Why Nuclear War Is.... A MAD Scenario

[Spacescifi]

 

This video made me shudder. I was literally saying "No!" and it only got worse.

The worst and most scary moment was the nuclear fallout clouds.

I used to think I could perhaps survive, but based on this and where the nukes are hitting.... my chances of not surviving via radiation poisoning would be high.... assuming anarchy did'nt end me first.

Interestingly enough.... the most powerful nations are turned to ash.... leaving the less developed ones as the only remaining nations not nuked silly.

 

Let us hope this never occurs.... because if so I would be unlikely to survive (not only me of course... but it's quite sobering to realize I live in a 'strike zone').

And while I do not live in the UK.... it's small enough that I am certain that a nuclear exchange coukd easily render it uninhabitable for some time.... unless living in bunkers counts for something

Edited March 10, 2022 by Spacescifi

[KSK]

Tiberium heralds the dawn of a new age...

I have no reason to dispute the conclusions of the video but the presentation was a little too much like an old Command and Conquer cutscene for my liking.

[DDE]

Yeah, the Nuclear Warfare Simulator on Steam doesn't look nearly as 1990s Hollywood interface.

[tater]

The video is a weaksauce version of what I fully expected my entire childhood.

Unsure why it is spread over so very many hours unless modern forces are concerned about missile fratricide.

 

[sevenperforce]

1 hour ago, tater said:

The video is a weaksauce version of what I fully expected my entire childhood.

Unsure why it is spread over so very many hours unless modern forces are concerned about missile fratricide.

That's what I wondered, too. I don't see any nuclear exchange lasting longer than 5-6 hours at most. 

[razark]

Well, the only example we have lasted three days.

 

Aside from lasting a very long time, it also seems to be a much more limited exchange than I would expect.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

I'll quibble with the video.

The initial presumption is that the exchange is solely between NATO and the RU Fed.  I find this... a bit hopeful.  I don't see a nuclear exchange on this scale that doesn't somehow involve China.  Further, the strikes on the US are way lower than likely.

The 'radiation death' part is also too much compressed in time.  Aside from exposed persons getting directly irradiated from the explosions themselves, the radiation in the form of fallout will likely result in higher cancer rates - which may not show up until a person is in their 70s.  Those persons directly irradiated in a strike - people who get too much too fast - will die in a short time, yes, but the general population won't just 'burn up' if they're outside a blast zone but later exposed to radioactive fallout.

Finally, the "Nuclear Winter" scenario has been questioned as to whether it's actually likely.

[Nuke]

i live in a place that is pretty far from any potential nuclear targets. but i very much doubt that the aftermath is something anyone wants to live in. 

though it does make me question what the actual state of art in ballistic missiles and anti missile systems is. also many of these warhead designs come from the 50s so im curious if the warheads even work anymore.  

[SunlitZelkova]

1 hour ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

The initial presumption is that the exchange is solely between NATO and the RU Fed.  I find this... a bit hopeful.  I don't see a nuclear exchange on this scale that doesn't somehow involve China.  Further, the strikes on the US are way lower than likely.

SIOP-63 and everything that followed was created to prevent such things from happening.

I'm sure everyone (that is, the other nuclear powers) feel the same way.

3 minutes ago, Nuke said:

though it does make me question what the actual state of art in ballistic missiles and anti missile systems is. also many of these warhead designs come from the 50s so im curious if the warheads even work anymore.

Warheads certainly receive maintenance just as missiles do. Most plans likely call for hitting targets with multiple warheads just in case some fail anyways, however.

13 hours ago, Spacescifi said:

This video made me shudder. I was literally saying "No!" and it only got worse.

I recommend reading Eric G. Swedin's When Angels Wept: A What-If History of the Cuban Missile Crisis. It is written as an in-world history book by an alternate version of the author himself. Even portions of the bibliography are "in-world". This makes it all feel real and very, very disturbing.

It is the only book to have ever made me want to throw up.

Alongside the human suffering, perhaps one of the most depressing lines might be*-

Quote

One wonders whether his [von Braun's] Apollo project would have succeeded. Imagine that, a man on the Moon.

*paraphrased, emphasis added

[spacejet]

recommended

 

[Nuke]

49 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Warheads certainly receive maintenance just as missiles do. Most plans likely call for hitting targets with multiple warheads just in case some fail anyways, however.

i know they are maintained to spec, but they are not tested due to test ban treaty. we probibly have some warheads who's designs have never been tested. 

[DDE]

56 minutes ago, Nuke said:

also many of these warhead designs come from the 50s so im curious if the warheads even work anymore.  

