Nuclear Threat

[collegeguy]

I am taking a class of History 102 during this college semester and need to write a research paper for the course (15 pages). Since my group is focusing in World war II, my part is to write about the atomic bomb, its origin and threat in our times as well as some possible solutons to the proliferation problem. I have been researching different sites and have run into this one, but it doesn't seem reliable:

http://www.rotten.com/library/history/atomic-bomb/

I was wondering if you guys could answer me a couple of questions( my opinions in these matters may be wrong).

Do you know where I can get info on the effects of "nuclear winter". I remember to have heard that a report on it was grossly exxagerated.

Do you think an all-out nuclear war could wipe out the human race? I was talking about this with one of my group members and she told me something like this: "Even if there was an all-out nuclear war, the nuclear superpowers would destroy themselves completely. Probably Europe, asia and North America would be devastated.SOuthAmerica nd africa would have survivors. Even if they supported a superpower, they wouldn't be completely devastated. Probably only theircapital cities would be attacked. In any case, unless the whole world is nuked (ot gonna happen), the human race would survive" I think she has a point, there would be survivors in continents like South America and Africa a horribe economic situation, but there would be. Am I wrong in this? Could someone explain?

[Swift]

I would recommend the Union of Concerned Scientists ( LINK (http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_weapons/index.cfm)) as a good general reference.

My personal feeling is your friend is probably correct, that an "all-out" nuclear war would probably not exterminate the human race. But I suspect that the death toll would be in the billions and the survivors would end up with a level of technology that was pre-industrial age. I also personally think that the threat of an all-out exchange is now pretty low. I think the threat is more from proliferation, that there are countries and groups that have or can obtain small numbers of weapons and would be happy to use them. The North Koreans dropping a bomb on South Korea or Japan, or a terrorist blowing up London or New York would not be the end of the world or our civilization, but would mean the deaths of millions and would make 9/11 look like small change. All IMHO.

[collegeguy]

Thanks for the link.

[Mendel]

What about radiation? Wouldn't it kill even the australians in their last island in the end?

[collegeguy]

What about radiation? Wouldn't it kill even the australians in their last island in the end?

Not necessarily. The radiation has a range limit. Let's say as my group member said that the war devastates North America, Asia and Europe. Unless, there would be nuclear explosions close to Australia, radiation wouldn't probably affect them fatally, IMHO.
Australia is a powerful nation. I think it would take an important role in a World war. Probably the Pacific Islands, Africa and South America could be spared. But Australia, probably not.

[Van Rijn]

What about radiation? Wouldn't it kill even the australians in their last island in the end?

No, you're thinking of "On the Beach" which was a good movie, but had terrible science. The issue is fallout. If you are downwind of a reasonable yield nuclear explosion, you would want to stay in a fallout shelter for a few weeks, with the first hours and days being the most critical. After that time, general background radioactivity would be substantially higher than preexplosion and cancer rates would go up, but in general the threat of radiation sickness would be gone (except from occasional hotspots - and it would be a good idea to take iodine and calcium supplements if they are available). In a full scale nuclear war, many of those that don't find shelter after the initial attack would die due to radiation sickness, but it is a location and time dependent issue.

On the Nuclear Winter TTAPS study: I did a quick google to see if I could find anything useful, but I didn't see much except for basic descriptions. At the time, it was widely perceived that TTAPS was highly politically motivated, but regardless of that, it clearly was a subject where politics intruded heavily on the opinions and positions of scientists on BOTH sides of the debate. It does seem to be generally agreed that their atmospheric model was too simplistic - a one dimensional air column that didn't account for mixing, rain, the heat content of bodies of water, etc. And even more sophisticated models have limited predictive power. From what I've read, my guess is that in a major war, there probably WOULD be some temporary climate effects, and many people would die from starvation from loss of crops, but it wouldn't be a true nuclear winter scenario.

For many people there seems to be a big psychological difference between saying "Hundreds of millions would die and civilization would be crippled" and saying "Everyone would die." In one online discussion I had at the time, I wrote "Sure, hundreds of millions would die, perhaps billions from the destruction of infrastructure, but a full scale nuclear war is very unlikely to kill EVERYONE" and one response was, paraphrasing "OH, that's great! I was really worried there." :o

[collegeguy]

What about radiation? Wouldn't it kill even the australians in their last island in the end?

No, you're thinking of "On the Beach" which was a good movie, but had terrible science. The issue is fallout. If you are downwind of a reasonable yield nuclear explosion, you would want to stay in a fallout shelter for a few weeks, with the first hours and days being the most critical. After that time, general background radioactivity would be substantially higher than preexplosion and cancer rates would go up, but in general the threat of radiation sickness would be gone (except from occasional hotspots). In a full scale nuclear war, many of those that don't find shelter after the initial attack would die due to radiation sickness, but it is a location and time dependent issue.

On the Nuclear Winter TTAPS study: I did a quick google to see if I could find anything useful, but I didn't see much except for basic descriptions. At the time, it was widely perceived that TTAPS was highly politically motivated, but regardless of that, it clearly was a subject where politics intruded heavily on the opinions and positions of scientists on BOTH sides of the debate. It does seem to be generally agreed that their atmospheric model was too simplistic - a one dimensional air column that didn't account for mixing, rain, the heat content of bodies of water, etc. And even more sophisticated models have limited predictive power. From what I've read, my guess is that in a major war, there probably WOULD be some temporary climate effects, and many people would die from starvation from loss of crops, but it wouldn't be a true nuclear winter scenario.

For many people there seems to be a big psychological difference between saying "Hundreds of millions would die and civilization would be crippled" and saying "Everyone would die." In one online discussion I had at the time, I wrote "Sure, hundreds of millions would die, perhaps billions from the destruction of infrastructure, but a full scale nuclear war is very unlikely to kill EVERYONE" and one response was, paraphrasing "OH, that's great! I was really worried there." :o

Maybe some people don't count themselves among the many dying. Me, I would like for our species to have a chance to rebuild and "hopefully learn of our mistakes". I like us! Thanks for the info on the nuclear winter study. Seems like I will write about a worst-case scenario as the end of civilization, but not of mankind.

[Maksutov]

I am taking a class of History 102 during this college semester and need to write a research paper for the course (15 pages). Since my group is focusing in World war II, my part is to write about the atomic bomb, its origin and threat in our times as well as some possible solutons to the proliferation problem. I have been researching different sites and have run into this one, but it doesn't seem reliable:

http://www.rotten.com/library/history/atomic-bomb/

I was wondering if you guys could answer me a couple of questions( my opinions in these matters may be wrong).

Do you know where I can get info on the effects of "nuclear winter". I remember to have heard that a report on it was grossly exxagerated.[edit]
Re "nuclear winter" I remember first hearing this phrase used by Carl Sagan back in the late 1970s. If memory serves, he took data from dust storms on Mars as observed by the Mariner 9 orbital probe and applied it to similar "dust storms" that would be caused on Earth by a nuclear exchange. Here's a page that goes into some detail on this. (http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/sagan_nuclear_winter.html) For more info reading Sagan's writings on this (The Nuclear Winter: The World After Nuclear War. London: Sidgwick & Jackson, 1985.) would probably be the best way to acquaint yourself with his ideas on this subject.

[Kesh]

http://www.rotten.com/library/history/atomic-bomb/

Ahhh, the Rotten Library. I've killed many an hour reading their stuff. While quite informative, it's mostly entertainment. They do exaggerate and generally poke fun at events, so I wouldn't use it as a source in any kind of paper.

[Maha Vailo]

OK, as you know, I am working on writing a story set in the future. In the backstory, I have a "Crisis of 2020" that is preciptated by terrorist nukes detonated in four places: Washington, DC; London; Tokyo (using a nuke stolen from the North Koreans!); and one nuke that was headed for Moscow but is stopped by police and detonated in (former Soviet) Georgia.

I have a few questions:

1. How big might the average terrorist nuke be?

2. How many casualties (both total and in each country) might there be?

3. How would the world respond to such an act of terrorism?

- Maha "boom!" Vailo

[Maksutov]

OK, as you know, I am working on writing a story set in the future. In the backstory, I have a "Crisis of 2020" that is preciptated by terrorist nukes detonated in four places: Washington, DC; London; Tokyo (using a nuke stolen from the North Koreans!); and one nuke that was headed for Moscow but is stopped by police and detonated in (former Soviet) Georgia.
Man, you're giving away your story! Where's the suspense now? :wink:

I have a few questions:

1. How big might the average terrorist nuke be?
Depending on the technology, could be as big as 10+ megatons, if transported by truck or plane. MIRV-driven technology has pushed the weight of H-bombs way down. The catch is keeping the facilities for manufacture and transport of such things secret.

2. How many casualties (both total and in each country) might there be?
Based on your detonation locations, millions in each place and total. For Georgia, much less, especially if out in the countryside.

3. How would the world respond to such an act of terrorism?
Who knows? You know probably better than the rest of us, since it's your prerogative to set up the political climate of the times of which you write.

[Maha Vailo]

Depending on the technology, could be as big as 10+ megatons, if transported by truck or plane. MIRV-driven technology has pushed the weight of H-bombs way down. The catch is keeping the facilities for manufacture and transport of such things secret.

