The Analysis of Sea Levels.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

More Dino stuff. 

Earth got rang like a bell: vibration continued for weeks 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/10/221006160638.htm

The amount of energy released in this 'mega-earthquake' is estimated at 1023 joules, which is about 50,000 times more energy than was released in the magnitude 9.1 Sumatra earthquake in 2004

Faults and deformation due to shaking continue up through the spherule-rich layer that was deposited post-impact, indicating that the shaking must have continued for the weeks and months it took for these finer-grained deposits to reach the ocean floor. Just above those spherule deposits, preserved fern spores signal the first recovery of plant-life after the impact.

[NFUN]

3 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

More Dino stuff. 

Earth got rang like a bell: vibration continued for weeks 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/10/221006160638.htm

The amount of energy released in this 'mega-earthquake' is estimated at 1023 joules, which is about 50,000 times more energy than was released in the magnitude 9.1 Sumatra earthquake in 2004

Faults and deformation due to shaking continue up through the spherule-rich layer that was deposited post-impact, indicating that the shaking must have continued for the weeks and months it took for these finer-grained deposits to reach the ocean floor. Just above those spherule deposits, preserved fern spores signal the first recovery of plant-life after the impact.

I dunno. I feel like I've thrown baseball with more energy than that

 

_{off of a building, but still}

[mikegarrison]

8 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

More Dino stuff. 

Earth got rang like a bell: vibration continued for weeks 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/10/221006160638.htm

The amount of energy released in this 'mega-earthquake' is estimated at 1023 joules, which is about 50,000 times more energy than was released in the magnitude 9.1 Sumatra earthquake in 2004

Faults and deformation due to shaking continue up through the spherule-rich layer that was deposited post-impact, indicating that the shaking must have continued for the weeks and months it took for these finer-grained deposits to reach the ocean floor. Just above those spherule deposits, preserved fern spores signal the first recovery of plant-life after the impact.

LOL. 1023 joules is not a whole lot. 10²³, on the other hand, is a lot.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

33 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

LOL. 1023 joules is not a whole lot. 10²³, on the other hand, is a lot.

 

5 hours ago, NFUN said:

I dunno. I feel like I've thrown baseball with more energy than that

 

_{off of a building, but still}

I literally did not get that until Mike's post!

Bravo Zulu NFUN.

I had to reclick the link and see what happened.  The article has the correct formulation of the exponent, but the summary does, indeed, show 1023!

Edited October 8, 2022 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[kerbiloid]

9 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

indicating that the shaking must have continued for the weeks and months

Sounds like another HolyWood-like sensation from known lovers of big badabooms, describing every thing in the world with another explosion.

Why after Sumatra the world wasn't shaking?

How do they imagine a week-lomg earthquake after a single impact? The Earth is a hollow bell?

Looks like another explosionist tries to pull the facts and funds by the ears to his so much spectacular thought-out model.

P.S.
Were the mammals and crocos teeth clatching for weeks due to the vibration?

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/15/weather/mississippi-river-low-water-tower-rock-climate/index.html

Low water having economic impact 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/finance.yahoo.com/amphtml/news/america-going-shut-down-shut-204307435.html

 

Edited October 16, 2022 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[kerbiloid]

4 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/15/weather/mississippi-river-low-water-tower-rock-climate/index.html

The paddle wheels crawlers.

They believed, their time will return.

Spoiler

 

[kerbiloid]

Models, models...

Predictions.

https://www.nature.com/articles/349096a0.pdf

[SunlitZelkova]

12 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Models, models...

Predictions.

https://www.nature.com/articles/349096a0.pdf

Nuclear winter is not comparable to actual climate science.

Climate science is backed by real data. Nuclear winter and autumn is nothing more than assumptions, poor modeling, and random fearmongering.

I would like to clarify that there is plenty of poor modeling and fearmongering in climate too. Nuclear winter doesn’t have any good evidence going for it, though, and thus I don’t find the to comparable.

[wumpus]

On 10/22/2022 at 2:15 AM, SunlitZelkova said:

Nuclear winter is not comparable to actual climate science.

