Nuclear explosion impact on humans indoors (2022)(aip.scitation.org)
aip.scitation.org
Nuclear explosion impact on humans indoors (2022)
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/5.0132565
170 comments
Why do you call nuclear winter a "scare-theory"?
The short-term impact of a major nuclear exchange is fairly well supported by science. Nuclear explosions, particularly thermonuclear explosions, are powerful enough to propel fine particulate matter high enough into the atmosphere that no rain can wash it back to the ground. Unlike smoke from a forest fire, it will persist in the atmosphere for decades and spread globally, dimming the sun and negatively impacting global temperatures and insolation across the planet. That means crop failures for everyone, not just the combatants.
A nuclear first-strike that successfully wipes out the enemy's ability to retaliate will likely still lead to global starvation for decades. While scary, this does make it less likely for a major nuclear power to ever use such a first strike. Even if you win, you lose.
The short-term impact of a major nuclear exchange is fairly well supported by science. Nuclear explosions, particularly thermonuclear explosions, are powerful enough to propel fine particulate matter high enough into the atmosphere that no rain can wash it back to the ground. Unlike smoke from a forest fire, it will persist in the atmosphere for decades and spread globally, dimming the sun and negatively impacting global temperatures and insolation across the planet. That means crop failures for everyone, not just the combatants.
A nuclear first-strike that successfully wipes out the enemy's ability to retaliate will likely still lead to global starvation for decades. While scary, this does make it less likely for a major nuclear power to ever use such a first strike. Even if you win, you lose.
There's very much a debate about the assumptions that went into the original nuclear winter work. Cities today have a lot more steel and concrete, and it's not clear if the heat necessary for high altitude plumes would form. AFAIK no one has definitively settled the matter, but it is something think tanks publish papers on occasionally.
> AFAIK no one has definitively settled the matter
I think we can be confident that the really definitive work on this subject hasn't happened yet -- thank heaven.
I think we can be confident that the really definitive work on this subject hasn't happened yet -- thank heaven.
This is not without controversy (1), and as I understand the expected cause is not from the nuclear explosions but the fires caused by the bombs such as standard forest fires.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter#Criticism_and_d...
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter#Criticism_and_d...
The soot from fires can actually be quite damaging globally. Here's a paper from 2020 that used state of the art atmospheric and crop models to look at the effects of the firestorms that might arise if India and Pakistan exchanged 100 nukes (about 1/3 of their arsenals) each about the size of the bomb used on Hiroshima directed at each other's major population centers.
Here's a blog article about it [2].
Here's the abstract:
> A limited nuclear war between India and Pakistan could ignite fires large enough to emit more than 5 Tg of soot into the stratosphere. Climate model simulations have shown severe resulting climate perturbations with declines in global mean temperature by 1.8 °C and precipitation by 8%, for at least 5 y. Here we evaluate impacts for the global food system. Six harmonized state-of-the-art crop models show that global caloric production from maize, wheat, rice, and soybean falls by 13 (±1)%, 11 (±8)%, 3 (±5)%, and 17 (±2)% over 5 y. Total single-year losses of 12 (±4)% quadruple the largest observed historical anomaly and exceed impacts caused by historic droughts and volcanic eruptions. Colder temperatures drive losses more than changes in precipitation and solar radiation, leading to strongest impacts in temperate regions poleward of 30°N, including the United States, Europe, and China for 10 to 15 y. Integrated food trade network analyses show that domestic reserves and global trade can largely buffer the production anomaly in the first year. Persistent multiyear losses, however, would constrain domestic food availability and propagate to the Global South, especially to food-insecure countries. By year 5, maize and wheat availability would decrease by 13% globally and by more than 20% in 71 countries with a cumulative population of 1.3 billion people. In view of increasing instability in South Asia, this study shows that a regional conflict using <1% of the worldwide nuclear arsenal could have adverse consequences for global food security unmatched in modern history.
[1] https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1919049117
[2] https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2020/03/16/even-limited-in...
Here's a blog article about it [2].
Here's the abstract:
> A limited nuclear war between India and Pakistan could ignite fires large enough to emit more than 5 Tg of soot into the stratosphere. Climate model simulations have shown severe resulting climate perturbations with declines in global mean temperature by 1.8 °C and precipitation by 8%, for at least 5 y. Here we evaluate impacts for the global food system. Six harmonized state-of-the-art crop models show that global caloric production from maize, wheat, rice, and soybean falls by 13 (±1)%, 11 (±8)%, 3 (±5)%, and 17 (±2)% over 5 y. Total single-year losses of 12 (±4)% quadruple the largest observed historical anomaly and exceed impacts caused by historic droughts and volcanic eruptions. Colder temperatures drive losses more than changes in precipitation and solar radiation, leading to strongest impacts in temperate regions poleward of 30°N, including the United States, Europe, and China for 10 to 15 y. Integrated food trade network analyses show that domestic reserves and global trade can largely buffer the production anomaly in the first year. Persistent multiyear losses, however, would constrain domestic food availability and propagate to the Global South, especially to food-insecure countries. By year 5, maize and wheat availability would decrease by 13% globally and by more than 20% in 71 countries with a cumulative population of 1.3 billion people. In view of increasing instability in South Asia, this study shows that a regional conflict using <1% of the worldwide nuclear arsenal could have adverse consequences for global food security unmatched in modern history.
[1] https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1919049117
[2] https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2020/03/16/even-limited-in...
I call it a scare-theory because there is meaningful debate about it and its main point, famine is already achieved by things that we know will occur. In a no BS nuclear exchange the hydrocarbons industry will cease to exist. This means no diesel for combines, no mass production of fertilizer, no power to keep fans on to cool broiler chickens. The clock on food production goes back to 1750-1800 for some time.
An available calorie reduction this fast means famine, nuclear winter or not. I think tangible consequences like this helps normal people to understand the risks of nuclear war more effectively than trying to explain nuclear winter.
An available calorie reduction this fast means famine, nuclear winter or not. I think tangible consequences like this helps normal people to understand the risks of nuclear war more effectively than trying to explain nuclear winter.
Aerosols from very large forest fires do reach the stratosphere and linger for months or years and have short-term climate impact. Hard to imagine much of the northern hemisphere set ablaze by the blasts without there being such an impact.
>less likely
Before both world wars there were many who thought that war between modern powers could never happen because it was 'too dreadful'. That is, the leaders involved would avoid war. Well, we're witnesses latelu to that leaders do choose war.
>While scary, this does make it less likely for a major nuclear power to ever use such a first strike. Even if you win, you lose.
Your conclusion doesn't follow. You're assuming that national leaders are rational: Putin's actions in Ukraine show that this is simply not something we can count on.
Personally, I think it's highly likely we're going to experience a major nuclear exchange in the next few decades or less, with all the horrors (including global starvation) that entails. It's apparent to me that humans are simply too stupid to keep a global society running without destroying themselves.
Your conclusion doesn't follow. You're assuming that national leaders are rational: Putin's actions in Ukraine show that this is simply not something we can count on.
Personally, I think it's highly likely we're going to experience a major nuclear exchange in the next few decades or less, with all the horrors (including global starvation) that entails. It's apparent to me that humans are simply too stupid to keep a global society running without destroying themselves.
“Even if you win, you lose.”
AKA The Putin Way.
AKA The Putin Way.
Fossil fuels is one thing. Synthetic fertilizers are another. Without them, it's often impossible to grow large amounts of crops on the available land.
Even a relatively small, compared to a global nuclear exchange, war in Ukraine sent ripples across the foods markets, because the war affected some noticeable amounts of wheat grown in the world, of fertilizers produced in the world, and of natural gas powering fertilizer production elsewhere in Europe.
Even a relatively small, compared to a global nuclear exchange, war in Ukraine sent ripples across the foods markets, because the war affected some noticeable amounts of wheat grown in the world, of fertilizers produced in the world, and of natural gas powering fertilizer production elsewhere in Europe.
> Without fossil fuel subsidies for agriculture mass starvation is certain.
Without fossile fuels for agriculture, starvation is certain. Without fossile fuel subsidies, we'd just pay a bit more for food and slightly less for other things.
Without fossile fuels for agriculture, starvation is certain. Without fossile fuel subsidies, we'd just pay a bit more for food and slightly less for other things.
And possibly not pay more for food either, given that there are often prices floors or other similar things. Remember that we usually have a vast surplus of food in the US.