10 megatons? That's probably way too big for a terrorist nuke. I'm thinking more along the line of something a terrorist group could make out of, say, stolen nuclear material and carried on a pickup truck or small boat.


Who knows? You know probably better than the rest of us, since it's your prerogative to set up the political climate of the times of which you write.

Problem is, I'm stuck there. What do you think will be the most likely political climate in 2020, and given that information, how do you think the nations of the world would respond to such a tragedy.

- Maha Vailo

[Maksutov]

Depending on the technology, could be as big as 10+ megatons, if transported by truck or plane. MIRV-driven technology has pushed the weight of H-bombs way down. The catch is keeping the facilities for manufacture and transport of such things secret.

10 megatons? That's probably way too big for a terrorist nuke. I'm thinking more along the line of something a terrorist group could make out of, say, stolen nuclear material and carried on a pickup truck or small boat.
That's why I wrote "as big as". Sure, small fission devices are possible now. But don't underestimate their ability to produce light-weight thermonuclear devices, especially in the future dates you're working with.


Who knows? You know probably better than the rest of us, since it's your prerogative to set up the political climate of the times of which you write.

Problem is, I'm stuck there. What do you think will be the most likely political climate in 2020, and given that information, how do you think the nations of the world would respond to such a tragedy.

- Maha Vailo
I have no idea. Look at how the world's political climate changed from 1987 to 1992. No one predicted it. Here's where your abilities as a creative author come in to play. Plot devices are the realm of the author. Think up something really good and arresting, while maintaining it as plausible. Heck, you're the writer, not I.

[collegeguy]

maha Vailo, are you talking about suitcase nukes?

[Maha Vailo]

maha Vailo, are you talking about suitcase nukes?

That's exactly what I was talking abut, collegeguy. It's quite possibly the only kind of nuke terrorists could ever build.

Re: the world's response to such as crisis. Maybe we can't predict what the geopol situation will be like in 15 years, but let me ask question 3. in a different way: If this hypothetical terrrorist-nuke situation were to happen tomorrow, how would the world react?

- Maha Vailo "has a serious case of writer's block in need of dispelling"

[Argos]

Australia is a powerful nation. I think it would take an important role in a World war. Probably the Pacific Islands, Africa and South America could be spared. But Australia, probably not.

Spare SA and you´ll have a technological superpower the next day. This is not the jungle.

[Jim]

In the movie The Peacemakers (mmmm, Nicole Kidman), Bosnian terrorists stole a 75 kiloton warhead.

A "suitcase nuke" is more on the order of 1 kiloton. That's still plenty deadly, as described here:
http://www.angelfire.com/biz/setpa/CGM/austnuke.html
(Aggies will be happy that this scenario destroys Austin; however, College Station gets hit with the fallout.)

As for the world response, who set off the nukes? Why?

Considerations: Would Georgia be upset with Russia for causing a nuke intended for Moscow to be detonated in Georgia? Would Japan blame North Korea for "giving" the nuke to the terrorists? Who died in Washington and left whom in charge? And, most important, was the former Texas Embassy in London damaged?

[collegeguy]

Australia is a powerful nation. I think it would take an important role in a World war. Probably the Pacific Islands, Africa and South America could be spared. But Australia, probably not.

Spare SA and you´ll have a technological superpower the next day. This is not the jungle.

Probably, but in the case of a war, nukes will be directed to nuclear nations mostly. SA may have its capital cities destroyed, but it wouldn't likely be nuked completely. It just wouldn't be an important military target.

[Maha Vailo]

As for the world response, who set off the nukes? Why?

I have no idea. Some terrorist group, probably. We would probably redouble our efforts to fight terrorism for sure. Maybe the Muslim nations of the world would start seeking out and eliminating their more radical elements as a response to such an attack. That's what I'm trying to aim for in the backstory.

Considerations: Would Georgia be upset with Russia for causing a nuke intended for Moscow to be detonated in Georgia?

In my backstory, the nuke that was intended for Moscow is smuggled from Iran and is stopped by Azerbaijani and Georgian police. It is only after the bombings that the world learns that the bomb was headed for Moscow. Thus, the Russians didn't "cause" anything.

On a side note, Garry Kasparov is president of Russia and Maia Chiburdanidze is president of Georgia in my backstory. I'll let you guess what they do when they meet up with each other after the bombing.... :wink:

Would Japan blame North Korea for "giving" the nuke to the terrorists?

Probably. I suspect there'd be hell to pay for North Korea.

Who died in Washington and left whom in charge?

There's actually a method of determining that in the Constitution, IIRC. It would all depend on who was the highest ranking Cabinet member who survived the blast (if the Pres and VP both died).

And, most important, was the former Texas Embassy in London damaged?

I have no idea what you're talking about, pardner. :wink:

- Maha Vailo

[collegeguy]

I took this from the Angelfire article:

. It is, in theory, possible to build a nuclear bomb capable of destroying all life on earth (by encasing it in Cobalt-59, an isotope capable of maintaining deadly levels of radiation for many, many years); :o

Is that true? Yeah, the radiation may keep on for many years, but would it really engulf the whole planet? How many megatons would you need for that?

It also mention that the debris, smoke of a nuclear exchange would block out the sun and create a nuclear winter. is the article really reliable?

[Lurker]

http://www.rotten.com/library/history/atomic-bomb/


I just scanned this site. It's pretty badly biased. To say that Truman couldn't wait to try out his new toy on Japan is pretty bad history.

[Argos]

Australia is a powerful nation. I think it would take an important role in a World war. Probably the Pacific Islands, Africa and South America could be spared. But Australia, probably not.

Spare SA and you´ll have a technological superpower the next day. This is not the jungle.

Probably, but in the case of a war, nukes will be directed to nuclear nations mostly. SA may have its capital cities destroyed, but it wouldn't likely be nuked completely.

According to treaties, SA cannot be target for a nuclear attack. The strategy of nuking the capitals only is not intelligent, because the remaining capability would be more than enough to retaliate against a severely damaged enemy.

South America is a tough dilemma in the nuclear game: if you nuke it partially during the course of a nuclear war (with MAD as premise) it will come after you the next day with its remaining power and will add to the damages inflicted by the nuclear conflagration, completing your destruction and utterly subjugating you. If you don´t nuke it at all it will become the next superpower, reigning over the devastated planet. It would be the winner, ironically.

[collegeguy]

How about the angelfire article:

. It is, in theory, possible to build a nuclear bomb capable of destroying all life on earth (by encasing it in Cobalt-59, an isotope capable of maintaining deadly levels of radiation for many, many years);

I don't know about this. Is it true? How many megatons would be needed to create such a doomsday bomb?

And can nuclear winter from debris and smoke really virtually block out the sun for years? I had heard its study was grossly exxagerated.

[Argos]

I would call it the final-proof bomb. The ultimate proof of man´s insanity.

[collegeguy]

I would call it the final-proof bomb. The ultimate proof of man´s insanity.

But even if a bomb like that were used, the radiation of it, could not spread through the whole world. Sure, it could permanently damage the place where it explodes, but the whole world sounds kind of exaggerated IMHO.

[collegeguy]

I have googled to find info in the "Cobalt 59" in nuclear weapons and found this:

What would happen if you saturated the uranium side of a fusion bomb with cobalt? I think it would destroy our planet.

A fusion bomb, also known as a thermonuclear or hydrogen bomb, releases enormous numbers of fast-moving neutrons. Neutrons are uncharged subatomic particles that are found in the nuclei of all atoms except the normal hydrogen atom. A normal cobalt nucleus contains 32 neutrons and is known as cobalt 59 (for its 59 nuclear particles: 32 neutrons and 27 protons). When a neutron collides with a cobalt 59 nucleus, there is a substantial probability that the cobalt 59 nucleus will capture it and become cobalt 60 (for its 60 nuclear particles: 33 neutrons and 27 protons). Cobalt 60 is radioactive--it falls apart spontaneously with a 50% probability each 5.26 years. When a cobalt 60 nucleus decays, it begins by emitting an electron and an antineutrino to becomes nickel 60 (for its 60 nuclear particles: 32 neutrons and 28 protons). But this nickel 60 has extra energy in it and it soon emits two high-energy gamma rays (electromagnetic particles, with more energy than x-rays) to become normal nickel 60, a common form of the nickel atom. A fusion bomb containing cobalt 59 could be expected to make lots of cobalt 60, which would then undergo this radioactive decay over the next few decades, releasing gamma rays as it does.

So a fusion bomb containing cobalt would release a large amount of cobalt 60 into the environment. This would certainly give the bomb long lasting radioactive fallout that would make it much more damaging to the environment than a pure fusion bomb would be. Whether it would destroy the planet, I can't say. The bomb's explosion wouldn't be any more destructive, but its long-term toxic effect to animals and plants certainly would be.

It still does not specify how far can the fallout reach. It may be fatal to the place where it exploded but how far it could reach, I don't know.