Climate science is backed by real data. Nuclear winter and autumn is nothing more than assumptions, poor modeling, and random fearmongering.

I would like to clarify that there is plenty of poor modeling and fearmongering in climate too. Nuclear winter doesn’t have any good evidence going for it, though, and thus I don’t find the to comparable.

Has anyone run any reasonable "nuclear winter" scenarios through any reasonably modern climate model?  I'm not sure how advanced climate modeling was in 1989 (really a few years later) when nuclear winter fears were hard to publish.  Lots of work done on climate models since.

I guess the easiest way would be to compare the Krakatoa eruption (200M) with that of an all out global thermonuclear war.  Of course nearly all of those would be air blasts, and I have no idea how much dirt would be kicked up by a high-energy air blast.  Presumably pre-1960s data would have to suffice.  Even then, Krakatoa lead to the "year without a summer", but the effects were gone in roughly a year.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

22 minutes ago, wumpus said:

as anyone run any reasonable "nuclear winter" scenarios through any reasonably modern climate model

I've seen some.  I think there is one linked up thread that was kind of weak. 

[kerbiloid]

6 hours ago, wumpus said:

I'm not sure how advanced climate modeling was in 1989 (really a few years later) when nuclear winter fears were hard to publish. 

???
I'm sure the late 1980s were the time of an avalanche of nuclear winter publications, as I was hunting every nuke-book in my student times (just treating the nuclear winter tale as a horror tale, I was interested in nukes).
There were a lot of models with numbers, I have a book of them somewhere in the closet.

Even then it was looking stupid to calculate the soot production for smouldering and at the same time  its uplifting for firestorm, as they were doing.
It was one of the important lessons for me to watch out every time when I hear the "shut up because professional scientists think so" chatter, first watching what can the scientist  be selling for money.
First of all for every "big bada-boom!" theory, like the dinokillaz, Theia crash, or Late Heavy Bombardment.
(Together with other examples of the Unseen University in real world, and books signed by academicians but written by some magister for food career, containing stupid mistakes).

Edited October 24, 2022 by kerbiloid

[SunlitZelkova]

7 hours ago, wumpus said:

Has anyone run any reasonable "nuclear winter" scenarios through any reasonably modern climate model?  I'm not sure how advanced climate modeling was in 1989 (really a few years later) when nuclear winter fears were hard to publish.  Lots of work done on climate models since.

I guess the easiest way would be to compare the Krakatoa eruption (200M) with that of an all out global thermonuclear war.  Of course nearly all of those would be air blasts, and I have no idea how much dirt would be kicked up by a high-energy air blast.  Presumably pre-1960s data would have to suffice.  Even then, Krakatoa lead to the "year without a summer", but the effects were gone in roughly a year.

There would be many ground detonations in a full scale war. The US has 400 ICBM siloes, so if Russia launches 3 warheads at every site to ensure destruction, that’s 1200 ground detonations across the Midwest. Of course, some may fail.

But would the debris/dirt be carried that high and remain so high for so long? Nuclear explosions occurring in a span of less than a minute are hardly comparable to Krakatoa erupting for five whole months.

And the huge wildfires in the US, Australia, and Siberia are providing good comparisons for how masses of burning cities might affect climate. Note that a dry forest is certainly better fuel for a fire than a concrete city, and cities likely would not burn as long as forests. If the wildfires did not cause catastrophic cooling how are cities supposed to?

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

This is timely.  @SunlitZelkova and @kerbiloid you guys may enjoy this:  https://www.wired.com/story/micromorts-nuclear-war/

(Statistical Forecasting group looks at the prospects of detonation) 

Also:

"The myth that panic, looting, and antisocial behavior increases during the apocalypse (or apocalyptic-like scenarios) is in fact a myth—and has been solidly disproved by multiple scientific studies." 