The govt at one point was running massive warehouses to store cheese, as a way to keep up milk prices. This is the origin of “government cheese.”
The govt at one point was running massive warehouses to store cheese, as a way to keep up milk prices. This is the origin of “government cheese.”
> government cheese
TIL.
See also: council juice
TIL.
See also: council juice
I believe the intent was to say that Fertilizers made from Fossile Fuels subsidize the Nutrients in the ground. That is, the ground itself cannot support the amount of food we grow, unless we, the humans, subsidise the ground with fertilizers.
Don't forget the fact that a few nations export massive surpluses of food. If the global trade chain is disrupted, their customers simply won't have enough food to eat.
Most famines in the last 100 years were at least partially caused by an inability to supply food from neighboring or just slightly more distant regions.
Most famines in the last 100 years were at least partially caused by an inability to supply food from neighboring or just slightly more distant regions.
Let's not pretend the food production subsidies are there for some kind of altruistic reasons. They're mostly there because of lobbyism.
There are also people who say that the overproduction of food in EU and US causes underproduction of food in poorer countries, making them less self sufficient and more sensitive to price increases and supply chain disruptions.
There are also people who say that the overproduction of food in EU and US causes underproduction of food in poorer countries, making them less self sufficient and more sensitive to price increases and supply chain disruptions.
This was a reference to energy system subsidies, not financial. Diesel for combines or natural gas for fertilizer.
Many people in my country are already paying around half of their earnings for food. You can't really go much above that before dying of starvation.
Or substantial social changes. Rents and other costs would presumably need to change if this affected a majority? Edit: what I’m pointing to is that hunger is often in the context of sufficiency.
I don’t anticipate calamity, nor do I prepare for one. But I’ve explored it as an experiment.
My original plan was to see what happens and make a go of it, but to be prepared to take the quick way out if it becomes too horrifying.
But now I have kids and I’m out of ideas. Maybe something about fleeing to my cottage where there’s fewer people and more nature.
My original plan was to see what happens and make a go of it, but to be prepared to take the quick way out if it becomes too horrifying.
But now I have kids and I’m out of ideas. Maybe something about fleeing to my cottage where there’s fewer people and more nature.
Its funny how much having kids changes the equation. Back when I was single I borderline welcomed the apocalypse. Now thinking of a breakdown in civil society concerns me greatly.
That's why older people cannot stand with young people asking for "no borders", "destroy the system", etc.. Because they have a lot at stake.
"Tis a fearful thing to love what death can touch."
> This would spare us exposure to subsequent famine and the loss of things like acetaminophen and central heating, not to mention civil society
Obviously MAD has changed things, but Hiroshima was back to normal in about 2 years. Power was restored in just a few days for example.
https://davidson.weizmann.ac.il/en/online/askexpert/recovery...
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/apr/18/story-of-citi...
Obviously MAD has changed things, but Hiroshima was back to normal in about 2 years. Power was restored in just a few days for example.
https://davidson.weizmann.ac.il/en/online/askexpert/recovery...
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/apr/18/story-of-citi...
It's... Not even comparable. That bomb is a quaint toy compared to modern nuclear arsenal, and of course nobody would be launching one or two nukes today because it isn't 1945. Mass starvation, disease, loss of key infrastructure and any sort of industrial capacity would await those "lucky" to survive initial blasts.
I'm not as convinced nuclear winter is a scare theory either, I think it's hard to say, but it frankly doesn't even have to factor in the slightest.
I'm not as convinced nuclear winter is a scare theory either, I think it's hard to say, but it frankly doesn't even have to factor in the slightest.
There's a difference between destroying one city with a relatively small bomb and destroying most cities and industrial infrastructure with relatively big bombs - including multiple hits on the biggest targets.
Oh no, no acetaminophen and central heating! Guess I'll just die!
In all seriousness - even if you sincerely plan to commit suicide (and take your family with you?) if life gets harder, why use the nuclear attack itself to do it? Why close off options? Why not attempt to survive, and reassess afterwards if you really think life still isn't worth living?
In all seriousness - even if you sincerely plan to commit suicide (and take your family with you?) if life gets harder, why use the nuclear attack itself to do it? Why close off options? Why not attempt to survive, and reassess afterwards if you really think life still isn't worth living?
My dude, if you are among the lucky few who survive the initial filter of starvation, disease and mass violence following a nuclear conflict I wish you the best leading your band of raiders across the Great Plains or Central Valley feasting on the scraps of civilization and eventually dying of dysentery, typhus, scarlet fever or simple exposure.
I am not here for that lifestyle.
I am not here for that lifestyle.
> My dude, if you are among the lucky few who survive the initial filter of starvation, disease and mass violence following a nuclear conflict I wish you the best leading your band of raiders across the Great Plains or Central Valley feasting on the scraps of civilization and eventually dying of dysentery, typhus, scarlet fever or simple exposure.
That sounds like a fantasy over-"informed" by fiction. Might just as well be, that after that initial filter, most people just end up living in a village and farming like it's 1700.
That sounds like a fantasy over-"informed" by fiction. Might just as well be, that after that initial filter, most people just end up living in a village and farming like it's 1700.
Bands of raiders were a semi-regular element of 1700 agrarian lifestyles on every continent!
Again, if you're going to commit suicide, why use the nuclear attack itself to do it? Why not wait and see if this apocalyptic vision of yours actually comes true? If it does, it won't be difficult to commit suicide at that point, you won't have lost anything. And if it doesn't, you'll be glad you lived.
Plus, yaknow, your wife/kids/dog/$DEPENDENTS might feel differently.
Plus, yaknow, your wife/kids/dog/$DEPENDENTS might feel differently.
I don’t understand why you perceive being struck by the effects of a nuclear warhead launched by a hostile power as suicide.
The suicide part is deliberately avoiding actions that would increase your chances of survival because, and I quote, "My sincere hope for my family and I in a mid-grade to all-out nuclear exchange is that we perish immediately".
My sincere hope for my family is that weather patterns are 'nice' and we survive without significant fallout exposure. It's not as unlikely as it sounds, depending on where you are when the bombs fall.
Beyond that things will not really be that bad. Society maintains continuity even through insane events like the black death or cities being bombed into ruins. I think this is because humans are socialized for a very long time, and have very little experience living through apocalypses, and have a hard time accepting the inevitability of their own deaths. Society doesn't break down during mass starvation even.
Speaking of mass starvation and lack of clean water, that will be how most people who survive about 3 days post nuclear war will die. This is easily avoidable, water filtration/sanitization solutions are extremely cheap, or even free if you have a bucket and some sand. Storing 1 year of calories takes so little space and is so cheap it isn't even a consideration.
Mass starvation will not be a problem in the long run because it will be a huge problem much sooner. People will starve in the 2 months post event because of the temporary breakdown in logistics. After 6 months trains will be running again and there will be plenty of food, and no cities full of people to eat it.
Beyond that things will not really be that bad. Society maintains continuity even through insane events like the black death or cities being bombed into ruins. I think this is because humans are socialized for a very long time, and have very little experience living through apocalypses, and have a hard time accepting the inevitability of their own deaths. Society doesn't break down during mass starvation even.
Speaking of mass starvation and lack of clean water, that will be how most people who survive about 3 days post nuclear war will die. This is easily avoidable, water filtration/sanitization solutions are extremely cheap, or even free if you have a bucket and some sand. Storing 1 year of calories takes so little space and is so cheap it isn't even a consideration.
Mass starvation will not be a problem in the long run because it will be a huge problem much sooner. People will starve in the 2 months post event because of the temporary breakdown in logistics. After 6 months trains will be running again and there will be plenty of food, and no cities full of people to eat it.
> Beyond that things will not really be that bad.
Apart from a gigantic global food crisis for at least a decade - see this comment for just a "small" nuclear war, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34448255 - and the disruption of the supply chain that makes what happend during COVID look like nothing at all happened there? Which means you can also forget about a lot of daily necessities like lots of chemicals and medicines, even if you yourself don't use them directly.
Good luck going into forests trying to get enough wood - together with tens of millions of other people from around you. Never mind food, after the first year, which can probably be covered from the reserves. Asia and Africa will be quite busy dealing with a large population they can't feed any more, anybody who can attempting to flee and they won't take "no" for an answer at the borders.
> After 6 months trains will be running again and there will be plenty of food,
How, magic? (see linked comment and the study there, and remember that's only a "small" nuclear war they are talking about there)
.