The development never actually stopped. The US and Russia both (at the very least) quietly do "zero-yield" hydrodynamic criticality tests. The US did dismantle a huge part of its infrastructure, which is why the planned start of production of W93 is somewhat difficult. With Russia, it's a lot harder to tell because a lot of the industry has been creatively repurposed into adjacent fields - it's a lot harder to verify that the production of MOX fuel from excess plutonium is all that goes on in Moria-sized dungeons of Zheleznogorsk.

[Vanamonde]

Please leave current politics out of the discussion. It never ends well. 

Some comments removed. 

[kerbiloid]

10 hours ago, Nuke said:

i live in a place that is pretty far from any potential nuclear targets.

Check at 200 m below.  It should be a secret shelter there, as the place is too much pretty far from any potential nuclear targets.

Edited March 11, 2022 by kerbiloid

[steve9728]

As Chinese, something 'nuclear' is the definately "I suggest you better don't ask" thing. But all I know is every building if it have an underground parking garage, there is always a large spcae set aside called "People's Air Defence Fortification": the doors are very thick and are supplemented by ventilation system with thick ventilation pipes. And those building which have the undergroud parking garage are everywhere.

Also you can see the really thick door at both ends of the interval section of the metro. "These 'partition doors' are located in every compartment of the metro tunnel. When required, the doors at both ends of a section are closed and the ventilation is turned on, turning a metro station into an isolated and individually sealed safe haven."

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

In light of the preceding, I'll add this. 

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.realtor.com/news/unique-homes/prepping-in-style-kentucky-mansion-huge-fallout-shelter/amp/

What would have been /should have been a fun 'news of the weird' sadly has a tragic ending thanks to a nut job 

... 

Also, because it's timely - I'll repost this; 

https://www.readyventuracounty.org/stay-informed/nuclear-blast/

(Fairly recent good advice in case bad things happen) 

 

[sevenperforce]

On 3/10/2022 at 1:00 PM, razark said:

Well, the only example we have lasted three days.

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki wasn’t a nuclear exchange; it was a hostage situation.

On 3/10/2022 at 1:00 PM, razark said:

Aside from lasting a very long time, it also seems to be a much more limited exchange than I would expect.

Why? I don’t see how any other country would want to get involved. Israel certainly won’t. North Korea doesn’t gain anything by launching nukes if Russia is already shooting them at the USA, and China doesn’t want to get involved in nuclear war either.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

2 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

if Russia is already shooting them at the USA, and China doesn’t want to get involved in nuclear war either.

The Russia / China relationship is... fraught.  I doubt RU, knowing a nuclear exchange with US/NATO will result in catastrophe leaves an untouched China at its southern border.  Similarly, the US isn't likely to act in the most restrained manner if RU is launching its arsenal at the US & NATO... so again, 'out of an abundance of caution' the US might act aggressively defensive and preemptively launch - which China would respond to.

 

The problem we have is - once they all start going up; no one knows where they are going to land in enough time to make rational decisions.  So...

 

If they go - we all go.

 

Israel?  Without restraint and knowing they'll have no powerful friends after?  What do they do?

Pakistan and India?  Maybe they can set aside generational animosity... maybe they cannot.

 

(How about we all just Don't)

[sevenperforce]

On 3/10/2022 at 1:16 PM, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

The initial presumption is that the exchange is solely between NATO and the RU Fed.  I find this... a bit hopeful.  I don't see a nuclear exchange on this scale that doesn't somehow involve China.  Further, the strikes on the US are way lower than likely.

Yeah, the low strikes don’t make much sense. Even with strategic (as opposed to tactical) strikes, it doesn’t make sense to target anything non-military. Obviously Russia is currently hitting non-military targets in Ukraine but Ukraine cannot exactly hit back. And the USA won’t target non-military installations regardless.

Even in a worst-case-scenario, I don’t see any reason why any countries other than NATO and Russia would get involved. 

Just now, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

(How about we all just Don't)

I mean absolutely yes all of this. 

1 minute ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

the US isn't likely to act in the most restrained manner if RU is launching its arsenal at the US & NATO... so again, 'out of an abundance of caution' the US might act aggressively defensive and preemptively launch - which China would respond to.

I can’t see any reason why any sitting US president would launch a pre-emptive strike on China. Remember that in the United States, the president has 100% control over nuclear launches. Even though the United States officially reserves the right of First Use, that was in the context of tactical weapons, not strategic ones. No presidents we’ve ever had, not even THAT one, would have authorized a pre-emptive strike on a non-combatant state.