"Humans do not, under the pressure of an emergency, socially collapse. Rather, they seem to display higher levels of social cohesion, despite what media or government agents might expect…or portray on TV. Humans, after the apocalypse, band together in collectives to help one another—and they do this spontaneously. Disaster response workers call it ‘spontaneous prosocial helping behavior’, and it saves lives."

https://www.tor.com/2018/11/14/what-really-happens-after-the-apocalypse/

 

Edited October 24, 2022 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[kerbiloid]

3 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

this:  https://www.wired.com/story/micromorts-nuclear-war/

I've heard and do believe that secret services of all over the world hire the astrologists and consider their studies seriously ...
(Not because they believe in astrology, but because many of their "clients" do and some "clients" make decisions taking into account the horoscopes.)

I believe the famous Illuminati Cards with their 9/11 burning WTC card could predict this event in 1990s.
Not because of the Illuminati magic, but because the 9/11 actor (whoever he was) was fond of its symbolism while making the decision what to attack.

I had bad feelings that NASA and other space companies read the KSP forum too much, watching what they are doing...

But I didn't imagine that things are that bad.
So, a group of weird, self-declared people with rather strange provocative name are making prophecies and some serious people seriously read that?

Spoiler

"Samotsvety" aka "Gems"
The everyone-known Soviet music band which just couldn't be not confused with, and the band photo on their webpage like is highlighting this confusion.
Literally like saying "We are Beatles but not those Beatles", with the difference that Samotsvety are by orders of magnitude more popular and known in ex-USSR than Beatles, while unlikely even known in England.

"Misha Yagudin".
Idk, who's that, but the weird 'Murican practice when an adult person officially calls himself with diminutive name, speaks for itself.
Together with his surname it's associated for me with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brighton_Beach , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_America , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_on_the_Hudson , and other émigré things, rather than with Ivy League.

Don't they know about the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-fulfilling_prophecy
So, if people take decisions presuming the nuking is inevitable, the nuking starts being inevitable because they do decisions on this presumption.

The traditional question about these prognosists. Why nobody prognosed the USSR dismission before 1991?
And btw how about the mentioned 9/11.

(Though, still can't see a connection between the 32 technical incidents since 1958 and the Londonuking. The Great Plague, The Great Fire, and The Great Stink  would be included in the data sampling first.)

Quote

some of Sandberg’s friends started asking him whether they should move out of London. 

Yes, to Slough.
 

3 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

https://www.tor.com/2018/11/14/what-really-happens-after-the-apocalypse/

Spoiler

What really happens after the apocalypse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prodrazvyorstka is on demand. Depending on the food/population ratio.

 

Some bright examples of the post-apocalyptic actors.

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestor_Makhno  

 https://ru-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Котовский,_Григорий_Иванович?_x_tr_sl=ru&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=ru&_x_tr_pto=wapp

Spoiler

Without helmet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Sorokin

Edited October 24, 2022 by kerbiloid

[DDE]

2 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

This is timely.  @SunlitZelkova and @kerbiloid you guys may enjoy this:  https://www.wired.com/story/micromorts-nuclear-war/

(Statistical Forecasting group looks at the prospects of detonation) 

Also:

"The myth that panic, looting, and antisocial behavior increases during the apocalypse (or apocalyptic-like scenarios) is in fact a myth—and has been solidly disproved by multiple scientific studies." 

"Humans do not, under the pressure of an emergency, socially collapse. Rather, they seem to display higher levels of social cohesion, despite what media or government agents might expect…or portray on TV. Humans, after the apocalypse, band together in collectives to help one another—and they do this spontaneously. Disaster response workers call it ‘spontaneous prosocial helping behavior’, and it saves lives."

https://www.tor.com/2018/11/14/what-really-happens-after-the-apocalypse/

 

That, and the occurence of mental health issues goes down. "Chronic neurotics of peacetime now drive ambulances".

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

18 hours ago, wumpus said:

reasonable "nuclear winter" scenarios

You can see from Kerbiloid and Sunlit's responses that their opinions are in line with mine.

FWIW, I did a ton of non-proliferation research back in the 80s and 90s, had professional military training in NBC (nuclear-biological-chemical) warfare, and have supplemented my interest in many topics including nuclear war scenarios, human survival, and global warming modeling through reading, almost constantly, the scientific reports and studies that come out in reputable journals.  Not claiming expert status, but certainly 'informed'.