[JMV]

This is what I found on cobalt bombs:
The insiders, of course, knew that a pure hydrogen bomb would produce a great flux of neutrons. Rather than searching for ways to make their bombs cleaner, the insiders were looking in the opposite direction: how to use all those neutrons to make the dirtiest possible bomb. The cobalt bomb of science fiction novels like On the Beach was taken seriously by people like Carson Mark at Los Alamos. Neutrons plus cobalt would produce a potent radiological warfare agent. But in a secret April 1954 letter Carson Mark points out that "for the purpose of maintaining some high level of contamination over a stated period and also for the purpose of increasing the total radiation dose" no deliberate contaminating agent such as cobalt or tantalum would be as effective as the uranium fission products produced by the standard, dirty H-bomb. As he put it, "only a mild enhancement of radiation levels appear possible with present thermonuclear bombs." In his evaluation, the standard H-bomb was the dirtiest possible bomb.
From here (http://www.fas.org/sgp/eprint/morland.html)

[collegeguy]

This is what I found on cobalt bombs:
The insiders, of course, knew that a pure hydrogen bomb would produce a great flux of neutrons. Rather than searching for ways to make their bombs cleaner, the insiders were looking in the opposite direction: how to use all those neutrons to make the dirtiest possible bomb. The cobalt bomb of science fiction novels like On the Beach was taken seriously by people like Carson Mark at Los Alamos. Neutrons plus cobalt would produce a potent radiological warfare agent. But in a secret April 1954 letter Carson Mark points out that "for the purpose of maintaining some high level of contamination over a stated period and also for the purpose of increasing the total radiation dose" no deliberate contaminating agent such as cobalt or tantalum would be as effective as the uranium fission products produced by the standard, dirty H-bomb. As he put it, "only a mild enhancement of radiation levels appear possible with present thermonuclear bombs." In his evaluation, the standard H-bomb was the dirtiest possible bomb.
From here (http://www.fas.org/sgp/eprint/morland.html)

Sorry, can get the link to work. Could you repost it?

[collegeguy]

I have googled to find info in the "Cobalt 59" in nuclear weapons and found this:

What would happen if you saturated the uranium side of a fusion bomb with cobalt? I think it would destroy our planet.

A fusion bomb, also known as a thermonuclear or hydrogen bomb, releases enormous numbers of fast-moving neutrons. Neutrons are uncharged subatomic particles that are found in the nuclei of all atoms except the normal hydrogen atom. A normal cobalt nucleus contains 32 neutrons and is known as cobalt 59 (for its 59 nuclear particles: 32 neutrons and 27 protons). When a neutron collides with a cobalt 59 nucleus, there is a substantial probability that the cobalt 59 nucleus will capture it and become cobalt 60 (for its 60 nuclear particles: 33 neutrons and 27 protons). Cobalt 60 is radioactive--it falls apart spontaneously with a 50% probability each 5.26 years. When a cobalt 60 nucleus decays, it begins by emitting an electron and an antineutrino to becomes nickel 60 (for its 60 nuclear particles: 32 neutrons and 28 protons). But this nickel 60 has extra energy in it and it soon emits two high-energy gamma rays (electromagnetic particles, with more energy than x-rays) to become normal nickel 60, a common form of the nickel atom. A fusion bomb containing cobalt 59 could be expected to make lots of cobalt 60, which would then undergo this radioactive decay over the next few decades, releasing gamma rays as it does.

So a fusion bomb containing cobalt would release a large amount of cobalt 60 into the environment. This would certainly give the bomb long lasting radioactive fallout that would make it much more damaging to the environment than a pure fusion bomb would be. Whether it would destroy the planet, I can't say. The bomb's explosion wouldn't be any more destructive, but its long-term toxic effect to animals and plants certainly would be.

It still does not specify how far can the fallout reach. It may be fatal to the place where it exploded but how far it could reach, I don't know.

Destroy the planet is too exaggerated.

[JMV]

Sorry, can get the link to work. Could you repost it?
Here you go
http://www.fas.org/sgp/eprint/morland.html

[publiusr]

When my Mom had Cancer--She got Cobalt treatment--5,000 rads over time. Back in the 70's. Cobalt was a blunderbuss compared to the 'laser' that is the 'gamma knife' we should see more of.

[Demigrog]

I recommend searching the board for all posts by "Stuart". :)


In a nutshell, in an all out war even the non-nuclear nations are targeted-- basically to "level the playing field" in the post-war world.

The severity of radiation danger will vary wildly from weather and target patterns-- if most nukes are airburst, for example, there is little fallout.

[collegeguy]

In a nuclear conflict in our times, leaders would likely say this kind of war is needed. Hopefully, people would do something to stop it. Still, a cobalt H-bomb, would probably leak radiation for years and poison continents, but not the whole world IMHO.

[collegeguy]

In order to address current situations in our times, rogue nations like North Korea and Iran may be among the biggest threats, as well as terrorist using suitcase nukes, radiological bombs or other devices. Rogue nations problems could cause arm races or if there is a nuclear attack, even a nuclear war. However, if that happened, hopefully, our leaders would not go out in a mad rage of destruction. Personally, I think that even in the worst scenario, the whole planet wouldn't be nuked. South america would be attacked, but not completely nuked. Pacific islands and Africa also would have survivors. Life would be hard or traumatic, but still there would be survivors.

By the way, any of you heard about nuclear war sparked by the end of oil? I know some people that think the lack of this resouce will cause great wars, with nuclear weapons being involved of course.

[collegeguy]

Here is an article that talks about the Russian reactions to the US weaponization of space. I have been given this by some concerned people. The russians say they might even use "force":

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/3b1030dc-c804-11d9-9765-00000e2511c8,ft_acl=,s01=2.html

[Argos]

In a nutshell, in an all out war even the non-nuclear nations are targeted-- basically to "level the playing field" in the post-war world.

Isn´t it fantastic where a cold rationale can take us? :D

Edited to supress a phrase prone to misunderstandings

[collegeguy]

In a nutshell, in an all out war even the non-nuclear nations are targeted-- basically to "level the playing field" in the post-war world.

Isn´t it fantastic where a cold rationale can take us? :D

Edited to supress a phrase prone to misunderstandings

Hopefully, our leaders would not use that rationale in a full-scale nuclear conflict.

[collegeguy]

C'mon guys, I want to know your opinion in this news. It really seems dangeorus to provoke an arms race or make the russians use force :o :

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/3b1030dc-c804-11d9-9765-00000e2511c8,ft_acl=,s01=2.html

[publiusr]

They have to understand that its Korea--not Russia we are building for. Their TOPOL-Ms fly depressed trajectories and their Titan II class R-36M (SS-18 SATAN)--called Voevoda--or Dnepr in civilian clothes--was considered an 'armoured' ICBM--being based on the old SS-9 SCARP (R-36, R-36O) used to lob 25 megaton warheads or killer satellites. Now they call it Tsyclon and sell it as a sat launcher with its newer twin Dnepr.

[collegeguy]

Australia is a powerful nation. I think it would take an important role in a World war. Probably the Pacific Islands, Africa and South America could be spared. But Australia, probably not.

Spare SA and you´ll have a technological superpower the next day. This is not the jungle.

Probably, but in the case of a war, nukes will be directed to nuclear nations mostly. SA may have its capital cities destroyed, but it wouldn't likely be nuked completely.

According to treaties, SA cannot be target for a nuclear attack. The strategy of nuking the capitals only is not intelligent, because the remaining capability would be more than enough to retaliate against a severely damaged enemy.

South America is a tough dilemma in the nuclear game: if you nuke it partially during the course of a nuclear war (with MAD as premise) it will come after you the next day with its remaining power and will add to the damages inflicted by the nuclear conflagration, completing your destruction and utterly subjugating you. If you don´t nuke it at all it will become the next superpower, reigning over the devastated planet. It would be the winner, ironically.

South America couldn't be nuked with MAD as a premise. Only defender and attacker mutually destroy each other under MAD. I doubt South America would attack any nation. Why would South America be nuked? I think any nuclear exchange in our times wiould be driven by political interests, not by madness IMHO.

[mopc]

The thing is political interests are madness so often!

But yeah, as a kid in the 80's I wondered whether my country of Brazil would be affected by the nuclear war people talked about. No one ever mentioned in the Brazilian media what would happen to us. We have no American military base though technically we always were a capitalist country roughly within the US block. We do have the tech to build the bomb but our constitution prohibits it, we'll never do it any way since Brazil would have a lot to lose and nothing to win, we don't have any issues with any countries.

[collegeguy]

I remember to have read that if state capitols would be attacked, the whole country would be forced under federal control or martial law. Does anyone know if this is true? Would all the country be forced under martial law, or only the attacked state?

[The Supreme Canuck]

Well, if the US has a law similar to the Canadian Emergencies Act, then yes.

Section 19 of the Emergencies Act states:

19. (1) While a declaration of a public order emergency is in effect, the Governor in Council may make such orders or regulations with respect to the following matters as the Governor in Council believes, on reasonable grounds, are necessary for dealing with the emergency:

(a) the regulation or prohibition of

(i) any public assembly that may reasonably be expected to lead to a breach of the peace,

(ii) travel to, from or within any specified area, or

(iii) the use of specified property;

(b) the designation and securing of protected places;

(c) the assumption of the control, and the restoration and maintenance, of public utilities and services;


The US must have a law like this. It is essential that in a time of crisis that the government be able to take control.

[collegeguy]

Well, if the US has a law similar to the Canadian Emergencies Act, then yes.

