of the relative fireball vs. blast vs. thermal radiation vs. fallout radiuses. One thing that stands out: most of the suburbs is going to survive the initial nuclear exchange. At worst, they'll have a few broken windows. The problem is that if you eliminate ~20% of a nation's population, supply chains, continuity of government, and the economy aren't going to last long. Social organization breaks down much more widely than people die. The resultant pullback of all the trapping of society - reliable food supply, clean water, transportation infrastructure, electricity, heat - is going to kill many more people than the nukes will. [1] https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/ https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/
  - actionfromafar 9mo ago
    Not only 20% of the population, but wiping out cities is going to make everything grind to a halt. Best case, tiny pockets of social order is going to remain in very hard to reach, remote rural areas which also has local access to food. We are talking about maybe thousands of people in a population of hundreds of millions. The rest are in for a decade of pure hell.

mandevil 9mo ago

The US built a lot of bunkers like this back in the 1950's. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Weather_Emergency_Operations_Center https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Weather_Emergency_Operat... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven_Rock_Mountain_Complex https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven_Rock_Mountain_Complex https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Greek_Island https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Greek_Island https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheyenne_Mountain_Complex https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheyenne_Mountain_Complex With the rise of solid fuel ICBM and then MIRV leading to the truly massive number of warheads pointed at the US, the US switched to airplanes for the most important continuity of government issues, figuring that the skies 30,000 above the US will largely be secure (presuming the plane is appropriately EMP shielded) due to the many US geographic advantages, and so it is the best place to ride out the initial attack and then take stock, get to somewhere safe, and figure out what to do from there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Looking_Glass https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Looking_Glass https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TACAMO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TACAMO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_E-6_Mercury https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_E-6_Mercury But the North Koreans can have no illusion that the skies above their country will be safe: there are several major enemy airbases a few minutes from their border, their entire airspace is routinely surveilled and powers hostile to them have made large investments in stealthy air superiority fighters, so the air is not a safe place for the DPRK continuity of government plans. The DPRK does have trains but I would not consider those safe in the event of a major war, since rails are difficult to keep secret. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taeyangho_armoured_train https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taeyangho_armoured_train So bunkers are the best they can do, given their circumstances.

themafia 9mo ago
Watching a civilized nation drop a nuclear bomb on an enemy really got into peoples heads. What's worse is.. it worked.
- yakbarber 9mo ago
  there's a fair argument to make that a nation that drops a nuclear bomb on a city isn't "civilized"

rbanffy 9mo ago

> And may tolerate a coupe instead The US is vulnerable to that scenario as well, even though the military’s willingness to comply with literally textbook illegal orders is not encouraging.

yuuu 9mo ago

coup