The thing I've come up with is that you can find support for almost any narrative you want to, if you look narrowly. 

For example - and I don't have the link - but within the last year or so, some researcher went out and did climate modeling looking for support for the nuclear winter scenario.*  She found it.  However when read against other climate modeling - especially w/r/t particulates and atmospheric cooling from wildfires, etc. (as Sunlit references) - her findings don't stand up.  Even in the 80s the consensus was that the 'nuclear winter' scenario was unlikely - but it did have a popular fear-inducing effect, and so retained value as a social deterrent for supporting nuclear war.  (yeah, that's a thing).

The problem, if you will excuse my extreme paraphrasing, boils down to a lack of evidence.  The really hard-core scientific studies based on real evidence and government test results will be classified.  So the popularly and publicly available studies rely on a lot of assumptions, prior studies relying on assumptions and guess work based on related topics.  The two instances of nuclear weapons being used in war, did in fact, result in a lot of fires.  That information gets extrapolated by open source researchers as if in any nuclear detonation over a city, a comparable amount of damage, including fires, will occur.  One thing that is often overlooked, however, is how the destruction of Nagasaki differed from Hiroshima based upon terrain; the Nagasaki bomb was bigger, but because of the terrain variations, more of the city survived.  The other is a failure to look at construction practices (wood in Japan, brick in Pakistan/India**)  Thus, you can't do a 1 for 1 or scaled damage and result extrapolation based on publicly available WW2 info and directly translate that into what would happen if a bomb were dropped on Seattle or St. Louis or Atlanta.  Or a limited exchange between Pakistan and India.

Finally, while we do have evidence that some volcanic eruptions do, and have, resulted in global or regional cooling... the evidence is not absolute.  The recent Tongan eruption has actually got some researchers saying that we can expect additional warming due to the amount of water vapor injected into the atmosphere, for instance.  Further, the oil wells burning, the forest fires all over the world, and other events have not resulted in cooling that some of the assumptions put into the models predicted.  There's another recent study showing that the models are faulty because they miscalculate the effect of albedo due to the color of the smoke (absorptive, vs reflective, vs greenhouse effects - which are assumptions - put into the models that don't reflect what actually occurred.)   

So - do look for and enjoy reading some of the literature on 'Nuclear Winter' - but also, be on the look out for whether intrinsic or confirmation bias may be at play.

*following a limited nuclear exchange between Pakistan and India.

**(prevalence of fly ash brick and concrete in buildings in Pakistan and India) Pakistan - Housing | Britannica   Concrete in India - Problems and Solutions | Cor-Tuf UHPC  

1 hour ago, kerbiloid said:

've heard and do believe that secret services of all over the world hire the astrologists

We also 'stare at goats!'

1 hour ago, kerbiloid said:

Not because they believe in astrology, but because many of their "clients" do and some "clients" make decisions taking into account the horoscopes

LOLz!  Yeah, what can you do?  It's all poker anyway.  

I'm a fantastic prognosticator of what I should have done way back when.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

1 hour ago, kerbiloid said:

What really happens after the apocalypse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prodrazvyorstka is on demand. Depending on the food/population ratio.

You've brought that up before - and I remain quite interested in it. 

I perceive a very real "POV Diversity" in how you and I have discussed this topic in the past.  There's an apparent disconnect between the American Cultural/Historical narrative that informs how I look at the human response to disaster and how the Russian Cultural/Historical narrative might predict a response.

My observation, which I'd appreciate your comment on, suggests that those results occurred because of an exhausted and war-weary populace faced a societal collapse that they just did not have the energy or resources to recover from easily.  I see that scenario as quite different from those I describe such as the CA earthquakes in the 90s or the regional disasters from hurricanes, etc. which were 'unexpected events' occurring against the backdrop of an otherwise functioning and stable society.

I can't find much on it, but how did Russians respond to similar 'unexpected disasters' like the 1995 Sakhalin Island earthquake?  Was it more like a Prodrazvyorstka response - or more like the US response to Katrina?

(I'll admit, Prodrasvyorstka may be more apt in a 'global nuclear war' scenario, but for point of reference, can we start with modern Russian response to regional disaster?)