Section 19 of the Emergencies Act states:

19. (1) While a declaration of a public order emergency is in effect, the Governor in Council may make such orders or regulations with respect to the following matters as the Governor in Council believes, on reasonable grounds, are necessary for dealing with the emergency:

(a) the regulation or prohibition of

(i) any public assembly that may reasonably be expected to lead to a breach of the peace,

(ii) travel to, from or within any specified area, or

(iii) the use of specified property;

(b) the designation and securing of protected places;

(c) the assumption of the control, and the restoration and maintenance, of public utilities and services;


The US must have a law like this. It is essential that in a time of crisis that the government be able to take control.

Does that apply only to the attacked state or the whole country? and how long does it stay in effect in Canada? If I remember well, I read that there is something similar in the US, too.

[Kesh]

http://www.rotten.com/library/history/atomic-bomb/


I just scanned this site. It's pretty badly biased. To say that Truman couldn't wait to try out his new toy on Japan is pretty bad history.

I wouldn't say it's biased, so much as the Rotten folks have a very wry sense of humor. Whatever the subject is, they tend to poke it in all the sensitive places, and make some very off-the-wall commentary.

[The Supreme Canuck]

Well, if the US has a law similar to the Canadian Emergencies Act, then yes.

Section 19 of the Emergencies Act states:

19. (1) While a declaration of a public order emergency is in effect, the Governor in Council may make such orders or regulations with respect to the following matters as the Governor in Council believes, on reasonable grounds, are necessary for dealing with the emergency:

(a) the regulation or prohibition of

(i) any public assembly that may reasonably be expected to lead to a breach of the peace,

(ii) travel to, from or within any specified area, or

(iii) the use of specified property;

(b) the designation and securing of protected places;

(c) the assumption of the control, and the restoration and maintenance, of public utilities and services;


The US must have a law like this. It is essential that in a time of crisis that the government be able to take control.

Does that apply only to the attacked state or the whole country? and how long does it stay in effect in Canada? If I remember well, I read that there is something similar in the US, too.

It can apply to the entire country or only the affected region (usually a province or territory, but it can also be defined by the government). It stays in effect for 30 days unless it is ended sooner or it is extended.

[Kesh]

Well, if the US has a law similar to the Canadian Emergencies Act, then yes

{snip}

The US must have a law like this. It is essential that in a time of crisis that the government be able to take control.

To the best of my knowledge, we have no such law. Local leaders, state governors and the President have, at times, declared a state of emergency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_emergency), something which is implied in the Constitution, but never explicitly stated. It is simply assumed as a part of their powers, as elected members of the Executive branch. However:

"In Ex Parte Milligan 71 US 2 1866, the Supreme Court of the United States held that martial law could not be instituted within the United States when its civilian courts are in operation." (Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_law))

Technically, this means that the government cannot suspend the Bill of Rights during a state of emergency... but practically? We don't know what would happen if push came to shove.

[Jpax2003]

For good information on nuclear warefare you might want to peruse www.ki4u.com

This site has some good information such as FEMA target maps, 23 myths busted in "You Will Survive Doomsday" by Bruce Beach, "11 Steps to Nuclear War Survival" a free electronic version of Nuclear War Survival Skills, and of course information on preventing thyriod cancer by using KI and KIO3 (Potassium Iodide and Potassium Iodate). This site also has good information on expedient shelter design and radiation shielding. There is some detailed information explaining nuclear weapons, targetting strategies, and radiation decay rates and health issues. The people that maintain this site also produce and sell KI and KIO3 tablets and the NukAlert 24/7 keychain radiation monitor.

BTW, another good source for information might be Robert A. Heinlein's Expanded Universe, where he includes some of his writing about nuclear weapons during the time they were in development. He proposed a world government as a non-proliferation entity. I think he was right. Anyways, here are some myths busted:
Copyright Information
This document is copyrighted. You are welcome to reproduce it, however, for FREE distribution in whatever quantity you desire and by whatever means you desire so long as you reproduce the entire document. Extensive quotes are also welcomed so long as credit is properly given.

MYTH #13: There would be dangerous radioactivity for thousands of years.You may say "I've heard that some radiation will be around for thousands and even hundreds of thousands of years". Yes, but those isotopes are our friends. (That may be putting it a bit strongly.) Anyway, they are not near so harmful as many people think. There is the point of view that no radiation is good for you. Some dermatologists maintain that you should not even get a suntan. (Yes, that is radiation that you get from the sun.)

There is even the theory that it is cosmic radiation that causes both overall genetic change, aging, and death. In any case we are all subjected to many sources of radiation every day. The question is not whether or not you are going to receive radiation, but how much and how quickly. Let us compare the radiation we are concerned about with another type of radiation. Heat.

Just as we measure radioactivity in roentgens we measure heat in calories. If I were to tell you that that pipe over there was going to put off a million calories of heat, you might say, "Let me get away from it!". But, if I then said that it was going to be over the next million years, at the rate of one calorie per year, you would realize that you were in greater danger of freezing to death than of burning to death if you were depending upon that pipe for heat.

It is not how much heat is going to be given off (it may be a large amount) but how much over what period of time. A mere two hundred calories suddenly inflicted upon one point of the skin would create a bit of a sting, but hundreds of thousands might be comfortably absorbed from a heating pad over an appropriate period of time.

It is the same with radiation. Most isotopes give off their energy so rapidly that they are like flash bulbs. Flash and they are gone. It just happens right in the vicinity of the bomb. Others are like regular light bulbs that give off their light and heat for some period of time before they burn out. They may travel a long way from the bomb as fallout before they dissipate their energy. For these we need a shelter to protect us if we are in their vicinity. Nothing else will do.

Still others are like those small luminescent lights that some people put in their bathrooms for night-lights. Only weaker still. They just sit there and barely glow for a very long period of time.

Little miniature flashlight bulbs or matches are a good analogy to fallout particles. One or two of them in a room with you will not harm you. But surely you can imagine the situation where if you had thousands and thousands the light would either be blinding or the heat so intense that you would be incinerated.

Fallout is just the same way. A few pieces inside a shelter with you will not harm you, but if you go outside where there are millions of the little beasts lying around then you have had it. The only difference between their radiation and the radiation from a little flashlight bulb or a match is that it is invisible radiation that you cannot see or feel - like that from an x-ray machine.

MYTH #14: There would be no dangerous radioactivity after a couple of years.
After having explained all this, now I must tell you that there are some isotopes that unfortunately do not fall into either the short range of initial radiation (which we do not need to worry about because it does not extend out of the blast area), nor the medium range (that you will be protected from by a fallout shelter), nor the very long range (that decays over so many hundreds of years that their energy is too weak to concern us here).

These remaining isotopes are real meanies. There may be solutions to the problems they present but there are no simple solutions. There will not be enough of them around that they will make walking around dangerous for most people but the problem is that they get into the food chain and that they have relatively short half-lives, between five and 30 years.

That means that during the next couple of hundred years they are going to be giving off most of their energy. Fortunately, some of them are rather rare, and given that they are going to be widely dissipated in worldwide fallout we can largely ignore their effects.

Others may be concentrated in certain areas, certain types of soil and certain foods where we can avoid them also.

So they will not be that serious a problem.

Some others, however, particularly Cesium 137 and Strontium 90, present mayor problems in keeping them out of the food chain. Even here, there are available defense techniques. For example lime, gypsum, fertilizer, or organic matter (in practical amounts) may be applied to low calcium soil, or naturally high calcium soil may be used for growing certain crops which have an uptake preference for calcium over strontium.

There are known refining and purification techniques for some foods and milk, and there are some new techniques which I have discussed with some of the researchers at some of the leading nuclear laboratories, but which the world isn't ready to hear about as yet.

These methods along with others such as land denial, deep plowing, surface scraping, and selective utilization, are harsh realities that are going to have to be faced by the long-range survivors.

Copyright Bruce Beach

BTW, I doubt the nuclear winter scenarios. Most cities are made of concrete not wood these days, there will be fires but it is not likely to be a firestorm as some predict as the fuel density is too low. Therefore, there is less smoke and it is mostly tropospheric, allowing it to be precipitated out rather quickly, so no nuclear winter. Attacks against population centers may be well down the list of targets after military bases and such. Luckily, if you will, cities are most easily destroyed with large airbursts. Since large airbursts carry what little fallout they produce into the stratosphere as fine particulates they will probably decay to relatively safe levels before drifting down to the surface. Their burst height will reduce the amount of dust sucked into the fireball and thus reduce the amount carried to high altitudes, so again, no winter.

Also, be careful about the term "pure fusion weapon" To my knowledge there is no "pure" fusion weapon as all fusion devices currently depend on fission triggers. Fusion bombs are multistage devices usually with a fission primary, and a fusion secondary centered around a plutonium sparkplug, all wrapped in a Uranium blanket. The simplest multistage bomb, IIRC, is the Neutron Bomb, which simply lacks the uranium blanket.

[collegeguy]

For good information on nuclear warefare you might want to peruse www.ki4u.com

This site has some good information such as FEMA target maps, 23 myths busted in "You Will Survive Doomsday" by Bruce Beach, "11 Steps to Nuclear War Survival" a free electronic version of Nuclear War Survival Skills, and of course information on preventing thyriod cancer by using KI and KIO3 (Potassium Iodide and Potassium Iodate). This site also has good information on expedient shelter design and radiation shielding. There is some detailed information explaining nuclear weapons, targetting strategies, and radiation decay rates and health issues. The people that maintain this site also produce and sell KI and KIO3 tablets and the NukAlert 24/7 keychain radiation monitor.

