nuclear war

[Sekwo]

(15 July 2023, 07:35)bigpaul Wrote:

(14 July 2023, 20:53)Sekwo Wrote:

(14 July 2023, 16:37)bigpaul Wrote: its the cessation of normal life that will snuff most of the out, the ones that arent in the kill zone that is.

My current thinking, is that following a series of exchanges, that the US and UK will have no effective government, emergency services, health service or law enforcement for the first month.

a month? heck most non preppers would be dead or dying within that time frame.
no food for 3 weeks, no water for 3 days, no health services.

After a nuclear explosion, the most common injury is going to be burns. As I said, no medical help for the first month, and likely no comms either. So you've got to deal with serious burning with no medical help, or perhaps another serious injury, with no medical help.

Try looking on any prepper site for any advice in that circumstance, and like me, you'll find it doesn't exist. Food is relatively easy ...a jumbo bag of pasta will easily keep you going. Water is more difficult, because the only water you'll know is clean water after a nuclear explosion, is that which has been bottled. And you need a minimum of 100l per person, just for the first month.

So, you buy 5 20litre containers for water ... and then you're in a fallout zone and have to leave. The roads are down ... the water is now useless because you can't carry it.

[bigpaul]

radiation knows no borders.
the nuclear winter will kill off anything growing and the animals with it, and radiation poisoning is a hard way to die.

[Sekwo]

(15 July 2023, 14:53)bigpaul Wrote: radiation knows no borders.
the nuclear winter will kill off anything growing and the animals with it, and radiation poisoning is a hard way to die.

Radiation poisoning doesn't kill us, unless the dose is extremely high. Lower levels leave us living, but increase the chances of cancer and other problems.

Nuclear winter is difficult. Mainly because there's been no real research, and that which there has been, was done by the same people who haven't exactly been honest about warming. Indeed, they literally switched from doomsday prophecies of global cooling to very similar doomsday prophecies of global warming ... whereupon they denied their own prophecies of global cooling. Unfortunately, the people I would trust on climate, haven't done much on global cooling. We really don't know how likely it is that a nuclear war will trigger runaway global cooling.

[Pete Grey]

Do your research wikipedia is useful. Here are some facts.

First is the flash and high energy gamma radiation, you need some solid material between you, 2 foot of concrete or 3 foot of solid packed earth is good and will help protect you from the heat flash and blast wave, obviously distance from ground zero is important and wether it’s a surface or air blast. Concrete or packed earth will also protect from fallout.

There are two basic types of fallout, fallout from an air burst where the fire ball does not touch the ground is a small amount of fine particles of radioactive isotopes with long half-lives, from the bomb itself. These can take months or years to settle and spread around the earth.

Fallout from a surface detonation or where the fire ball touches the ground produce a vast amount of irradiated sand and dust with short half-lives. From the detonation fallout starts to fall in 30-40 minutes after the blast and could take up to 24 hours to fall. The further you are from the blast the longer it,takes to reach you.

This fallout has a short half life and follows what is known as the seven/ten rule (a good approximation).

For example if when the fallout has landed radiation level is 1000R/hr after 7 hours it will be down to 100R/hr. After 49 hours (2 days) it will be 10R/hr. After 14 days it will be 1R/hr. After 3 months it would be 0.1R/ hr.

If that doesn’t sound much remember radiation is an accumulated dose, for humans 400R is fatal to half the population, 600R is fatal to ALL of the population.

[bigpaul]

with the power of modern nuclear warheads, much greater that that used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I dont think a nuclear war is survivable on a small island 900 miles long like Britain, it wouldnt take many missiles (5 have been previously mentioned) to cover the entire country and take out all the military and govt installations and probably a few big cities as well.

[Sekwo]

(15 July 2023, 21:05)Pete Grey Wrote: Do your research wikipedia is useful.

You lost me there. Wikipedia is one of the least trustworthy sources on the planet, particularly when it comes to anything environ-mental.

The only area where direct gamma rays is a problem, is the area where you're going to die from blast. And for most people, there is not hope of survival. But that area is small and so we can ignore it ... as you should ... because you cannot change the outcome.

[Sekwo]

(16 July 2023, 08:10)Sekwo Wrote:

(15 July 2023, 21:05)Pete Grey Wrote: Do your research wikipedia is useful.

The only area where direct gamma rays is a problem, is the area where you're going to die from blast. And for most people, there is not hope of survival. But that area is small and so we can ignore it ... as you should ... because you cannot change the outcome.

Any sane person, who knows they are in the small area near items of military importance where they are likely to be close to a nuclear explosion, will have two choices: 1) spend months building a nuclear shelter capable of surviving the blast or 2) spend those months belly crawling the few miles to get out of the zone ... or if you are really sensible, walk, or even drive the few miles.

Of course, building a nuclear shelter for the blast zone is a great idea ... if you plan to spend the rest of your life living in it. Otherwise, all that happens, is that when the bombs fly, you will almost certainly not have time to get to it ... and all that preparation, will be a total waste of time.

The problem with theory ... particularly as written on wacko - paedo environ-mental articles .. is that usually reality gets in the way.

[bigpaul]

any sane person knows that when the bombs start falling you'd better be in the blast zone and killed outright than survive to live on a radiated planet where nothing will grow and the animals all die because they have nothing to eat, and so will we because even if you can grow food its full of radiation which will give you cancer.
I'm quite prepared to live alone after some national or international catastrophe but I'm not convinced all out nuclear war is survivable, we'd better hope it dosent come to that, it called M.A.D.( mutually assured destruction) for a reason and someone would have to be mad to start it.

[Mortblanc]

Paul, once again you are talking out your a$$ about things you have no knowledge or training in.

If you simply google the figures you will find that in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bomb drops more people died in the weeks after the attack, due to radiation poisoning, than died in the initial bast. Those deaths were in a huge area outside the initial blast zone. And we now have much better bombs.

We also have that Chernobyl thing where there was no "blast" yet hundreds died due to direct gamma ray exposure and thousands have died of radiation induced cancer during the decades since. I once read where the Soviets required every pregnant woman in the evacuation area to have an abortion. Those victims were scattered in an exclusion zone the size of Kent and not in the line of sight between the city and the reactor. The Chernobyl "accident" was not even equal to a low grade nuke blast. The Soviets have not released true casualty figures to this day.

There are also numerous incidents after the Soviet Union fall where untrained civilians breeched the plentiful supply of small reactors producing energy for isolated villages and outposts and died of radiation within days. Most of those incidents read like a comic tragedy.

The "after-kill" is a strategic part of each nations' nuclear capability planning. Geopolitically it eliminates the resistance of the population, tactically it deprives the enemy army of access to territory and channelizes movement. That is unless you are fighting an enemy that has no regard for the lives of their troops and figures they can win before the soldiers all die of radiation poisoning.

In the case of GB you would not even need a full Nuke blast to eliminate most of the nation. The dispersal of a half dozen "dirty bombs" up and down the west coast would wipe out all resistance within a month.

But the political thing is much different than you think. Russia views the nuke option as a kid does tipping over the game playboard. If they can't win they will spoil the situation for everyone. They know that retaliation will be swift and total. They also know that the US is not going to make a "first strike", so they are safe until they actually launch something no matter what "conventional options" they apply.

As long as they see the west as a reproduction area for their slave labor force and repository of resources you are safe.

[Sekwo]

(16 July 2023, 16:56)Mortblanc Wrote: If you simply google the figures

That's like asking Big Brother to tell you the truth. No one who wants to know what is actually going on "googles" anything.