Did we just switch Fear models

[bigpaul]

(5 March 2022, 10:45)LAC Wrote:

(5 March 2022, 10:13)bigpaul Wrote:

(4 March 2022, 14:33)Skean Dhude Wrote: I read a government report once that showed the damage done by 5 nukes detonated strategically across the UK. It was the end for 95% of us. Another report stated that the USSR as was had at least 20 pointing at us bringing that total to 97%.

This is because, unlike the West, who can drop a nuke within a few feet of the aim point the USSR couldn't. So they compensate by having larger nukes. Our nukes yield maybe 100Kt. The USSR ones are measured in Mt.

This means our strategy is to destroy the Russian infrastructure. Hitting power plants, key military points and leave a large civilian population untouched while building our infrastructure, military bases and industries in towns so any nukes on them get us as well.

95%, 97%? isnt that the model that we in Britain have been working to all along?
most of those casualties will be in the big cities and where ever the military resources are located. will the Russians bother to nuke fields of sheep? because thats about all that is here. no tower blocks for them to bomb here.

Probably not but probably just die a slow agonising death from radiation sickness.

that depends on fallout, where it goes and where it lands.
thats down to the Jet Stream. sometimes it goes over us here, sometimes its to the North of the UK, sometimes its South over Europe.
I read a report that said most areas will be safe to travel through 3-5 weeks after the initial attack.

[Joe]

With regard to a nuclear attack it’s relatively easy to avoid the primary blast waves, all you need to do is move to the north of Scotland and avoid anything that appears mission critical eg military, fuel etc.
However you won’t avoid radiation fall out over any length of time anywhere in the Northern hemisphere. Add to that temperatures of -80deg C after a few months.
If you want to be in with a chance then you move to South Argentina, wait for a few weeks then gradually start moving north over a period of 3 months, it’s a balance between dropping temperature in the south and radiation to the north. But eventually you need to get as close to the equator as possible and even then temperatures will be-20.

[bigpaul]

to avoid the initial strike and the blast waves dont live in a big city or near a military installation.
I'm not so sure about "nuclear Winter" I think thats more to do with fiction writers than actual fact, I dont think it happened with Hiroshima and Nagasaki and it didnt happen with all the nuclear tests in the 60s.

[Joe]

BP there’s a big difference between a few nukes and 14,000 nukes. The modelling shows a significant decrease in temperature a few months after the strike.

[bigpaul]

they wouldnt need 14,000 to nuke the UK, just nuke a few big cities.

[Joe]

The Uk is not the issue, you will have 14,000 nukes detonated in the northern hemisphere, the fallout over weeks is not from detonations in the Uk but rather the whole of the northern hemisphere. In fact if we nukes Russia we also nuke ourselves.
The issue at the moment is we have one guy who is an old soviet warrior and his wife just remarried and he’s possibly got cancer. On the other side we have a guy that doesn’t know where he is and thinks Ukrainians are Iranians ( his words last week).
Then we have Boris, whose trying to survive office and is playing the big man on the world stage to save his dwindling political position.

[bigpaul]

(5 March 2022, 12:15)Joe Wrote: The Uk is not the issue, you will have 14,000 nukes detonated in the northern hemisphere, the fallout over weeks is not from detonations in the Uk but rather the whole of the northern hemisphere. In fact if we nukes Russia we also nuke ourselves.
The issue at the moment is we have one guy who is an old soviet warrior and his wife just remarried and he’s possibly got cancer. On the other side we have a guy that doesn’t know where he is and thinks Ukrainians are Iranians ( his words last week).
Then we have Boris, whose trying to survive office and is playing the big man on the world stage to save his dwindling political position.

fallout can travel hundreds and thousands of miles in days and weeks so where it lands nobody knows.

[bigpaul]

I dont think I'm going to give nuclear war any more time and effort.
if it actually happens it will be unsurviveable anywhere on the planet.
the human race will cease to exist and Earth will be just another dead planet in space.
I prepare for events which we can survive, Nuclear Apocalypse is not one of them.

[Joe]

BP a nuclear event is survivable but it will require a massive effort and ideally you need to move quickly before you have lost the window of opportunity. If you had access to a long range sail boat you would be off to a good start otherwise you need to get down to the South of Argentina then start moving north as the temperature drops.

[bigpaul]

I disagree, a nuclear accident like Chernobyl is survivable but all out nuclear war is Armageddon and nowhere will be safe anywhere on the planet with the amount of nukes flying about, it wont just be Russian ones there will be US ones and British ones going in the opposite direction and a few other ones as well, so no chance.