BTW, another good source for information might be Robert A. Heinlein's Expanded Universe, where he includes some of his writing about nuclear weapons during the time they were in development. He proposed a world government as a non-proliferation entity. I think he was right. Anyways, here are some myths busted:
Copyright Information
This document is copyrighted. You are welcome to reproduce it, however, for FREE distribution in whatever quantity you desire and by whatever means you desire so long as you reproduce the entire document. Extensive quotes are also welcomed so long as credit is properly given.

MYTH #13: There would be dangerous radioactivity for thousands of years.You may say "I've heard that some radiation will be around for thousands and even hundreds of thousands of years". Yes, but those isotopes are our friends. (That may be putting it a bit strongly.) Anyway, they are not near so harmful as many people think. There is the point of view that no radiation is good for you. Some dermatologists maintain that you should not even get a suntan. (Yes, that is radiation that you get from the sun.)

There is even the theory that it is cosmic radiation that causes both overall genetic change, aging, and death. In any case we are all subjected to many sources of radiation every day. The question is not whether or not you are going to receive radiation, but how much and how quickly. Let us compare the radiation we are concerned about with another type of radiation. Heat.

Just as we measure radioactivity in roentgens we measure heat in calories. If I were to tell you that that pipe over there was going to put off a million calories of heat, you might say, "Let me get away from it!". But, if I then said that it was going to be over the next million years, at the rate of one calorie per year, you would realize that you were in greater danger of freezing to death than of burning to death if you were depending upon that pipe for heat.

It is not how much heat is going to be given off (it may be a large amount) but how much over what period of time. A mere two hundred calories suddenly inflicted upon one point of the skin would create a bit of a sting, but hundreds of thousands might be comfortably absorbed from a heating pad over an appropriate period of time.

It is the same with radiation. Most isotopes give off their energy so rapidly that they are like flash bulbs. Flash and they are gone. It just happens right in the vicinity of the bomb. Others are like regular light bulbs that give off their light and heat for some period of time before they burn out. They may travel a long way from the bomb as fallout before they dissipate their energy. For these we need a shelter to protect us if we are in their vicinity. Nothing else will do.

Still others are like those small luminescent lights that some people put in their bathrooms for night-lights. Only weaker still. They just sit there and barely glow for a very long period of time.

Little miniature flashlight bulbs or matches are a good analogy to fallout particles. One or two of them in a room with you will not harm you. But surely you can imagine the situation where if you had thousands and thousands the light would either be blinding or the heat so intense that you would be incinerated.

Fallout is just the same way. A few pieces inside a shelter with you will not harm you, but if you go outside where there are millions of the little beasts lying around then you have had it. The only difference between their radiation and the radiation from a little flashlight bulb or a match is that it is invisible radiation that you cannot see or feel - like that from an x-ray machine.

MYTH #14: There would be no dangerous radioactivity after a couple of years.
After having explained all this, now I must tell you that there are some isotopes that unfortunately do not fall into either the short range of initial radiation (which we do not need to worry about because it does not extend out of the blast area), nor the medium range (that you will be protected from by a fallout shelter), nor the very long range (that decays over so many hundreds of years that their energy is too weak to concern us here).

These remaining isotopes are real meanies. There may be solutions to the problems they present but there are no simple solutions. There will not be enough of them around that they will make walking around dangerous for most people but the problem is that they get into the food chain and that they have relatively short half-lives, between five and 30 years.

That means that during the next couple of hundred years they are going to be giving off most of their energy. Fortunately, some of them are rather rare, and given that they are going to be widely dissipated in worldwide fallout we can largely ignore their effects.

Others may be concentrated in certain areas, certain types of soil and certain foods where we can avoid them also.

So they will not be that serious a problem.

Some others, however, particularly Cesium 137 and Strontium 90, present mayor problems in keeping them out of the food chain. Even here, there are available defense techniques. For example lime, gypsum, fertilizer, or organic matter (in practical amounts) may be applied to low calcium soil, or naturally high calcium soil may be used for growing certain crops which have an uptake preference for calcium over strontium.

There are known refining and purification techniques for some foods and milk, and there are some new techniques which I have discussed with some of the researchers at some of the leading nuclear laboratories, but which the world isn't ready to hear about as yet.

These methods along with others such as land denial, deep plowing, surface scraping, and selective utilization, are harsh realities that are going to have to be faced by the long-range survivors.

Copyright Bruce Beach

BTW, I doubt the nuclear winter scenarios. Most cities are made of concrete not wood these days, there will be fires but it is not likely to be a firestorm as some predict as the fuel density is too low. Therefore, there is less smoke and it is mostly tropospheric, allowing it to be precipitated out rather quickly, so no nuclear winter. Attacks against population centers may be well down the list of targets after military bases and such. Luckily, if you will, cities are most easily destroyed with large airbursts. Since large airbursts carry what little fallout they produce into the stratosphere as fine particulates they will probably decay to relatively safe levels before drifting down to the surface. Their burst height will reduce the amount of dust sucked into the fireball and thus reduce the amount carried to high altitudes, so again, no winter.

Also, be careful about the term "pure fusion weapon" To my knowledge there is no "pure" fusion weapon as all fusion devices currently depend on fission triggers. Fusion bombs are multistage devices usually with a fission primary, and a fusion secondary centered around a plutonium sparkplug, all wrapped in a Uranium blanket. The simplest multistage bomb, IIRC, is the Neutron Bomb, which simply lacks the uranium blanket.

Thanks for the link. I was wondering if any of you had heard about nuclear war, related to the end of oil? The idea has become very popular in different forums.

[Maha Vailo]

Thanks for the link. I was wondering if any of you had heard about nuclear war, related to the end of oil? The idea has become very popular in different forums.

Doubtful it'll happen. What will we be fighting for, and who will be fighting against whom? Besides, scientists have been busy working on alternatives and contingency plans ever since the 1970's, when people first got concerned about oil running out.

Granted, we will run out of oil one day. When that does happen, rest assured we will have the necessary technologies to keep society running. I imagine it will be a gradual phase-in of alternative fuel technologies rather than a sudden switch, however.

- Maha "nuclear is for energy" Vailo

[mopc]

why was this thread moved to planet X????????

edit two minutes later: I swear this was on the planet X forum two minutes ago. I am not insane.

[Maksutov]

why was this thread moved to planet X????????
It was moved from the Planet X forum to here. The OP is still there, but links over to here.

[mopc]

why was this thread moved to planet X????????
It was moved from the Planet X forum to here. The OP is still there, but links over to here.

Yeah, yeah, I just figured it out (slaps self in forehead)

[Jpax2003]

I was wondering if any of you had heard about nuclear war, related to the end of oil? The idea has become very popular in different forums.Here (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=20223) is a thread where we discussed it a little bit a month or so ago.

[collegeguy]

I believe that in our times, if there were a nuclear conflict, it would be between superpowers, let's say: Russia, China and some other country against US, Britain and Israel or so on. I have heard the argument that the whole world would be involved. In supporting one of the sides in some way, probably, but I doubt every country would be militarily involved. Also nuking non- nuclear nations such as in South america and Africa wouln't be wise, because then they would get militarily involved and would become another rival to the side that attacked them. I believe it is very possible that there would be a considerable amount of neutral nations if such conflict were to take place.

[Maha Vailo]

collegeguy, that sort of conflict is the least likely. If there ever is a nuclear bombing it's most likely to be a terrorist incident or (at the very worst) a local conflict such as India vs. Pakistan.

Just out of curisosity, why are you concerned about this "nuclear-war-related-to-end-of-oil" idea? It doesn't hold water IMO.

- Maha Vailo

[collegeguy]

collegeguy, that sort of conflict is the least likely. If there ever is a nuclear bombing it's most likely to be a terrorist incident or (at the very worst) a local conflict such as India vs. Pakistan.

Just out of curisosity, why are you concerned about this "nuclear-war-related-to-end-of-oil" idea? It doesn't hold water IMO.

- Maha Vailo

I am not concerned about it. I was wondering about if I should mention it in my research paper.

[Archer17]

collegeguy, that sort of conflict is the least likely. If there ever is a nuclear bombing it's most likely to be a terrorist incident or (at the very worst) a local conflict such as India vs. Pakistan.

Just out of curisosity, why are you concerned about this "nuclear-war-related-to-end-of-oil" idea? It doesn't hold water IMO.

- Maha Vailo

I am not concerned about it. I was wondering about if I should mention it in my research paper. I don't think so myself. If this was 20-some years ago in the Cold War days there might've been a global nuclear conflict for the control of oil - if for instance the Soviets made a military push into the Middle East - but nowadays I think terrorism/regional conflicts are the most likely triggers for the use of nukes. Even if it involved a superpower, the US-China over Taiwan for example, it wouldn't be global IMO.

[collegeguy]

collegeguy, that sort of conflict is the least likely. If there ever is a nuclear bombing it's most likely to be a terrorist incident or (at the very worst) a local conflict such as India vs. Pakistan.