[silent sigh] Why am I even participating in this kind of discussion... I guess it's early morning and I'm procrastinating.
Apart from a gigantic global food crisis for at least a decade - see this comment for just a "small" nuclear war, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34448255 - and the disruption of the supply chain that makes what happend during COVID look like nothing at all happened there? Which means you can also forget about a lot of daily necessities like lots of chemicals and medicines, even if you yourself don't use them directly.
Good luck going into forests trying to get enough wood - together with tens of millions of other people from around you. Never mind food, after the first year, which can probably be covered from the reserves. Asia and Africa will be quite busy dealing with a large population they can't feed any more, anybody who can attempting to flee and they won't take "no" for an answer at the borders.
> After 6 months trains will be running again and there will be plenty of food,
How, magic? (see linked comment and the study there, and remember that's only a "small" nuclear war they are talking about there)
.
[silent sigh] Why am I even participating in this kind of discussion... I guess it's early morning and I'm procrastinating.
Again, you only need enough food to feed the people who are still alive. You don't need international supply chains to grow food. In fact, here in the US we have far more food than we need, not exporting it will mean we have an absolute glut. The rest of the world will lose access to that, but that doesn't effect me.
Enough wood? I live in a forest. You can't have it both ways, either cities are so full of flammable material it causes an ice age if a few of them burn up OR there isn't anything to burn to boil water to make rice, you can't have it both ways.
Tens of millions... Sorry, this state has 50 people per square mile. There aren't 10 million people within a 100 mile radius of me.
Supply chain? They didn't have an international supply chain 100 years ago. They barely had one 50 years ago. The world will be fine without one for awhile.
You are just not correct on any level here. People were trading and able to survive perfectly fine and even thrive 2000 years ago, with iron age technology and not much of that. 1 year after a nuclear war people would be rebuilding, 10 years after and day to day life will be very much like it was before the war.
Here is a map of the amount of rail in the Soviet Union in the 20th century. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/54/Ra... You can see that they went from basically 0 rail to a massive amount of rail in 20 years. How did they do this without a global supply chain and while fighting 2 world wars? It turns out people are more than capable of addressing problems even under trying circumstances. They don't just say "supply chain disruption!" and give up and lay down and cry.
[big sigh, shakes head, big show of having to deal with people despite of how much smarter and more important I think I am]
Enough wood? I live in a forest. You can't have it both ways, either cities are so full of flammable material it causes an ice age if a few of them burn up OR there isn't anything to burn to boil water to make rice, you can't have it both ways.
Tens of millions... Sorry, this state has 50 people per square mile. There aren't 10 million people within a 100 mile radius of me.
Supply chain? They didn't have an international supply chain 100 years ago. They barely had one 50 years ago. The world will be fine without one for awhile.
You are just not correct on any level here. People were trading and able to survive perfectly fine and even thrive 2000 years ago, with iron age technology and not much of that. 1 year after a nuclear war people would be rebuilding, 10 years after and day to day life will be very much like it was before the war.
Here is a map of the amount of rail in the Soviet Union in the 20th century. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/54/Ra... You can see that they went from basically 0 rail to a massive amount of rail in 20 years. How did they do this without a global supply chain and while fighting 2 world wars? It turns out people are more than capable of addressing problems even under trying circumstances. They don't just say "supply chain disruption!" and give up and lay down and cry.
[big sigh, shakes head, big show of having to deal with people despite of how much smarter and more important I think I am]
> Supply chain? They didn't have an international supply chain 100 years ago. They barely had one 50 years ago. The world will be fine without one for awhile.
Yes, because they used to have local factories and mines that they built up over decades. Then as globalization and direct international investments were encouraged instead of trade, factories and mines were closed down and production moved to China/India/S Korea/Japan/Taiwan etc. Going to the point that cloth masks couldn't be produced in any significant numbers in the USA or Europe when a pandemic hit.
Yes, because they used to have local factories and mines that they built up over decades. Then as globalization and direct international investments were encouraged instead of trade, factories and mines were closed down and production moved to China/India/S Korea/Japan/Taiwan etc. Going to the point that cloth masks couldn't be produced in any significant numbers in the USA or Europe when a pandemic hit.
> How did they do this without a global supply chain and while fighting 2 world wars?
Apparently by working hundreds of thousands of gulag prisoners to death:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-63332...
Apparently by working hundreds of thousands of gulag prisoners to death:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-63332...
Which we won't have to do to just repair the existing railroads. My point is if they can build railroads with almost no industry and no `international supply chains` then we can get the already working rail system started again, no?
PS: even in more humane phases of the Soviet Union I doubt very much that self-sufficiency had worked. For instance large infrastructure projects, like the Baikal-Amur railway or the Drushba pipeline were built with massive support from all Eastern Bloc countries, not just financially but by sending entire construction teams over (I remember well the propaganda campaigns for this in Eastern Germany).
The VAZ factories were built by the Italians, and the early Shiguli/Lada car models were phased out Fiat models.
The MiG-15 prototypes famously flew with English jet engines.
The Tu-95 turboprop engines have been designed by Germans.
Etc etc... my point being that self-sufficiency doesn't work in the modern world (unless the people are content with living like medieval peasants).
The VAZ factories were built by the Italians, and the early Shiguli/Lada car models were phased out Fiat models.
The MiG-15 prototypes famously flew with English jet engines.
The Tu-95 turboprop engines have been designed by Germans.
Etc etc... my point being that self-sufficiency doesn't work in the modern world (unless the people are content with living like medieval peasants).
> Storing 1 year of calories takes so little space and is so cheap it isn't even a consideration.
Please explain. My gut feel intuition is that you have to sacrifice at least a typical American closet's worth of space to do that.
Please explain. My gut feel intuition is that you have to sacrifice at least a typical American closet's worth of space to do that.
A 50 lb bag of rice would feed you for 50 days and you can fit about 8 of them in a grocery store cart.
> A 50 lb bag of rice would feed you for 50 days and you can fit about 8 of them in a grocery store cart.
So that would be like 1/4 of a US closet for one person? I know rice will get bugs if you don't eat it in a reasonable amount of time, so that would be a concern.
So that would be like 1/4 of a US closet for one person? I know rice will get bugs if you don't eat it in a reasonable amount of time, so that would be a concern.
> acetaminophen
Wow, never read about this before. I see that it equates to Paracetamol. You mean that we would run out of that medicine? And if so, why is that? Happy if you could provide an explanation (I have no medical background, mind you).
Wow, never read about this before. I see that it equates to Paracetamol. You mean that we would run out of that medicine? And if so, why is that? Happy if you could provide an explanation (I have no medical background, mind you).
>> My sincere hope for my family and I in a mid-grade to all-out nuclear exchange is that we perish immediately. This would spare us exposure to subsequent famine and the loss of things like acetaminophen and central heating, not to mention civil society.
> Wow, never read about this before. I see that it equates to Paracetamol. You mean that we would run out of that medicine? And if so, why is that? Happy if you could provide an explanation (I have no medical background, mind you).
Not the op, but by "acetaminophen and central heating" he meant modern comforts and conveniences would go away.
> Wow, never read about this before. I see that it equates to Paracetamol. You mean that we would run out of that medicine? And if so, why is that? Happy if you could provide an explanation (I have no medical background, mind you).
Not the op, but by "acetaminophen and central heating" he meant modern comforts and conveniences would go away.
Acetominophen is something we can do without. There are better analgesics available that don't destroy your liver.
> My sincere hope for my family and I in a mid-grade to all-out nuclear exchange is that we perish immediately
Amen to that. With a family with small kids, I can only hope that we don't even realise what is happening and die instantly.
When COVID was new and we were deep in lockdown and there was no vaccine in sight, there was a definite feeling of "will the world ever be like it was again? Is everything we knew irreversibly changed forever?". It was a worrying feeling. I can only imagine how depressing and frankly terrifying it must feel to know that life as you knew it was over (and it will never "go back to normal"), and you and your kids are now going to live in some sort of hellscape and probably die of some "trivial" injury or accident, if you don't starve or get murdered first.
Amen to that. With a family with small kids, I can only hope that we don't even realise what is happening and die instantly.
