Map of UK's strategic nuclear targets

[Wildman]

(30 September 2012, 12:43)Hrusai Wrote:

(30 September 2012, 12:18)Skean Dhude Wrote: CF, Depending on your skills and experience could you not do a layered PDF. You then can add anything to the map and the user can select the layers they want and see what there is. You can add anything useful and not just the nuclear targets.

If you have the time then PM me and we can set something up.

funnily enough thats somewhat similar to what i was thinking of, adding in things like air flow to show how the fallout would be blown around, and flood areas etc

hello cfman, thank you for that post. i feel very strongly that if more than one nuke went off it would be done in relation to the wind direction at the time. if they dropped ten all up the country for e.g and the wind was coming from the west then the fall out and radiation would affect europe and possibly the far east. fall out kills everything, plants live stock. you couldnt even eat insects coz they would be r-active. not saying they wouldnt do it but i am saying that lots of nukes would end more than their motives would of expected. scary stuff. i'm on the south so i have about 2 hours to steel a boat or make a raft and trie and cross the channel. thats if dungeoness dont blow and cause a mega tsuname. it would be surfs up for me lol

[NorthernRaider]

Wind direction is the least of your concerns chaps because you are working on the way outmoded concept of ground burst and subterranian burst weapons in the multi megaton range. Nearly everyone cept a few third world nations now use almost entirely air burst multi KILO ton devices. Still kills lots of enemy people with enhanced radiation output, but does not damage the ground or create much in the line of partical fallout. Its basically the nightmare of neutron bombs with a big EMP burst killing people and destroying electronics but not destroying the surface.. The days of raining huge numbers of multi megaton cities busters is now slight ( though not completely gone), its now well targeted accurate kiloton weapons aimed at stategic targets and nbearly all going off for enhanced EMP effect. Indeed the UK could be paralised by only 3 small airburst weapons detonated up in the ionisphere.

[bigpaul]

does an air burst kill less or more people NR? and what about fallout...more or less...does it go further if its an airburst rather than ground?

[Barneyboy]

so in layman terms we is propper fucked innit

[NorthernRaider]

(3 October 2012, 08:26)bigpaul Wrote: does an air burst kill less or more people NR? and what about fallout...more or less...does it go further if its an airburst rather than ground?

Depends BP all the crap from a nuke travel in straight lines so even if a nuke goes off at 50,000 ft, or at 500 ft if you are on the other side of the hill five miles away your safe (for now)

Blast from a nuke again by it high level or low level gradually gets weakened and stopped as it passes through the atmosphere. So if one went off at 500 ft in the middle of nowhere its only going to kill hundreds by blast, but a 500 footer WILL create fallout that will blow elsewhere to claim more victims. A bomb going off at 50,000 feet will kill less by blast cos its dissipated and less will die from radiation cos of the distance and the fact almost no fallout is created.

FYI FALLOUT is the dirt a ground or underground nuke vapourises and irradiates and thows up into the atmosphere threat spreading the radiation much further.

Air burst bombs which are 99% of most modern weapons cannot create hardly any fallout cos they are so far up in the sky, they rely on blast and directed radiation plus EMP to do damage.

---

(3 October 2012, 08:50)Barneyboy Wrote: so in layman terms we is propper fucked innit

No we are better off cos a bomb aty 50,000 feet will do very little damage to people ( thousands rather than millions dead) but will toast our electronics. Its realy an instantanious moved from a modern microprocessor technological world by to a victorian one in under a milli second.

FYI the huge sodding great multi megaton weapons were only built so big because the missile guidance systems in the cold war were so poor, now everyone can fly a cruise missile through an office window and kill the guy wearing the uniform but not the office cleaner So we now use kiloton and sub kiloton weapons to do the job.

[cryingfreeman]

Agreed NR re the yields of modern nuclear weapons and that's a very important point you make about modern delivery accuracy, which simply didn't exist at the height of the Cold War.

However, while cities (i.e. civilian populations) may be vulnerable to air burst devices, many / most modern military targets are hardened and will not succumb to air bursts; rather, a direct ground strike will be required to eliminate them.

As for high radioactive energy release aka neutron bombs, military doctrine has taken a turn against their use, ostensibly because they are no longer considered to be as effective against military targets as once thought. While the expertise to manufacture them probably still exists, as far as I know no nuclear powers today officially have any of them in their arsenals (or so they claim).

The atmospheric EMP effect is another dodgy one. I don't doubt the reality of EMPs upon nuclear detonation; nor do I doubt the damage they would inflict on civilian electronics. But I have a strong suspicion that our NATO military comms have been somehow hardened against EMPs. Why do I suggest this? Because the risk of it and the associated devastation it would cause to infrastructure is being - IMHO - over laboured in the USA by mouthpieces for the powers that be. One could almost think they want any nuclear-strike-minded enemy to pull off such an attack rather than a ground hit because they know it's nowhere near as damaging to the country as they claim it is.

[Barneyboy]

wot thats not bad then

[Skean Dhude]

The issue with what NR is saying is that with nukes smaller and more accurate a nuclear war is a viable option to some it is no longer MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction)

This makes a nuclear war more likely not less.

[NorthernRaider]

SD is right but the nuclear "war" wil probably last around 5 minutes and be based upon oposing forces striking a single instant knock out blow to the enemy, and the easiest way to do that now is with small nukes enhanced for EMP set off above the ionisphere.

Bang................................................Instant victoriana enemies economie set back 200 years in a millisecond.

---

Mind you if there was a god he would see a nuke go off in the Labour party conference today.

[cryingfreeman]

I'm thinking the USA-UK are goading Russia / China into a first strike. There are two, erm, metaphorical carrots being dangled in front of them: US policy to absorb a first strike (since the Clinton regime), all this talk of how an EMP strike would leave us helpless, and then the provocative stick of pushing the missile shield right up to Russia's front door. The west is doing all of this in the expectation of winning after Russia / China make their move. Think about that if you will...