Just out of curisosity, why are you concerned about this "nuclear-war-related-to-end-of-oil" idea? It doesn't hold water IMO.

- Maha Vailo

I am not concerned about it. I was wondering about if I should mention it in my research paper. I don't think so myself. If this was 20-some years ago in the Cold War days there might've been a global nuclear conflict for the control of oil - if for instance the Soviets made a military push into the Middle East - but nowadays I think terrorism/regional conflicts are the most likely triggers for the use of nukes. Even if it involved a superpower, the US-China over Taiwan for example, it wouldn't be global IMO.

I agree with you. That's why I posted this:

I believe that in our times, if there were a nuclear conflict, it would be between superpowers, let's say: Russia, China and some other country against US, Britain and Israel or so on. I have heard the argument that the whole world would be involved. In supporting one of the sides in some way, probably, but I doubt every country would be militarily involved. Also nuking non- nuclear nations such as in South america and Africa wouln't be wise, because then they would get militarily involved and would become another rival to the side that attacked them. I believe it is very possible that there would be a considerable amount of neutral nations if such conflict were to take place.

What do you guys think?

[Archer17]

I kinda doubt a nuclear exchange would involve more than 2 countries at any one time collegeguy. Right now there isn't the "bloc" mentality that existed in the past among members of the nuclear club.

[Van Rijn]

Well, I agree with the others that a war between India and Pakistan would be at the top of the list. It would probably be with low yield weapons and "only" kill a few million people. The next most likely would be a terrorist event (and I hope the terrorists aren't that insane - if you didn't like our response to 9/11, imagine what it would be like if we were nuked.)

A nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia or China just isn't realistic at this point. The USSR was in much better shape than Russia is now, and as tense as things got during the cold war, the finger stayed off the button. We don't have the cold war dynamic anymore. As for China, they have minimal nuclear forces. In 30 years, perhaps, China could become a nuclear superpower, but for now they aren't.

[dgavin]

The USSR was in much better shape than Russia is now, and as tense as things got during the cold war, the finger stayed off the button.

"the finger stayed off the button" isn't entirely accruate.

There was an incident in 1984 that isn't commonly know about. It should be declassified at this point so you could look for it in USArmy Journals referencing "5 Minutes to Midnight" or "The Nuclear Curtain".

What isn't well know is that both the US and Russian forces had placed around the borders of East/West gemany, a Curtain of ground detonating nuclear devices. Never heard the exact yeild of them but from damage estimates they were around the 600 kiloton to 1 megaton range.

We built our curtain first, and russia built thiers in response to it. The basic idea was if the 12 divisions of russion troops in east germany came screaming across the border, instead of meeting them with our 4 divisions of troops, they would set off the nuclear curtain making the entire border impassable, and hopefulling killing most of the troops.

It was centrally controled unlike silos, having only to be activated from the command center. Once a day test messages were sent using a rotating encryption sceme. It had a minor glitch though, and the tables got out of sync on rare occasion usually yeilding a garbled message. Expect for one time when the recived test message came out to be a command to activate the Nuclear Curtain.

Once the commander of that site got that particular message he was under orders to do just that, and ignore all followup commands.

Thankfully the activation of the Curtain set off all sorts of people, as they recived automatic warnings, and the General of V corps managed convince the commander of the curtains command center to deactivate it, even though it meant his courtmartial.

It was deactivated at slightly less then five minutes to detonation (the countdown started at 15 minutes).

The Army ended up not courtmartialing the commander for violating his orders, reasoning that officers by thier nature are supposed to evaluate situations and act based on correct information.

We came closer to Nuclear war at this point then even during the cuban missle crisis. If that commander had followed his orders, that Curtain would of gone off, and russia's missles would have shortly there after been launched.

The phrase "5 Minutes to Midnight" is what many of us soldiers started calling this incident when we talked about it afterwards, so should not be considered an official name. But it's likely been used in some of the journals of that era.

[collegeguy]

The USSR was in much better shape than Russia is now, and as tense as things got during the cold war, the finger stayed off the button.

"the finger stayed off the button" isn't entirely accruate.

There was an incident in 1984 that isn't commonly know about. It should be declassified at this point so you could look for it in USArmy Journals referencing "5 Minutes to Midnight" or "The Nuclear Curtain".

What isn't well know is that both the US and Russian forces had placed around the borders of East/West gemany, a Curtain of ground detonating nuclear devices. Never heard the exact yeild of them but from damage estimates they were around the 600 kiloton to 1 megaton range.

We built our curtain first, and russia built thiers in response to it. The basic idea was if the 12 divisions of russion troops in east germany came screaming across the border, instead of meeting them with our 4 divisions of troops, they would set off the nuclear curtain making the entire border impassable, and hopefulling killing most of the troops.

It was centrally controled unlike silos, having only to be activated from the command center. Once a day test messages were sent using a rotating encryption sceme. It had a minor glitch though, and the tables got out of sync on rare occasion usually yeilding a garbled message. Expect for one time when the recived test message came out to be a command to activate the Nuclear Curtain.

Once the commander of that site got that particular message he was under orders to do just that, and ignore all followup commands.

Thankfully the activation of the Curtain set off all sorts of people, as they recived automatic warnings, and the General of V corps managed convince the commander of the curtains command center to deactivate it, even though it meant his courtmartial.

It was deactivated at slightly less then five minutes to detonation (the countdown started at 15 minutes).

The Army ended up not courtmartialing the commander for violating his orders, reasoning that officers by thier nature are supposed to evaluate situations and act based on correct information.

We came closer to Nuclear war at this point then even during the cuban missle crisis. If that commander had followed his orders, that Curtain would of gone off, and russia's missles would have shortly there after been launched.

The phrase "5 Minutes to Midnight" is what many of us soldiers started calling this incident when we talked about it afterwards, so should not be considered an official name. But it's likely been used in some of the journals of that era.

That's pretty good info. Thanks.

[Jpax2003]

Don't forget the several close calls of the Cuban Missile Crisis, though. I think there was at least one plane armed with nuclear weapons that actually penetrated Soviet airspace, if only by accident. Then there was the trategic bomber that was rolling down the runway and had to be blocked by MPs with in a jeep because a bear set off a perimeter alarm. Or the missile test on the east coast that got confused as an enemy launch.

And then there was that incident where Yeltsin had his "football" opened and was ready to launch due to a miscommunications about a US satellite launch from scandinavia.

Then there is a possible incident an acquaintance related to me about terrorists or commandos attempting to infiltrate a US Missile site in Germany.

[collegeguy]

Maha Vailo, to answer you question, I will explain what I read in other forums about the end of oil causing a nuclear war. According to these people, when oil runs out, the economy of the whole world will be devastated. Then, superpowers will try to fight for the oil that is left ( countries that produce it). So the US, Great Britain and its allies will try to get it. If they invade other countries, the international community will intervene. Russia holds large amounts of oil, so the US would probably try to get it or the invasion of other countries would infuriate Russia. China that also needs oil for its growing economy would try to stop the US and its allies by allying with Russia. People believe them that two groups would form that would surely use nuclear weapons.

[Archer17]

There will come a time (if we continue to rely on oil) that it will run out, but why does this have to mean a last minute Armageddon? Why fight with nukes for a resource that is running dry anyway? I think the other forums you frequent are high on anxiety, low on forward thinking. Oil won't always be the thing. If it is, IMO it's not fallout we have to worry about..

[tyrie2001]

The USSR was in much better shape than Russia is now, and as tense as things got during the cold war, the finger stayed off the button.

"the finger stayed off the button" isn't entirely accruate.

There was an incident in 1984 that isn't commonly know about. It should be declassified at this point so you could look for it in USArmy Journals referencing "5 Minutes to Midnight" or "The Nuclear Curtain".

What isn't well know is that both the US and Russian forces had placed around the borders of East/West gemany, a Curtain of ground detonating nuclear devices. Never heard the exact yeild of them but from damage estimates they were around the 600 kiloton to 1 megaton range.

We built our curtain first, and russia built thiers in response to it. The basic idea was if the 12 divisions of russion troops in east germany came screaming across the border, instead of meeting them with our 4 divisions of troops, they would set off the nuclear curtain making the entire border impassable, and hopefulling killing most of the troops.

It was centrally controled unlike silos, having only to be activated from the command center. Once a day test messages were sent using a rotating encryption sceme. It had a minor glitch though, and the tables got out of sync on rare occasion usually yeilding a garbled message. Expect for one time when the recived test message came out to be a command to activate the Nuclear Curtain.

Once the commander of that site got that particular message he was under orders to do just that, and ignore all followup commands.

Thankfully the activation of the Curtain set off all sorts of people, as they recived automatic warnings, and the General of V corps managed convince the commander of the curtains command center to deactivate it, even though it meant his courtmartial.

It was deactivated at slightly less then five minutes to detonation (the countdown started at 15 minutes).

The Army ended up not courtmartialing the commander for violating his orders, reasoning that officers by thier nature are supposed to evaluate situations and act based on correct information.

We came closer to Nuclear war at this point then even during the cuban missle crisis. If that commander had followed his orders, that Curtain would of gone off, and russia's missles would have shortly there after been launched.