When COVID was new and we were deep in lockdown and there was no vaccine in sight, there was a definite feeling of "will the world ever be like it was again? Is everything we knew irreversibly changed forever?". It was a worrying feeling. I can only imagine how depressing and frankly terrifying it must feel to know that life as you knew it was over (and it will never "go back to normal"), and you and your kids are now going to live in some sort of hellscape and probably die of some "trivial" injury or accident, if you don't starve or get murdered first.
>> My sincere hope for my family and I in a mid-grade to all-out nuclear exchange is that we perish immediately
> Amen to that. With a family with small kids, I can only hope that we don't even realise what is happening and die instantly.
You probably won't, though, unless you deliberately decide stay very close to a high-value target at all times. IIRC, the casualty estimates in NukeMap (https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/) show large amounts of the population would survive the initial blasts.
> Amen to that. With a family with small kids, I can only hope that we don't even realise what is happening and die instantly.
You probably won't, though, unless you deliberately decide stay very close to a high-value target at all times. IIRC, the casualty estimates in NukeMap (https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/) show large amounts of the population would survive the initial blasts.
Have fun dealing with the global starvation that happens later.
> Have fun dealing with the global starvation that happens later.
My point is: most of the people wishing they'd die instantly will probably have that "fun," too, unless they have weird habits meant to maximize that possibility that and/or a solid suicide plan (e.g. running around with a concealed-carry pistol).
My point is: most of the people wishing they'd die instantly will probably have that "fun," too, unless they have weird habits meant to maximize that possibility that and/or a solid suicide plan (e.g. running around with a concealed-carry pistol).
No one talks about fun here, but it is something different wanting to go on despise hardships vs. giving all up (and the people dependant on you).
I wonder how many people in zombie apocalypse (of a viral kind) would just infect themselves voluntarily to avoid getting chewed by the horde of zombies.
> I wonder how many people in zombie apocalypse (of a viral kind) would just infect themselves voluntarily to avoid getting chewed by the horde of zombies.
Probably very few. Infecting yourself is pretty much an equivalent of killing yourself. Except in movies they often make it look like an extremely painful, prolonged, and torturous way of doing so. But I imagine quite many will resort to other methods of accomplishing the same end-result.
Probably very few. Infecting yourself is pretty much an equivalent of killing yourself. Except in movies they often make it look like an extremely painful, prolonged, and torturous way of doing so. But I imagine quite many will resort to other methods of accomplishing the same end-result.
On the plus(?) side, there will be plenty of remaining fertilizers in stock to grow food to feed the now much smaller population for a good while.
> loss of things like acetaminophen and central heating
Needing to tough out headaches without Tylenol and wear a coat or put wood in the fireplace inside your cabin...post apocalyptic first world problems.
edit: less moist
Needing to tough out headaches without Tylenol and wear a coat or put wood in the fireplace inside your cabin...post apocalyptic first world problems.
edit: less moist
Your sense of humor is quite moist.
I had a conversation with my wife about this. For context, I mostly agree with you, however this is something you and a spouse should agree on and have a plan for. We have two young girls, so there’s that. Additional context: my wife is Jewish by birth.
Her reaction was immediate and unequivocal: we are going to do everything we possibly can to survive.
I guess generations of natural selection on a genetically isolated population really -does- matter!
Her reaction was immediate and unequivocal: we are going to do everything we possibly can to survive.
I guess generations of natural selection on a genetically isolated population really -does- matter!
I am not sure how to tease "genetic" and "cultural" components apart in such cases. No one is, that is why the field of studying human behavior is such a politicized mess.
Stay away from windows, shards of glass flying at high speeds are a big factor in indoor deaths from blasts. Many embassies have breathable curtains with weights on the bottom, to catch any glass while letting air pass through
Not just glass.
Some people in Hiroshima had to have surgery later in life to remove other people's teeth from their bodies.
Some people in Hiroshima had to have surgery later in life to remove other people's teeth from their bodies.
> Some people in Hiroshima had to have surgery later in life to remove other people's teeth from their bodies.
This is one of the scariest and ugliest thing I've ever read about Hiroshima.
This is one of the scariest and ugliest thing I've ever read about Hiroshima.
Same, and I thought that at 44, I have seen and read pretty much everything.
Where did you read this? It's something I haven't heard before
I have security foils in my windows, though more against thieves than against a nuclear blast. The glass should break, but either stay in the window, or fall out in one blob kept together by the foil.
This will likely lead to a worse situation, by creating one giant projectile travelling through the air
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eCd3qYCC6E
With the bomb curtain I mentioned, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKiig392a3I
There are bomb films similar to what you described, but they need to be added with a blast resistant window frame
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKjVbytYFHA
I presented these videos during a class discussing the effects of nuclear weapons and explosions
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eCd3qYCC6E
With the bomb curtain I mentioned, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKiig392a3I
There are bomb films similar to what you described, but they need to be added with a blast resistant window frame
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKjVbytYFHA
I presented these videos during a class discussing the effects of nuclear weapons and explosions
You should watch Threads (1984), the most messed up film ever made, produced in part by the BBC
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgT4Y30DkaA (trailer only)
It's about the lives of average people before, during and after a fictional nuclear attack in the UK.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgT4Y30DkaA (trailer only)
It's about the lives of average people before, during and after a fictional nuclear attack in the UK.
I watched it a year ago. The imagery sticks with you - you sigh a lot. It’s subtle and bleak with little to no “modern movie drama” (gasps, pop outs by bad guys, scares) other than a few run of the mill drawn out pregnancies. Watch it alone so you can digest it without the distractions of audible sighs (or crying) from people near you. I recommend it, much like On The Beach (the book or the movie).
I guess the retro aesthetic, the lack of CGI and an orchestral soundtrack, makes it check fewer "this is a movie" boxes in your brain, making it interesting to a modern audience in a way.
Came here to post this. It's a movie that really bothered me on a visceral level enough that it's stuck with me and consistently makes me pause every once in a while when I remember it.
That movie would have been terrifying with just firebombing alone, something that has/had happen all over the world. Nukes somehow surpass the hell on Earth that is conventional total war.
It's also impressive what they made on such a small budget, with something like ~$500k.
That movie would have been terrifying with just firebombing alone, something that has/had happen all over the world. Nukes somehow surpass the hell on Earth that is conventional total war.
It's also impressive what they made on such a small budget, with something like ~$500k.
It is the best nuclear non proliferation and arms control ad.
From what I remember, Threads was even broadcast in the Soviet Union – with a little disclaimer that Soviets never did (and never would!) strike first, so that that part of the movie was "western propaganda".
But the rest of the film is so apolitical, and so hauntingly well done, that even the "bad guys" in it liked it.
It's really a testament to the film's quality.
But the rest of the film is so apolitical, and so hauntingly well done, that even the "bad guys" in it liked it.
It's really a testament to the film's quality.
Seemed to me like the US and allies were equally painted as aggressors and "bad guys" in the movie. The protagonists were even negatively affected by the US using the UK as a launchpad for war before any bomb had dropped. Allied states actively suppressed anti-nuclear proliferation movements with violence in the movie, as well.
I think a point that they were trying to drive home is that there are no "good guys" or winners in a nuclear war, especially when it comes to those who perpetrate it on any side.
I think a point that they were trying to drive home is that there are no "good guys" or winners in a nuclear war, especially when it comes to those who perpetrate it on any side.
> You should watch Threads (1984), the most messed up film ever made, produced in part by the BBC
No you shouldn't - atleast not without thinking about it first. I still remember its dark, unremitting bleakness 38 years later - it really makes you think about whether its better for your family to die in the initial blast rather than 'survive'.
No you shouldn't - atleast not without thinking about it first. I still remember its dark, unremitting bleakness 38 years later - it really makes you think about whether its better for your family to die in the initial blast rather than 'survive'.
I just listened to Atomic Hobo's podcast about Threads, and as someone with a bit of a fascination with nuclear history, I sort of want to see it, but I can't quite decide if it's something I want to put myself through.
It gets incrementally harder to watch. You can decide what's a good stopping point for you.
I did view "Threads", years ago. It was disturbing, yes.
When I was in school, the teachers all put out an advisory about "The Day After (1983)". It was a big deal; many families were planning to watch it, and it wasn't on cable, it was on broadcast OTA TV, so it was highly accessible, even to children.
The school administration decided they needed to get in front of the controversy and put out a Christian message about hope and trust in God, when it seemed like the world was panicking over the Cold War and mainstream media was egging us on. Ever since then, I have appreciated their candor and willingness to tell us the truth about this world and the next.