Edited October 24, 2022 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[wumpus]

54 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

You can see from Kerbiloid and Sunlit's responses that their opinions are in line with mine.

FWIW, I did a ton of non-proliferation research back in the 80s and 90s, had professional military training in NBC (nuclear-biological-chemical) warfare, and have supplemented my interest in many topics including nuclear war scenarios, human survival, and global warming modeling through reading, almost constantly, the scientific reports and studies that come out in reputable journals.  Not claiming expert status, but certainly 'informed'.

The thing I've come up with is that you can find support for almost any narrative you want to, if you look narrowly. 

[deleted]

I think a better question is what happens when the supply chains don't just get a little sand thrown in them like the last few years, but are utterly destroyed?

Can you farm without gasoline (I guess any farmer can make e100, just don't count on running the tractor much)?  How about fertilizer?  And do you have enough seeds (thanks  Monsanto)?  How good is the local farmland, and can you bust the sod if necessary (and live until harvest)?

And while the "defend your foxhole/fallout shelter against all comers" future may have been shown to be bunk, I'd be curious how helpful people were to those outside their villages.  Can't say for certain how reliable those 'looters will be shot' pictures the media loves to show.  I doubt it will be all that easy to rebuild large economic zones.  You'd go from 21st century to medieval pretty quickly, with a good question  on what tech could be rebuilt (every chemistry student learns the Haber process, but how many can build a neighborhood fertilizer plant)?

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

6 minutes ago, wumpus said:

I'd be curious how helpful people were to those outside their villages.

That's the kicker.  People will, predictably, "shell up" with their very, very local 'trust groups' initially.  But, from what I've read, once that process starts, you'll get adjacent 'local trust groups' working together piece by piece until you have a version of a working society again.

I've mentioned this before, but the 'best guess' I saw in a 1980s era nuclear war report put out by the US Gov't was that quite quickly the economy would recover to something akin to what was seen in the 1600s - 1800s.  Extrapolate from that what you will.

[kerbiloid]

7 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

the CA earthquakes in the 90s or the regional disasters from hurricanes, etc. which were 'unexpected events' occurring against the backdrop of an otherwise functioning and stable society.

The CA earthquakes were local disasters in a wealthy country, they were only personal apocalypse for a limited amount of people living there. So, there was no competition for resources or so.

9 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

My observation, which I'd appreciate your comment on, suggests that those results occurred because of an exhausted and war-weary populace faced a societal collapse that they just did not have the energy or resources to recover from easily. 

The key factor was the overpopulation of rural areas, when excessive peasant population was making impossible effective agriculture on tiny individual plowlands.

Since the mid-XIX the population had grown twice by the early XX, so the things got twice worse.

In mid-XIX the plowland was 100% belonging to aristocracy and gentry (only they had official rights to be a landlord), while a lot of peasants (former serfs) didn't have any.
So, the "(Plow)Land Question" was the Problem #1.
In early XX all of them (tsarists, intellectuals, revolutionaries, and peasants) we absolutely sure that the plowland should be taken from the landlords and distributed among the peasants, to grow as much food as possible for the sake of everyone.  The failed 1905-1907 revolution was driven mostly by this hope.

But by ~1910 it unexpectedly appeared that the plowland has been already distributed among the peasants.
The aristocracy was actively selling it, the peasants were actively capturing the unsold, so just ~20% of total plowland was not yet belonging to the peasants, but instead was occupied by large capitalist/aristocracy farm using modern agricultural methods.

The peasants were not realizing that, and were full of hope that a whole lot of plowland belongs to the landlords and is waiting for the coming redistribution.

The obvious thing to do was to have industry and to move the excessive amount of the peasants from the villages to the fabrics, then join their fields and found there large farms.
But the problem was that the key technologies making that possible (synthetic ammonia for fertilizers and conveyor machinery building) were implemented only in 1912..1913 (Haber and Ford respectively), while in 1914 the WWI had begun.

So, the mass industrialisation and large farm foundation had been delayed till the early 1930s (Industrialisation, Collectivisation, etc.) and was implemented in somewhat another way than it was seen from 1913.