The phrase "5 Minutes to Midnight" is what many of us soldiers started calling this incident when we talked about it afterwards, so should not be considered an official name. But it's likely been used in some of the journals of that era.

That isn't the only time we almost became accidently envolved in a nuclear war, see below below link for a document intitled '20 Mishaps That Might Have Started Accidental Nuclear War'

http://www.nuclearfiles.org/kinuclearweapons/anwindex.html

[Maha Vailo]

Maha Vailo, to answer you question, I will explain what I read in other forums about the end of oil causing a nuclear war.

Just out of curiosity, collegeguy, which forums were those? Sounds like it might be lurking in all the wrong areas. [-X

- Maha Vailo

[collegeguy]

Maha Vailo, to answer you question, I will explain what I read in other forums about the end of oil causing a nuclear war.

Just out of curiosity, collegeguy, which forums were those? Sounds like it might be lurking in all the wrong areas. [-X

- Maha Vailo

Here's one:

http://www.sherdog.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=54

It is the one in my signature.

[collegeguy]

All the info has been great. I am going to turn in my paper the next Wednesday. During a discussion, one of my classmates saw it. he thougth it was pretty well done, although he said: "nuclear fallout would kill everyone who survived the nuclear war. When I tried to explain him that wouldn't be the case, he pointed this to me:

The doctrine assumes that each side has enough weaponry to destroy the other side and that either side, if attacked for any reason by the other, would retaliate with equal or greater force. The expected result is an immediate escalation resulting in both combatants' total and assured destruction. It is now generally assumed that the nuclear fallout or nuclear winter would bring about worldwide devastation, though this was not a critical assumption to the theory of MAD. From:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutually_assured_destruction

So it is assumed that there would be worlwide devastation in a full-scale nuclear war. Probably. "That doesn't mean everyone would die", I answered. "Eventually they would with the diseases produced by the war as well as the food and earth all around being poisoned by radiation" was his answer.Again he showed me this:

Worldwide Fallout
After an air burst the fission products, unfissioned nuclear material, and weapon residues which have been vaporized by the heat of the fireball will condense into a fine suspension of very small particles 10 nm to 20 µm in diameter. These particles may be quickly drawn up into the stratosphere, particularly if the explosive yield exceeds 10 kt. They will then be dispersed by atmospheric winds and will gradually settle to the earth's surface after weeks, months, and even years as worldwide fallout.

The radiobiological hazard of worldwide fallout is essentially a long-term one due to the potential accumulation of long-lived radioisotopes, such as strontium-90, iodine-131, and caesium-137, in the body as a result of ingestion of foods incorporating these radioactive materials. This hazard is much less serious than those which are associated with local fallout and, therefore, is not discussed at length here. Local fallout is of much greater immediate operational concern.

From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fallout

There's no discussing with some people, they won't change their minds.

Can anybody write in wikipedia? I had that impression.

[Halcyon Dayz]

IRCC it has been shown that there is very little atmospheric exchange
of materials going on between the Northern and Southern hemisphere.
Since a nuclear war would probably be limited to the Northern
Hemisphere, nations in the south might get of relatively easy.

[collegeguy]

IRCC it has been shown that there is very little atmospheric exchange
of materials going on between the Northern and Southern hemisphere.
Since a nuclear war would probably be limited to the Northern
Hemisphere, nations in the south might get of relatively easy.

If there would be a nuclear war, wikipedia says it is generally assumed that there would be worlwide devastation from nuclear fallout. How far can nuclear fallout spread? Is there a way to know how far radiation fallout would spread? I am not sure if wikipedia is reliable on this.

I know "On the beach" had terrible science, but I would like to know if someone who has read it could give me a few points on it. I want to make any last changes before handing it in. And how does the novel "on the beach" end? if anybody knows.

[Jpax2003]

Worldwide Fallout
After an air burst the fission products, unfissioned nuclear material, and weapon residues which have been vaporized by the heat of the fireball will condense into a fine suspension of very small particles 10 nm to 20 µm in diameter. These particles may be quickly drawn up into the stratosphere, particularly if the explosive yield exceeds 10 kt. They will then be dispersed by atmospheric winds and will gradually settle to the earth's surface after weeks, months, and even years as worldwide fallout.

The radiobiological hazard of worldwide fallout is essentially a long-term one due to the potential accumulation of long-lived radioisotopes, such as strontium-90, iodine-131, and caesium-137, in the body as a result of ingestion of foods incorporating these radioactive materials. This hazard is much less serious than those which are associated with local fallout and, therefore, is not discussed at length here. Local fallout is of much greater immediate operational concern.

Did you rad through that site I mentioned www.ki4u.com ?
The people who run that site are a licenced (http://www.ki4u.com/awards_supporters.htm) radiological lab for maintaining dosimeters and radiation counters, are partners in the manufacture of the Nukalert (www.nukalert.com) keychain radiation detector, and provide potassium-iodide and potassium-iodate (http://www.ki4u.com/FAQ-part-2.htm#8a) for both civilian and government use. I think they are probably a very trustworthy source of radiation information. I have no relationship to this site, I just think it's reliable.

Anyways, if you look there you'll find reprinted some old information on fallout (http://www.ki4u.com/free_book/s73p912.htm) [see excerpt below], which is probably still accurate. If you familiarize yourself with the 7/10 Rule you'll notice that much of the radiation will be decayed within about 2 weeks. So, if an airburst lofts microfine particulates to the stratosphere most of the fallout will decay to a safe point before it ever falls back to earth.

Also, fallout in the stratosphere will probably not cause a nuclear winter. A large injection of particulates may, but you'd need something like a volcano or comet/asteroid impact to inject that much dust. Realize that a nuke is several orders of magnitude smaller than a volcano. A nuke lofts particulates using a mechanism of extant hot-air displacement and bouyancy... and an airburst does not touch the ground so it pulls up less material that can be coated so fallout is lighter and floats higher and longer. A volcano, on the other hand, directly injects particulates into the atmosphere through the mechanism of adding gas to the atmosphere (from under the earth) that is both bouyant and vectored to propel the particulates. (Nukes suck, but volcanos blow.) In other words the comparison of volcanism and nukes using megatons doesn't scale in regards to particulate injection. Furthermore, surface or near surface bursts that do suck up more material will probably not loft it into the stratosphere due to the geometry of the fireball in lower yield weapons used for such a target. Fires may produce lots of smoke and soot, but this does not itself loft into the stratosphere and will, thus, precipitate out. Moreover, targets like cities will not burn because concrete rubble will have a tendency to smother wild fires. (This is all my analysis, refer to experts for better information.)

from Nuclear War Survival Skills by Cresson H. Kearny

Myth: Unsurvivable "nuclear winter" surely will follow a nuclear war. The world will be frozen if only 100 megatons (less than one percent of all nuclear weapons) are used to ignite cities. World-enveloping smoke from fires and the dust from surface bursts will prevent almost all sunlight and solar heat from reaching the earth's surface. Universal darkness for weeks! Sub-zero temperatures, even in summertime! Frozen crops, even in the jungles of South America! Worldwide famine! Whole species of animals and plants exterminated! The survival of mankind in doubt!

° Facts: Unsurvivable "nuclear winter" is a discredited theory that, since its conception in 1982, has been used to frighten additional millions into believing that trying to survive a nuclear war is a waste of effort and resources, and that only by ridding the world of almost all nuclear weapons do we have a chance of surviving.

Non-propagandizing scientists recently havecalculated that the climatic and other environmental effects of even an all-out nuclear war would be much less severe than the catastrophic effects repeatedly publicized by popular astronomer Carl Sagan and his fellow activist scientists, and by all the involved Soviet scientists. Conclusions reached from these recent, realistic calculations are summarized in an article, "Nuclear Winter Reappraised", featured in the 1986 summer issue of Foreign Affairs, the prestigious quarterly of the Council on Foreign Relations. The authors, Starley L. Thompson and Stephen H. Schneider, are atmospheric scientists with the National Center for Atmospheric Research. They showed " that on scientific grounds the global apocalyptic conclusions of the initial nuclear winter hypothesis can now be relegated to a vanishing low level of probability."

More along this line follows.
Nuclear Winter Reappraised
Starley L. Thompson and Stephen H. Schneider
From Foreign Affairs, Summer 1986 (http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19860601faessay7798/starley-l-thompson-stephen-h-schneider/nuclear-winter-reappraised.html)

These are somewhat in favor of nuclear winter (or nuclear summer also)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter
http://www.the-spa.com/jon.roland/vri/nwaos.htm

You may find this article (http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/88spp.html) enlightening, if not conclusive.

[CharlesEGrant]

IRCC it has been shown that there is very little atmospheric exchange
of materials going on between the Northern and Southern hemisphere.
Since a nuclear war would probably be limited to the Northern
Hemisphere, nations in the south might get of relatively easy.

If there would be a nuclear war, wikipedia says it is generally assumed that there would be worlwide devastation from nuclear fallout. How far can nuclear fallout spread? Is there a way to know how far radiation fallout would spread? I am not sure if wikipedia is reliable on this.

I know "On the beach" had terrible science, but I would like to know if someone who has read it could give me a few points on it. I want to make any last changes before handing it in. And how does the novel "on the beach" end? if anybody knows.