We had fire drills at school; we knew about "duck and cover" but we didn't practice any air-raid drills that I can recall. However, when my mother took me shopping at the JC Penney across town, there was prominent signage for their old-fashioned Fallout Shelter in the basement. I was really intrigued by the bold yellow lettering and symbology, and I sometimes wonder what it was like down there, because we've never seen the inside of any bomb shelter whatsoever.
My dad worked around hazardous materials on a regular basis, as a safety professional, and he was on the science end of things, and spent time in the office as much as the lab. He often brought home tools like a Geiger counter, film badges, a radio pager, and I think there were other chemical sensors ("sniffers"?) Learning at his feet, I picked up a lot of geology, so I could recognize isotopes and chemical symbols and count in rems, etc.
Earthquakes were the primary hazard for us, and I suppose that any nuclear explosion would've had earthquake-like effects, among other things, to put it blandly.
When I was in school, the teachers all put out an advisory about "The Day After (1983)". It was a big deal; many families were planning to watch it, and it wasn't on cable, it was on broadcast OTA TV, so it was highly accessible, even to children.
The school administration decided they needed to get in front of the controversy and put out a Christian message about hope and trust in God, when it seemed like the world was panicking over the Cold War and mainstream media was egging us on. Ever since then, I have appreciated their candor and willingness to tell us the truth about this world and the next.
We had fire drills at school; we knew about "duck and cover" but we didn't practice any air-raid drills that I can recall. However, when my mother took me shopping at the JC Penney across town, there was prominent signage for their old-fashioned Fallout Shelter in the basement. I was really intrigued by the bold yellow lettering and symbology, and I sometimes wonder what it was like down there, because we've never seen the inside of any bomb shelter whatsoever.
My dad worked around hazardous materials on a regular basis, as a safety professional, and he was on the science end of things, and spent time in the office as much as the lab. He often brought home tools like a Geiger counter, film badges, a radio pager, and I think there were other chemical sensors ("sniffers"?) Learning at his feet, I picked up a lot of geology, so I could recognize isotopes and chemical symbols and count in rems, etc.
Earthquakes were the primary hazard for us, and I suppose that any nuclear explosion would've had earthquake-like effects, among other things, to put it blandly.
I would be curious to hear your 2 cents on what you think the chance of a nuclear war are, for any given year.
I would say perhaps 1%, which in a sense is very little, and really a lot.
Also, if you think 1% is way too high, consider that in 1983 a nuclear war was averted by the decision of a single individual [0]. I'm pretty sure the chance that year would have been more than 20%.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov
I would say perhaps 1%, which in a sense is very little, and really a lot.
Also, if you think 1% is way too high, consider that in 1983 a nuclear war was averted by the decision of a single individual [0]. I'm pretty sure the chance that year would have been more than 20%.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov
Full on nuclear war is pretty unlikely as it is really in no-ones interest to invite retaliation in kind. An isolated nuclear attack however is more likely than ever. This whole "will they or will they not?" business with Russia is getting pretty scary. And then there are Iran, North Korea, and a few other places where nuclear weapons are a factor and the economics are trending towards desperate. Not a good combination.
I would say the chance for that might be creeping up a little bit lately. Too many nuclear armed, trigger happy, and increasingly desperate despots around right now. Hard to put a number on it. But I'd say it's high enough to start thinking about counter measures, defensive strategies, and an appropriately violent and fierce response to disincentivize any further escalation. Doesn't have to be a full on nuclear war. But it can't just be a slap on the wrist either.
I would say the chance for that might be creeping up a little bit lately. Too many nuclear armed, trigger happy, and increasingly desperate despots around right now. Hard to put a number on it. But I'd say it's high enough to start thinking about counter measures, defensive strategies, and an appropriately violent and fierce response to disincentivize any further escalation. Doesn't have to be a full on nuclear war. But it can't just be a slap on the wrist either.
I don’t think that a religious person who accomplished so much would shy away from killing themselves and everyone else, they will even have some religious justification for it. There are also groups out there who advocate for forcing gods hand into starting the judgment day already.
The religious zealots are not the only risk, there are quite many nihilists out there who don’t believe or even care about their impact on the world.
The religious zealots are not the only risk, there are quite many nihilists out there who don’t believe or even care about their impact on the world.
I wonder if Adolf would have pressed the button in his bunker? He would certainly have teased it. But would even he invite the Apocalypse if he saw his beloved Reich coming to ruin?
Perhaps this is already forgotten history, but for all the talk about desperate despots the US is still actually the only country to have ever used nuclear bombs in combat, twice. On civilian cities mind you. And the circumstances were anything but desperate for them.
The US also refrained from using that weapon to further conquer the world though. I've read somewhere that the US generals were pumped to use that super weapon to further advance their military interests but the political class opposed it.
There are many sins of the US but overall I'm inlined to believe that the US is much more rational superpower that ultimately brings more good than bad because the US interests are in peaceful world that play on their rules. The relative world peace since the WW2 is known as PAX Americana and the moment it falters wannabe warlords start regional wars, causing big tragedies and any conflict happens wherever the US can't project it's force over the regional powers. The weaker the US the more wars happen.
You can argue that US rules are not fair and there is quite a lot of American exceptionalism but I'm not convinced that the proposed replacements are any better, thus the wars to change the system are wars fought in vein. IMHO, working with the US is much better any given day. The only risk is, the US itself changing into something bad or retreats voluntarily and leaving vacuum.
There are many sins of the US but overall I'm inlined to believe that the US is much more rational superpower that ultimately brings more good than bad because the US interests are in peaceful world that play on their rules. The relative world peace since the WW2 is known as PAX Americana and the moment it falters wannabe warlords start regional wars, causing big tragedies and any conflict happens wherever the US can't project it's force over the regional powers. The weaker the US the more wars happen.
You can argue that US rules are not fair and there is quite a lot of American exceptionalism but I'm not convinced that the proposed replacements are any better, thus the wars to change the system are wars fought in vein. IMHO, working with the US is much better any given day. The only risk is, the US itself changing into something bad or retreats voluntarily and leaving vacuum.
Imagine being lectured about the dangers of the concentration camps of other countries by … arrogant germans.
They are no german invention though, they just scaled them way up, compared to what has been done before, and elsewhere, by other players.
Of course it's not a german invention. But very few people know that the germans improved upon the British ones (say that publicly and you risk being labelled a conspiracy theorist). And on and on with the chain of history. I was just trying to make a point about hypocrisy, double standards etc.
> what you think the chance of a nuclear war are, for any given year.
Statistics is only useful if you actually have sufficient numbers. Otherwise you can just make any claim you want supported by any arbitrary model you can think of to support your preconceived idea - and let's face it, nobody will blindly create a model and then believe anything it says, instead they will tweak it until the result "sounds believable", no matter where they started.
Statistics is only useful if you actually have sufficient numbers. Otherwise you can just make any claim you want supported by any arbitrary model you can think of to support your preconceived idea - and let's face it, nobody will blindly create a model and then believe anything it says, instead they will tweak it until the result "sounds believable", no matter where they started.
A similar thing thing happened in 1962, during the Cuban missile crisis.[0]
The math is sobering. Even if we assume 'only' a 1% chance per year, that implies a 63% probability per century.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Arkhipov
The math is sobering. Even if we assume 'only' a 1% chance per year, that implies a 63% probability per century.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Arkhipov
1% per year is too high though. I’d estimate it’s closer to 1% per risk-year, e.g. Cuban Missile Crisis.
It's not so hard to believe we're living in a 50%- probability world though (assuming roughly 99% chance of no nuclear strikes for each year since 1945). Just the missile crisis and the Petrov incident alone had a decent chance of swinging the other way.
The question is if it could really be demonstrated we had barely 50% chance of making it through the next 70 odd years without some sort of self-inflicted civilization-ending event based on current human behaviour patterns, would it actually be enough to force us to change those patterns?
Yeah and survivorship bias extends here too. I think we could actually do the math to derive the maximum probability for a nuclear apocalypse within a given timeframe from the fact that we’re not in the middle of it.
> a 1% chance per year, that implies a 63% probability per century.
I'm not sure I'm following the math here?
I'm not sure I'm following the math here?
1 - (1 - 0.01)^100
Thanks, now I understand how they reached the number but not why it's so convoluted. I only took one stats course in college.
