3 ms·

Ah! About that I'm not a good person to listen to, for I was born, raised, and have retired to a city that's a hair's breath from the USA's "Tornado Alley", an

by hga 12y ago

Ah! About that I'm not a good person to listen to, for I was born, raised, and have retired to a city that's a hair's breath from the USA's "Tornado Alley", and for that reason we are deadly serious about Civil Defense. So during tornado season, every Monday at 10 am if the weather was good, the sirens would sound for testing. And they of course sound when a funnel cloud was sighted, and they saved a lot of people from death or injury (in my case) the 3rd time in my life when it was for real: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Joplin_tornado https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Joplin_tornado and http://www.ancell-ent.com/1715_Rex_Ave_127B_Joplin/images/ http://www.ancell-ent.com/1715_Rex_Ave_127B_Joplin/images/ That said, surviving nuclear war isn't that difficult. Threads was ludicrous propaganda; if your nation is prepared (UK and US no, Switzerland and Israel yes), or if you're lucky and either aren't in the path of serious fallout or can arrange a shelter ... well, one theme of Threads was correct, medium and longer term survival is the trick. But the portrayed bigger environmental effects as well as cancer rates and the like were flat out lies (this based on reading the Wikipedia summary and my 45 years worth of study of nuclear war survival). Don't know about that Q.E.D. episode, but it was unrealistic: while the U.K. is like many other nations in being a "one bomb nation", that is, taking out the one central city takes out almost everything and everyone important "at the top" (compare to the US were D.C. is nothing but government, however much they like to pretend it's e.g. a cultural center :-), London would get a nice saturation spread of more efficient sub-megaton warheads :-(. If your government had really cared, and could afford it (that's the trick, I suppose, post-WWII and serious socialism), it could have been arranged that you'd get that 4 minutes warning and have a blast shelter to get into. By the same token, the US could have spent 1/3rds of a year's Cold War "defense" budget and outfitted enough shelter spaces for every resident, including a year's worth of food. But don't worry, sooner or later nuclear weapons will again be used in anger :-(, and a lot more people and nations will get serious about surviving them. If you want be prepared today, take a gander at Nuclear War Survival Skills, the book on expedient nuclear war survival: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_War_Survival_Skills https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_War_Survival_Skills (Note you need the real, green cover book to get the correct scale diagrams to make a Kearny Fallout Meter, not to mention the need for a paper copy if the lights go out/EMP messes things up, but the free on-line versions will get you started.)

arethuza 12y ago
"Threads was ludicrous propaganda" Actually, Threads was actually fairly optimistic about the likely scale of a Soviet attack on the UK: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_Leg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_Leg Also Threads was attempting to show the actual state of preparation of the UK for nuclear war - so saying that a nuclear war is easy to survive if you are prepared is a bit silly as the UK (and the US) really weren't that prepared - that was the point!
- hga 12y ago
  When you add the lies about "life wouldn't be worth living afterwords" it goes from e.g. being a potential call for action to get prepared into "Better Red Than Dead" propaganda.
  - cbd1984 12y ago
    Actually, the "Life wouldn't be worth living afterwords" was more associated with the anti-war nuclear disarmament group. The people who wanted us to be prepared to strike were the ones who thought war would be survivable and the conditions afterwords tolerable, at least for some substantial chunk of the population. Maybe that's all just my perception.
    - hga 12y ago
      Nope, not just all your perception (although the "prepared to strike" ones were split between the "and also protect the population" types, and starting with JFK and Robert Strange McNamara, the truly MAD ones (Mutual Assured Destruction, which to take a riff from Doctor Strangelove, would have worked a lot better if the Soviets accepted it, instead of correctly thinking it was profoundly immoral)). The question here, is what side do you think the "Inspired Nineteen Eighty Four!" BBC was on?
- rhino369 12y ago
  It was realistic about the initial attacks and aftermath. But the idea that a nuclear winter would send the UK back to the middle ages is ridiculous. Hell, someone would at least take it over for the arable land.

by hga 12y ago

arethuza 12y ago

"Threads was ludicrous propaganda" Actually, Threads was actually fairly optimistic about the likely scale of a Soviet attack on the UK: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_Leg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_Leg Also Threads was attempting to show the actual state of preparation of the UK for nuclear war - so saying that a nuclear war is easy to survive if you are prepared is a bit silly as the UK (and the US) really weren't that prepared - that was the point!

hga 12y ago
When you add the lies about "life wouldn't be worth living afterwords" it goes from e.g. being a potential call for action to get prepared into "Better Red Than Dead" propaganda.
- cbd1984 12y ago
  Actually, the "Life wouldn't be worth living afterwords" was more associated with the anti-war nuclear disarmament group. The people who wanted us to be prepared to strike were the ones who thought war would be survivable and the conditions afterwords tolerable, at least for some substantial chunk of the population. Maybe that's all just my perception.
  - hga 12y ago
    Nope, not just all your perception (although the "prepared to strike" ones were split between the "and also protect the population" types, and starting with JFK and Robert Strange McNamara, the truly MAD ones (Mutual Assured Destruction, which to take a riff from Doctor Strangelove, would have worked a lot better if the Soviets accepted it, instead of correctly thinking it was profoundly immoral)). The question here, is what side do you think the "Inspired Nineteen Eighty Four!" BBC was on?
rhino369 12y ago
It was realistic about the initial attacks and aftermath. But the idea that a nuclear winter would send the UK back to the middle ages is ridiculous. Hell, someone would at least take it over for the arable land.