As an example of acute radiation sickness from fallout, in 1954 a Japanese fishing boat The Lucky Dragon (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/08/spotlight/) was 85 miles downwind from a US nuclear test at the Bikini atoll. It was dusted with fallout several of the crew developed acute radiation sickness. All but one of the 23 crew survived, but it put a real chill on Japanese-US relations for a while. The same test contaminated the island of Rongelap about 100 miles from the test site. I don't believe acute radiation sickness was a problem, but the island had to be evacuated for a couple decades.

From 1940-1963 the US, USSR, GB, France, and China were regularly setting off fission and fusion bombs in the atmosphere. One of the results of that testing is that everyone in the world now carries measureable amounts of Cs-137 and Sr-90 in their bones. These are not naturally occurring isotopes, so clearly there is potential for world-wide contamination from above-ground nuclear explosions. Worldwide acute radiation sickness is highly unlikely unless somebody does something really perverse like setting off huge fusion bombs in shallow costal seas, but tremendously increased cancer rates are almost a certainty. The problem was so obvious (and cheating so easily detected) that in 1963 most counties agreed to halt atomostpheric nuclear testing. China and France never signed the treaty but have none-the-less limited their above ground tests. Even scientists life Freeman Dyson who were working on the ORION project mostly decided that setting off nukes in the atmosphere was a really bad idea.

Cs-137 and Sr-90 are a couple of those nasty intermediate half-life isotopes somebody mentioned in a previous post. They are gamma and beta emitters, but the real problem is that chemically they behave a lot like calcium, so they tend to concentrate in the food chain. Beta particles have limited penetrating power, but of course if they are incorporated into tissue (like bone) they don't need much penetrating power to cause damage.

How does On the Beach end? [Spoiler alert]

As the book begins, everyone in the northern hemispher is already dead. It becomes clear that everyone in the southern hemisphere is going to die of acute radiation poisining too, so most folks end up choosing their own way out of the world.

[collegeguy]

IRCC it has been shown that there is very little atmospheric exchange
of materials going on between the Northern and Southern hemisphere.
Since a nuclear war would probably be limited to the Northern
Hemisphere, nations in the south might get of relatively easy.

If there would be a nuclear war, wikipedia says it is generally assumed that there would be worlwide devastation from nuclear fallout. How far can nuclear fallout spread? Is there a way to know how far radiation fallout would spread? I am not sure if wikipedia is reliable on this.

I know "On the beach" had terrible science, but I would like to know if someone who has read it could give me a few points on it. I want to make any last changes before handing it in. And how does the novel "on the beach" end? if anybody knows.

As an example of acute radiation sickness from fallout, in 1954 a Japanese fishing boat The Lucky Dragon (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/08/spotlight/) was 85 miles downwind from a US nuclear test at the Bikini atoll. It was dusted with fallout several of the crew developed acute radiation sickness. All but one of the 23 crew survived, but it put a real chill on Japanese-US relations for a while. The same test contaminated the island of Rongelap about 100 miles from the test site. I don't believe acute radiation sickness was a problem, but the island had to be evacuated for a couple decades.

From 1940-1963 the US, USSR, GB, France, and China were regularly setting off fission and fusion bombs in the atmosphere. One of the results of that testing is that everyone in the world now carries measureable amounts of Cs-137 and Sr-90 in their bones. These are not naturally occurring isotopes, so clearly there is potential for world-wide contamination from above-ground nuclear explosions. Worldwide acute radiation sickness is highly unlikely unless somebody does something really perverse like setting off huge fusion bombs in shallow costal seas, but tremendously increased cancer rates are almost a certainty. The problem was so obvious (and cheating so easily detected) that in 1963 most counties agreed to halt atomostpheric nuclear testing. China and France never signed the treaty but have none-the-less limited their above ground tests. Even scientists life Freeman Dyson who were working on the ORION project mostly decided that setting off nukes in the atmosphere was a really bad idea.

Cs-137 and Sr-90 are a couple of those nasty intermediate half-life isotopes somebody mentioned in a previous post. They are gamma and beta emitters, but the real problem is that chemically they behave a lot like calcium, so they tend to concentrate in the food chain. Beta particles have limited penetrating power, but of course if they are incorporated into tissue (like bone) they don't need much penetrating power to cause damage.

How does On the Beach end? [Spoiler alert]

As the book begins, everyone in the northern hemispher is already dead. It becomes clear that everyone in the southern hemisphere is going to die of acute radiation poisining too, so most folks end up choosing their own way out of the world.

I see, I am going to check this info again. I didn't know that we all carried isotopes from those atmospheric tests. Your info is pretty different to other info I have seen. So, basically:

Atmospheric nuclear explosions have the potential to bring worldwide mass disease like cancer.

The isotopes Cs-137 and Sr-90 can be stored on the bones. Everybody is affected now for it.

I was asking this, because I wanted to put an example of a scenarion. Let's say there was nuclear war between the US and Russia. they use many nukes on each other. How far south could radiation affect? Could it travel all the way to south America? How serious would it be when it reaches there?

If somebody could help me with these questions, Yes JPax2003, I read the link, but I am talking about how far globally can the radiation travel. the link only talks about the US. Would the radiation reach South America and Africa? How serious would it be when it did?

[Halcyon Dayz]

I'm pretty sure that the effect could even be measured on Antarctica.
How bad it would be depends on the amount of radio-isotopes
released, i.e. on how big the war was.

[collegeguy]

I'm pretty sure that the effect could even be measured on Antarctica.
How bad it would be depends on the amount of radio-isotopes
released, i.e. on how big the war was.

Nowadays, the biggest war that could happen would be between US and Russia. So, the radiation would cause mass diesases. Didn't you say there was little exchange between the North and South hemisphere?

Can I get someone else's imput in this info?

[collegeguy]

Can someone tell me if this iinformation is true? I have not found any source on it, except the incident of the japanese boat? It also goes against the links I have been given:

So is this true

As an example of acute radiation sickness from fallout, in 1954 a Japanese fishing boat The Lucky Dragon was 85 miles downwind from a US nuclear test at the Bikini atoll. It was dusted with fallout several of the crew developed acute radiation sickness. All but one of the 23 crew survived, but it put a real chill on Japanese-US relations for a while. The same test contaminated the island of Rongelap about 100 miles from the test site. I don't believe acute radiation sickness was a problem, but the island had to be evacuated for a couple decades.

From 1940-1963 the US, USSR, GB, France, and China were regularly setting off fission and fusion bombs in the atmosphere. One of the results of that testing is that everyone in the world now carries measureable amounts of Cs-137 and Sr-90 in their bones. These are not naturally occurring isotopes, so clearly there is potential for world-wide contamination from above-ground nuclear explosions. Worldwide acute radiation sickness is highly unlikely unless somebody does something really perverse like setting off huge fusion bombs in shallow costal seas, but tremendously increased cancer rates are almost a certainty. The problem was so obvious (and cheating so easily detected) that in 1963 most counties agreed to halt atomostpheric nuclear testing. China and France never signed the treaty but have none-the-less limited their above ground tests. Even scientists life Freeman Dyson who were working on the ORION project mostly decided that setting off nukes in the atmosphere was a really bad idea.

Cs-137 and Sr-90 are a couple of those nasty intermediate half-life isotopes somebody mentioned in a previous post. They are gamma and beta emitters, but the real problem is that chemically they behave a lot like calcium, so they tend to concentrate in the food chain. Beta particles have limited penetrating power, but of course if they are incorporated into tissue (like bone) they don't need much penetrating power to cause damage

Do we really have isotopes from the past atmospheric tests?

Are atmospheric tests more dangerous than ground explosions?

Wouldn't the noxious radiation settle on the earth after two weeks? In order for the fallout to get to the southern Hemisphere, it could take more than two weeks so it wouldn't bve as lethal, right? or am I wrong?

[Maksutov]

The Japanese boat story sounds familiar.

[edit]Do we really have isotopes from the past atmospheric tests?
Maybe not younger people, but I probably do. I know I did. The cycle was the Strontium-90 landed on pastures, was ingested by cows, wound up in the cow's milk, and was later consumed by humans. The Strontium-90 was treated by the body as calcium and wound up in the bones. I need to do some research to see if natural processes would have gotten rid of it by now, but I recall being told that once it was in there it wasn't going anywhere.

Are atmospheric tests more dangerous than ground explosions?
If you mean underground tests, definitely. That's why the 1963 treaty got rid of the atmospheric tests but allowed for underground tests.

Wouldn't the noxious radiation settle on the earth after two weeks? In order for the fallout to get to the southern Hemisphere, it could take more than two weeks so it wouldn't bve as lethal, right? or am I wrong?
Depends on the weather, the size of the blasts, the types of radioactive materials injected into the atmosphere, etc. The footprint and duration of a blast plume can vary widely depending on these factors, among others.

Back when Russia was detonating large (up to and including 50 megatons) thermonuclear weapons in the air, I used to track the path of the radiation from each blast as it traveled around the globe, sometimes making numerous circuits over a period of many weeks. It was interesting to go outside and realize that you were being exposed to radiation from a blast halfway around the world.

BTW, your atmospheric atomic test dates should be 1945-1963. Note that certain countries continued to conduct atmospheric tests after 1963.