So it's
P(bomb exploding in a century) = 1 - P(bomb not exploding in a century) = 1 - (P(bomb not exploding in a year)) ^ 100 = 1 - (1 - P(bomb exploding in a year)) ^ 100
Why is it not something simpler, like P(bomb exploding in a year) ^ 100 ?
So it's
P(bomb exploding in a century) = 1 - P(bomb not exploding in a century) = 1 - (P(bomb not exploding in a year)) ^ 100 = 1 - (1 - P(bomb exploding in a year)) ^ 100
Why is it not something simpler, like P(bomb exploding in a year) ^ 100 ?
> Why is it not something simpler, like P(bomb exploding in a year) ^ 100 ?
That would be "bomb exploding EVERY year (= this year AND next year AND ...)".
What we actually want is "bomb exploding this year OR bomb exploding next year OR bomb exploding this year and next year OR bomb exploding in two years OR ...". But that's too complicated, so we use the trick with 1 - P(bomb not exploding in a century).
That would be "bomb exploding EVERY year (= this year AND next year AND ...)".
What we actually want is "bomb exploding this year OR bomb exploding next year OR bomb exploding this year and next year OR bomb exploding in two years OR ...". But that's too complicated, so we use the trick with 1 - P(bomb not exploding in a century).
That makes sense. Thanks for taking the time to clear up a stranger's confused mind! :)
Maybe cause nuclear weapons only existed for 70 years ...?
Who said otherwise?
Putting it in terms of "probability per century" is intended for forward-looking projection, not backwards.
Putting it in terms of "probability per century" is intended for forward-looking projection, not backwards.
Probable nuclear war also averted earlier, again by a single individual, in 1962.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Arkhipov
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Arkhipov
During the Cuban missile crisis, Kennedy himself estimated the risk of nuclear war as 1/3 to 1/2
None of that sounds pleasant or survivable. Air pressure is hard to grok, and a 5 PSI shockwave doesn't sound like alot until you realize how many square inches your shadow has.
Yeah, from a rough calculation, 5 psi would be 4500 lbs (2000 kg) of force across the average human standing up.
Essentially it's like someone dropping a car on you for several seconds.
Not dropping, placing.
Everything I learned from surviving a nuclear impact I learned from Indiana Jones 4: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jn4Vhkmb4Lw
I live in a highrise apartment building close to the center of a major city. It has an parking garage below the building which stretches many floors underground. During the several minutes it takes to get my car from the 6th floor underground out to the street, I've thought numerous times about how survivable a nuclear blast would be in a civilian structure that far underground, presuming of course that the upper floors didn't just collapse and bury me there forever.
Possibly pretty survivable in the short term as long as a nuclear warhead doesn't go off very close to where you are. Just because you're in a major city doesn't necessarily mean you're a high priority target. (In nuclear war, there are what is called a "counter-force" strategy where you target military bases, and a "counter-value" strategy where you target things with the highest value to the defender like cities.)
In the short-to-medium term the issue becomes: can you stay underground for the next week or so until the sky stops emitting gamma rays? Cement and dirt are both good barriers, but you'll need food and water eventually.
I'd also wonder if the air might become unbreathably bad or too hot due to everything burning.
In the short-to-medium term the issue becomes: can you stay underground for the next week or so until the sky stops emitting gamma rays? Cement and dirt are both good barriers, but you'll need food and water eventually.
I'd also wonder if the air might become unbreathably bad or too hot due to everything burning.
> Possibly pretty survivable in the short term as long as a nuclear warhead doesn't go off very close to where you are. Just because you're in a major city doesn't necessarily mean you're a high priority target. (In nuclear war, there are what is called a "counter-force" strategy where you target military bases, and a "counter-value" strategy where you target things with the highest value to the defender like cities.)
Though counter-force requires so many warheads, that if you're doing that it wouldn't be hard to do counter-value as well. I read somewhere that a single sub's worth of warheads is enough to implement a credible counter-value strategy.
Though counter-force requires so many warheads, that if you're doing that it wouldn't be hard to do counter-value as well. I read somewhere that a single sub's worth of warheads is enough to implement a credible counter-value strategy.
Yeah, it depends on what your objective is really. Killing a lot of people is easy with nuclear weapons, but it doesn't necessarily equate to "winning". The impression I get as a non-expert in this area is that the only countries with a big enough arsenal to plausibly do counter-force are the U.S. (along with its NATO allies) and Russia. China doesn't have enough for counter-force so we assume their strategy is counter-value and it's mostly there as a deterrent because they'd expect to get obliterated as well.
It seems kind of weird to expect Russia to conduct a nuclear war in a manner that's relatively humane, but I suppose there's also the possibility that in a nuclear confrontation with the U.S. they wouldn't want their own cities to get nuked either so maybe there's a sort of "let's not be the first to do counter-value" dynamic at play.
Really, there's no way to know what's going to happen until it happens, and we can hope it never does. Best case for survivability in a nuclear war is probably just: don't live near a military base or near anything important. Most rural land is relatively safe, since there just aren't enough nukes in the world to evenly blanket a large country.
Nuclear winter though might kind of doom everyone through food shortages if there's a full counter-value exchange, even if the cities are spared.
It seems kind of weird to expect Russia to conduct a nuclear war in a manner that's relatively humane, but I suppose there's also the possibility that in a nuclear confrontation with the U.S. they wouldn't want their own cities to get nuked either so maybe there's a sort of "let's not be the first to do counter-value" dynamic at play.
Really, there's no way to know what's going to happen until it happens, and we can hope it never does. Best case for survivability in a nuclear war is probably just: don't live near a military base or near anything important. Most rural land is relatively safe, since there just aren't enough nukes in the world to evenly blanket a large country.
Nuclear winter though might kind of doom everyone through food shortages if there's a full counter-value exchange, even if the cities are spared.
> ...but I suppose there's also the possibility that in a nuclear confrontation with the U.S. they wouldn't want their own cities to get nuked either so maybe there's a sort of "let's not be the first to do counter-value" dynamic at play.
I'm not sure if that's valid reasoning because 1) nuclear targeting decisions are some of the most closely-guarded secrets and 2) if you could be subject to a counter-force attack there's probably little opportunity to "wait and see" what your enemy attacks before you launch yourself.
Though I might be clouded by thinking in terms of the classic missles-in-silos nuclear war. I suppose some subs might survive (but I'm sure a component of any nuclear war would be to try to sink those first), and they've got stuff like constantly flying mobile command posts. So maybe the subs have instructions to hold back a few missiles pending further orders from the last general sitting on that plane.
I'm not sure if that's valid reasoning because 1) nuclear targeting decisions are some of the most closely-guarded secrets and 2) if you could be subject to a counter-force attack there's probably little opportunity to "wait and see" what your enemy attacks before you launch yourself.
Though I might be clouded by thinking in terms of the classic missles-in-silos nuclear war. I suppose some subs might survive (but I'm sure a component of any nuclear war would be to try to sink those first), and they've got stuff like constantly flying mobile command posts. So maybe the subs have instructions to hold back a few missiles pending further orders from the last general sitting on that plane.
Is it near a river? What about ground water level? Sometimes that has to be actively pumped out/up. Also large water mains may fracture, and soak it.
Blub
Edit: This can be seen often during the early stages of larger building construction, when they 'dig out' the hole for the basement, and optionally parking spaces below that, like in your case. There are large pumps, always working, 24/7 pumping it elsewhere. Those don't vanish. They are just being replaced by permanent installations integrated into the building, or near to it.
Similar things apply to many subway tunnels. Not always. Depends on the location of course.
Blub
Edit: This can be seen often during the early stages of larger building construction, when they 'dig out' the hole for the basement, and optionally parking spaces below that, like in your case. There are large pumps, always working, 24/7 pumping it elsewhere. Those don't vanish. They are just being replaced by permanent installations integrated into the building, or near to it.
Similar things apply to many subway tunnels. Not always. Depends on the location of course.
The FEA images seem to show that the best place is to huddle right below or beside the window/door, and the blast will largely pass you by.
Considering it is a shock wave, best to be sure to open your mouth slightly and not hold your breath, so as to not trap pressure differentials
This is a good thing to publish, because most people seem to casually think nuke=dead, period. But the fact it that the simple geometry means that the areas of medium and lower damage are more than 10X the area of extreme damage, so any random location is much more likely to see effects that are survivable depending on your actions.