But in 1917 it was not that obvious, and the WWI was running bad.
And the most important reason was that the soldiers were worrying to not miss the plowland redistribution in their native villages.
The thing was that the village plowland was not typically owned by families, but by the whole village commune. And was yearly distributed among the village families proportionally to the... not eaters but male workers.
(To use as much plowland as possible for the sake of whole village).
This meant that a family of one male worker with seven eaters yearly got twice less plowland than a family with two male workers and three eaters. And a family without a worker (a widow with kids) got nothing.

So, a million crowd of deserted and yet not deserted soldiers was waiting in several capital cities (Petrograd, Moscow, N. Novgorod, etc.), and once the Bolsheviks declared their "land for peasants, peace for peoples", they became the king of the hill.

Though, the WWI was continuing, and the land redistribution process had mixed with the foreign military interventions and the regional separatism, so it was about four years of apocalypse when local governments, gangs, military formations, and various adventurers were establishing the new hierarchy. 
Then there was a couple of decades of aftermath and rapid and cruel industrial,agricultural, and political development.
And by the end of 1930s the QoL reached the level of the 1913.

44 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

I can't find much on it, but how did Russians respond to similar 'unexpected disasters' like the 1995 Sakhalin Island?  Was it more like a Prodrazvyorstka response - or more like the US response to Katrina?

It was another big disaster which happen from time to time, before and after. The government sent supplies and forces to help the survivors.
Say, Ashkhabad earthquake in 1948 costed up to 100 k.

Also, it happened in the middle of the 1990s economical depression and the First Chechen War (and just a decade after the ten year long Afghan War and Chernobyl, and not long before the Second Chechen War), so the attention was somewhat distributed among various disasters.

52 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

American Cultural/Historical narrative

is based on the whole free (sorry, Native Americans) continent ready to be owned by active and smart guys ready for hard working.

Now you don't have it free, everything significant is owned.
And the active and smart guy should follow the long legal ways to own something.
Or...  one man's apocalypse is another man's window of opportunities.

And it's much easier to review the resources ownership when you have a gang.
And the bigger is your gang, the more lesser gangs call you "boss".
And to rule the territory instead of just robbing, you need institutes. And see - you become a party, and then you are a respectful founder of a new sovereign state of your name.
Where you can prohibit whatever you want, while your neighbors prohibit the opposite.

The American Civil War illustrates how two different countries are with honest eyes declaring that they are that exact pre-war country legal government, having quite opposite programs.

So, there is unlikely a difference in mentality here, just a difference in available resources and the colors of the government army.
The American-Canadian, American-British, American-Mexican, and other wars were not wars of lonely gunslingers and survivalists, but wars of a regular army, where villages were giving taxes and recruits.

The same would happen in a post-apocalyptic US.
Small gangs rob the villages and survivalists.
Big gangs defeat the small gangs.
Smart gangsters get hired by the biggest guy whose authority is by default obvious for every villager, i.e. the government.
Finally, the government owns all available resources, cleans out all irregulars like the survivalists, and establish the rules of the public property re-owning, whether it's capitalism, socialism, or any other ism.

[SunlitZelkova]

I would like to give a very big thanks to the responses from y’all. I am creating a number of worlds to bring about spaceflight and military what-ifs, and a great many of them end in human extinction triggered by nuclear war and climate change, so these info and perspectives are great!

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

7 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Chernobyl

I don't know if you saw the miniseries (or how much of it was accurate)... but wow.  The sacrifices people made for others; that's a big part of what I'm talking about.  People will do incredible things in terrible times.

[kerbiloid]

1 hour ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

I don't know if you saw the miniseries (or how much of it was accurate)... but wow.  The sacrifices people made for others; that's a big part of what I'm talking about.  People will do incredible things in terrible times.

I've seen it. It looks close to what's known, but is theatrically dramatized in some respects.

In whole, it was a military operation, when some get volunteered, others get mobilized.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

13 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

a military operation, when some get volunteered, others get mobilized.

I'm familiar with the phenomena of being Volun-Told.   Still, an incredible story.  I won't take anything away from those folks.