[sevenperforce]

6 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

The problem we have is - once they all start going up; no one knows where they are going to land in enough time to make rational decisions.  So...

That might have been the case during the Cold War but surely that’s not true anymore. You can’t tell me that all nuclear-capable countries don’t have satellites with 100% coverage that can instantly identify a launch and determine its trajectory.

8 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Israel?  Without restraint and knowing they'll have no powerful friends after?  What do they do?

Israel has an established Samson Doctrine. They have a significant thermonuclear arsenal but they will not introduce nuclear weapons into the Middle East unless they are facing an imminent, valid, existential threat.

10 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Pakistan and India?  Maybe they can set aside generational animosity... maybe they cannot.

But is a nuclear exchange in the upper half of the northern hemisphere a good reason to start launching? Surely not. 

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

@sevenperforce

I really don't want to do this... because it depresses me.

 

First off; all the plans were developed in the Cold War.  The legacy of all of that is that everything since is built off of it.  FYI: Soviets targeted ship builders along the Ohio River because they contributed to WWII warship (LST) production and have 'maritime' ports (economic targets).  LA is a target.  New York is a target.  So is Paducah, Kentucky.  And the Greenebrier in WV.  Detroit, because Automotive (and tank) production.  Etc.  Etc.  Way back when Super Power competition was an existential threat, the US and USSR took that shtuff seriously.  So they (both) have detailed targets of military, economic and population centers that are all targets.

Do you really think that (inherently lazy) people since then completely redrew the target maps after the USSR collapsed?  - - or did they rely upon the detailed work of their predecessors?  People might add new 'priority targets' based off of new intel, but most of the 'old targets' are not off the list.  Because for one reason or another - they are still valid targets.  (US/Western bias is the only reason to not target population centers, btw.  Cynical, yes.  Realistic?  Yes.  Population centers are targets via the old WWII and Cold War mindset - not current sensibilities)

Okay - Israel.  Lives solely on the promise that it is supported by the West.  On its own, it faces an existential threat for the stupidest reason possible: religion.  Human history is replete with people doing stupid things in the name of religion, so I don't need to belabor that point.  But absent America or other external allies, Israel is on its own.  Maybe? they act with kindness and discretion and hold their nukes in reserve to keep out their enemies... and maybe they don't.

Pakistan and India.  Don't necessarily have to start trading blows because everyone else is... But the problem is - once we start launching nukes, there's nothing really to stop it.  They'd have to have a flurry of assurances back and forth with both sides terrified and trusting for them to not launch... but...

Let's say something stupid happens.  RU decides they are at existential risk and makes a first strike, the US response is catastrophic for them; so they launch everything.  They include China.  China launches theirs too - and because the ColdWar targets are still in effect - they add their own to... what?  Russia, of course.  Japan?  Maybe.  India?  Sure, why not (for the same reason RU nukes China).  The US?  Absolutely.

If China launches on India, and India retaliates; does Pakistan know the launch is NOT aimed at them?

 

...

 

I just don't see the rational happening once we kick over this wasp nest; we are conditioned to 'once it goes you have 1/2 hour to kiss your A goodby' mentality.

 

The only 'upside' is if the US has WAY better nuclear defense than we think or has been published.  If that is the case, the US President might (MIGHT) have the luxury of making rational, proportionate decisions.

 

Again - the only way to win 'is to not play the game'.

Edited March 12, 2022 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[kerbiloid]

Compared to the Cold War, there is several times less missile warheads, sp the target list is definitely reduced and shifted to counterforce.

[Vanamonde]

Current politics affect all of us, but current politics also make enemies out of forum members. Please avoid characterizing nationalities and speculating about their policies. 

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

1 hour ago, kerbiloid said:

Compared to the Cold War, there is several times less missile warheads, sp the target list is definitely reduced and shifted to counterforce.

I'd really like to believe that; but I suspect that both sides have legacy 'priority targets' for the main systems... which include 'making sure the other side doesn't win/survive'.  Perhaps a lot of the 'overflow' / redundancy warheads were eliminated... but we are still, even after decommissioning and force reduction in a 'let's just don't' scenario for everyone involved.

[kerbiloid]

Btw a critical weakness of all those "green powah" fantasies.

Nuclear and combustion power plants are compact and can be made well-protected by meters of concrete, their parts can be easily moved to restore the destroyed ones.

While any windmill and solar panels would be blown away by even a low-yield nuke around.

Also what about a "volcanic winter" and solar power generation?

The green powah is a kind of elvish homes on the trees.

Edited March 12, 2022 by kerbiloid