Lets hope it never comes to that
Considering it is a shock wave, best to be sure to open your mouth slightly and not hold your breath, so as to not trap pressure differentials
This is a good thing to publish, because most people seem to casually think nuke=dead, period. But the fact it that the simple geometry means that the areas of medium and lower damage are more than 10X the area of extreme damage, so any random location is much more likely to see effects that are survivable depending on your actions.
Lets hope it never comes to that
Contrary to what the RAND corporation would have had us believe, there are significant steps that can be taken to improve survival odds. Oak Ridge published a nice handbook[1]. I strongly recommend getting a hard copy, because duh.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_War_Survival_Skills
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_War_Survival_Skills
This is all conditioned on a concrete building. Forget about it in a typical North American stick construction.
I am not at all reassured by the suggestion that hiding to one side of a door will help.
I don't understand the details of the simulation, but I would have guessed incoming pressure waves would bounce off back walls and create a turbulent mess of forces in the areas hidden from the initial pulse.
Also ignored was the solidity of the walls. Concrete might survive, brick could possibly survive. But a partition wall with a couple of sheets of thin plasterboard nailed to weak wooden supports would be unlikely to offer much protection.
I don't understand the details of the simulation, but I would have guessed incoming pressure waves would bounce off back walls and create a turbulent mess of forces in the areas hidden from the initial pulse.
Also ignored was the solidity of the walls. Concrete might survive, brick could possibly survive. But a partition wall with a couple of sheets of thin plasterboard nailed to weak wooden supports would be unlikely to offer much protection.
Solidity of the walls is definitely an issue.
But if the walls are sufficiently solid (they were talking about concrete buildings), the velocities were orders of magnitudes lower just to the sides of the doors and windows, so hugging the adjacent wall or just under the window will keep you from being picked up and flung downwind, as well as having the shrapnel flying past you and not into you. Big difference.
I saw one post from a medic in the Ukraine war. He said 80%+ of the injuries he treated were because people didn't get flat on the ground fast enough. He then demonstrated how to do it correctly. Most people, when trying to get on the ground will first kneel, then lie down. He demonstrated how to do it in one motion, either straight like an inverse push-up or burpee exercise, or with a twist. Flat in <1sec instead of ~2-3 seconds makes the difference between "whew" and metal embdded in your body. Same can be true here.
That's also why I mentioned opening your mouth, since the shockwaves bouncing around can damage tissues if air can't escape, but if it can, it just goes by.
Nothing is a guarantee, but taking measures increased your odds a lot, which was the point of the study.
May we never need it.
But if the walls are sufficiently solid (they were talking about concrete buildings), the velocities were orders of magnitudes lower just to the sides of the doors and windows, so hugging the adjacent wall or just under the window will keep you from being picked up and flung downwind, as well as having the shrapnel flying past you and not into you. Big difference.
I saw one post from a medic in the Ukraine war. He said 80%+ of the injuries he treated were because people didn't get flat on the ground fast enough. He then demonstrated how to do it correctly. Most people, when trying to get on the ground will first kneel, then lie down. He demonstrated how to do it in one motion, either straight like an inverse push-up or burpee exercise, or with a twist. Flat in <1sec instead of ~2-3 seconds makes the difference between "whew" and metal embdded in your body. Same can be true here.
That's also why I mentioned opening your mouth, since the shockwaves bouncing around can damage tissues if air can't escape, but if it can, it just goes by.
Nothing is a guarantee, but taking measures increased your odds a lot, which was the point of the study.
May we never need it.
> Flat in <1sec instead of ~2-3 seconds makes the difference between "whew" and metal embdded in your body. Same can be true here.
If you have less than 2 seconds of warning of a nuclear blast while within ~5psi shockwave distance then your warning is probably a very bright light from your window. I'd hope for several minutes of warning via public alerting.
If you have less than 2 seconds of warning of a nuclear blast while within ~5psi shockwave distance then your warning is probably a very bright light from your window. I'd hope for several minutes of warning via public alerting.
This goes also for conventional charges and things like the Tunguska event. Since the shockwave -- by equality -- comes simultaneously with the sound, the light will be your advance warning.
Unfortunately most people's reaction to a sudden bright light is to go stand by the window to see what it is. This gets you killed at distances that would otherwise be survivable with good probability.
Unfortunately most people's reaction to a sudden bright light is to go stand by the window to see what it is. This gets you killed at distances that would otherwise be survivable with good probability.
I mean, depending on the scale of the conflict and explosion, nuke generally does equal dead. The variable is just how proximate to the explosion your death is going to be.
Stores of food, water, fuel, and the means to defend oneself can also increase odds and duration of survival.
Food scarcity will place survivors into an unpleasant dog eat dog world. Zombie and disaster films are probably not far off in their portrayals of these apocalyptic survival scenarios.
All of the niceties of modern civilization - friendly and neighborly coexistence - will likely be replaced with the desperate animal need to eat and survive. And without a central governing authority, or aid or help of any kind, the new social order will be brutal and unforgiving.
I hope this never comes to pass.
Food scarcity will place survivors into an unpleasant dog eat dog world. Zombie and disaster films are probably not far off in their portrayals of these apocalyptic survival scenarios.
All of the niceties of modern civilization - friendly and neighborly coexistence - will likely be replaced with the desperate animal need to eat and survive. And without a central governing authority, or aid or help of any kind, the new social order will be brutal and unforgiving.
I hope this never comes to pass.
The people who are going to die in the aftermath are going to be those who don't have any plan to play nice with others. The only practical survival strategy since the dawn of the human species has been the rapid establishment of as large a tribe as possible.
Which is to say: the guy who decides to sit in place on a pile of resources is already dead, it's just a matter of when: if you're not establishing relations and trade, then you're just delaying the inevitable.
Which is to say: the guy who decides to sit in place on a pile of resources is already dead, it's just a matter of when: if you're not establishing relations and trade, then you're just delaying the inevitable.
I think this is an underappreciated viewpoint. Survivalists simply look like well guarded stores for everyone else, and sooner or later there's something missing which demands barter or cooperation with those outside the fence. It's like settling for the lowest achievable short term peak for a small team rather than boosting the entire surface to a lower maximum of wider reach, or some gradient to a higher peak closer to normality.
I won't be storming the bunkers, I'll be asking scientists at the university campus what support role lets them get on with highly productive labour, or helping at a hospital or sewage farm.
Looking at postwar recovery in Germany, food for labour cleared the bombed streets (mainly women too) and we'll see a lot of that, followed by more complex labour. Hunkering behind a wall with ammo and batteries won't get there. They're going to have to come to an accommodation with society at large and assuming guns equals boss is silly. Boss of what? A slave culture? The city state next door looks better and better.
I won't be storming the bunkers, I'll be asking scientists at the university campus what support role lets them get on with highly productive labour, or helping at a hospital or sewage farm.
Looking at postwar recovery in Germany, food for labour cleared the bombed streets (mainly women too) and we'll see a lot of that, followed by more complex labour. Hunkering behind a wall with ammo and batteries won't get there. They're going to have to come to an accommodation with society at large and assuming guns equals boss is silly. Boss of what? A slave culture? The city state next door looks better and better.
Yup, I read an account of a man who survived for a couple of years in the hellscape of Sarajevo during the war. He had a lot of detail, but the big points were that you needed a group. "A lone wolf is a dead wolf", he said. The key to survival was your group, being able to pool resources, watch each other's back, go out in groups, negotiate, etc.
(Sorry I've not got a link right now.)
(Sorry I've not got a link right now.)
The key point in context being negotiate. Drama on TV goes to confrontation for an asymmetric outcome ("winning") when real live goes to BATNA and "win-win" more often. (I am hopelessly naieve!)
[deleted]
> All of the niceties of modern civilization - friendly and neighborly coexistence - will likely be replaced with the desperate animal need to eat and survive. And without a central governing authority, or aid or help of any kind, the new social order will be brutal and unforgiving.
I understand that's a bit of a modern ideological fiction. Social cooperation has a big survival advantage, and in difficult or precarious situations people often land on a strategy of being very generous and helpful to secure social capital to get assistance when they need it.
So our big society filled with lots of anonymous individuals obsessing over rights granted by a sophisticated state would probably give way to smaller societies controlled by interpersonal relationships with people obsessing over reputation.
I understand that's a bit of a modern ideological fiction. Social cooperation has a big survival advantage, and in difficult or precarious situations people often land on a strategy of being very generous and helpful to secure social capital to get assistance when they need it.
So our big society filled with lots of anonymous individuals obsessing over rights granted by a sophisticated state would probably give way to smaller societies controlled by interpersonal relationships with people obsessing over reputation.
There's a sweet spot where you have a few moments to reflect on the shockwave that is heading your way after you see the bright flash of the explosion (and are probably blinded by that). Far enough away that you can still dive into a corner for protection and survival. Anywhere too close and it won't matter what you do. But there's an appreciable range where the shock wave is going to do significant but potentially survivable damage and where you might have a couple of seconds to do something.
I think the way things are going nuclear war is likely, and the worse part is may be not fully intentional.
I think nuclear war is survivable if you are in a good location and already prepped to survive 2+ years on your preps and have the means to grow all your own food and are in a solid community that doesn't go bonkers after shtf.
But that's not the vast majority of us, so it would be quite the shit show. If you aren't prepped, I don't know why someone would want to survive the attack.
I think nuclear war is survivable if you are in a good location and already prepped to survive 2+ years on your preps and have the means to grow all your own food and are in a solid community that doesn't go bonkers after shtf.
But that's not the vast majority of us, so it would be quite the shit show. If you aren't prepped, I don't know why someone would want to survive the attack.
> I think nuclear war is survivable if you are in a good location and already prepped to survive 2+ years on your preps and have the means to grow all your own food and are in a solid community that doesn't go bonkers after shtf.
If that's the criteria, it's survivable by practically no one. I mean, there won't be any "solid communities" left if you need 2+ years of stored food to survive, since practically no one has that.
If that's the criteria, it's survivable by practically no one. I mean, there won't be any "solid communities" left if you need 2+ years of stored food to survive, since practically no one has that.
Some places far from the northern countries taking part in that war will probably be survivable: think South Africa or Argentina and maybe Australia/NZ.
> Some places far from the northern countries taking part in that war will probably be survivable: think South Africa or Argentina and maybe Australia/NZ.
Yeah, but the OP seemed to be talking about targeted countries. I just think he was setting his minimum "prepping" in a contradictory way that spelled doom.
Also, those southern countries may be severely affected, since the big northern countries are also big (staple) food exporters.
Yeah, but the OP seemed to be talking about targeted countries. I just think he was setting his minimum "prepping" in a contradictory way that spelled doom.
Also, those southern countries may be severely affected, since the big northern countries are also big (staple) food exporters.
So what's your plan -- do you live somewhere that's unlikely to get a direct hit and do you have the food and gear ready?
Obligatory link to the very thorough free book, Nuclear War Survival Skills: https://ia800501.us.archive.org/35/items/NuclearWarSurvivalS... , originally published by Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
I am modestly underwhelmed by the scope here. They basically picked one symmetrical floor plan to simulate, sent a blast wave straight at it, and noted that in some areas, the forces involved could still fling people against walls hard enough to kill them. Okay, sure, ouch, but what about other floor plans? Could you simulate them at lesser fidelities? I feel like a few different real world house layouts with the blast from a few different angles would paint a more coherent picture. Maybe that’s a follow up paper?
How about practical commercial applications of this research, like a Sims 4 Expansion Pack?
The Sims 4: Compression and then sudden fiery expansion pack.
User Annihilated Content!
SimCity always had a "Disasters" menu...
Will Wright's Design Plunder (With Slides) -- 15:00: Failure States
https://youtu.be/c91IWh4agzU?t=900
"Really, failure can be quit fun, if you make it interesting." -Will Wright
"So I kind of at some point started calling this the Calvin Factor. The very first versions of SimCity I made had no disasters. All there was was the bulldozer. And I couldn't help but notice how invariably everybody would eventually discover the bulldozer, and then go attack the city with it. And they'd be laughing maniacally while they're attacking the city with this bulldozer. And so then I started thinking, well, maybe I should start feeding this, you know, get it out of their system, so that's when we adding the disasters to SimCity." -Will Wright
SimCity always had a "Disasters" menu...
Will Wright's Design Plunder (With Slides) -- 15:00: Failure States
https://youtu.be/c91IWh4agzU?t=900
"Really, failure can be quit fun, if you make it interesting." -Will Wright
"So I kind of at some point started calling this the Calvin Factor. The very first versions of SimCity I made had no disasters. All there was was the bulldozer. And I couldn't help but notice how invariably everybody would eventually discover the bulldozer, and then go attack the city with it. And they'd be laughing maniacally while they're attacking the city with this bulldozer. And so then I started thinking, well, maybe I should start feeding this, you know, get it out of their system, so that's when we adding the disasters to SimCity." -Will Wright
The results exist in bloodied form for the effects of high pressure high explosive blast waves from the air and subsurface bombs of WWI and WWII.
Straight trenches kill people - zig zag trenches with sharp turns save lives.
Straight trenches kill people - zig zag trenches with sharp turns save lives.
I believe that's still being done right now in Ukraine. (Not necessarily to protect from shock waves so much as it's to protect against an adversary being able to attack the trench from an optimal angle where it provides no defense.)
Zig zags are to prevent enfilading fire (clear field of fire down the length of the trench such that rounds have the opportunity to strike multiple targets). That might have been what you were getting at though.
Saving lives in context of war sounds so silly. If the point was to save lives then honest action would be to evacuate everyone from the frontline.
The point of war is to kill soldiers. Just ours hopefully a bit slower than enemy's.
The point of war is to kill soldiers. Just ours hopefully a bit slower than enemy's.
So, would you evacuate everyone when facing an enemy attack? Would you have any room to evacuate your people to if you never try to fight back? (Hint: pacifism works only if you have very strong non-pacifist allies.)
And if you need to resist an invasion, you want to save lives of your fighting forces as much as possible, even if you sadly can't save everyone.
Look at the center of Europe right now. How to dig good trenches is not theoretical knowledge.
And if you need to resist an invasion, you want to save lives of your fighting forces as much as possible, even if you sadly can't save everyone.
Look at the center of Europe right now. How to dig good trenches is not theoretical knowledge.
I get all that but it still sounds bad to me. Like saying I'm saving you 3 hits on the face by hitting you 7 times instead of 10.
I won't be thanking you for saving my life through digging a trench correctly if you put me in it.
I won't be thanking you for saving my life through digging a trench correctly if you put me in it.
> The point of war is to kill soldiers.
Not really. The point is to impose your will on the enemy, so to persuade him to give up. Killing soldiers is a means to an end.
Not really. The point is to impose your will on the enemy, so to persuade him to give up. Killing soldiers is a means to an end.
Means is the essence of a thing.
Ends can be fake, aspirational, but means are what they are.
Ends can be fake, aspirational, but means are what they are.
cf https://www.babs.admin.ch/en/aufgabenbabs/schutzbauten.html
(note that shelters-for-all could only be a viable strategy for countries that do not have first strike capabilities)
(note that shelters-for-all could only be a viable strategy for countries that do not have first strike capabilities)
So, would it be better to be outside? Thermal radiation may be a problem though.
Deoends on how far you are from the blast. You have to consider the heat wave, the secondary blast wave and the radiation afterwards.
Dumb question: would wearing a seatbelt help? (assuming the chair is fixed)
A seatbelt is designed to help when the chair is yanked back.
But likely anything that prevents you from gaining velocity before hitting a wall should help, as long as it's not holding you so tight that you'd be ripped apart by an incoming wave.
But likely anything that prevents you from gaining velocity before hitting a wall should help, as long as it's not holding you so tight that you'd be ripped apart by an incoming wave.
Another great argument against open plan offices.
I don’t know, I’d want to look at my manager and say ‘you arrogant ass! you’ve killed us’
I guess a submarine is kind of an open-plan office....
I would have liked to have seen Montana.
You Maniacs! You blew it up! Ah, damn you! God damn you all to hell!
Comment of the year, so far
[deleted]
nntwozz(1)
My sincere hope for my family and I in a mid-grade to all-out nuclear exchange is that we perish immediately. This would spare us exposure to subsequent famine and the loss of things like acetaminophen and central heating, not to mention civil society.
I do not subscribe to nuclear winter scare-theory. My greater concern is that the petrochemical supply and complex chemical chain will be largely destroyed in any kind of a material nuclear exchange. Without fossil fuel subsidies for agriculture mass starvation is certain.