New Advice On How to Survive Nuclear Attack(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
New Advice On How to Survive Nuclear Attack
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/16/science/16terror.html?hp
30 comments
The bombs are also much more likely to be ground detonated, which changes the equation a bit. Particularly it means a much reduced blast radius, but a higher amount of fallout. That's where this advice comes from. The government is trying to save lives by reducing as much exposure to fallout as they possibly can. In this case, retreating to your basement is definitely a good idea.
The trouble with all advice like this is that it all really depends on conditions on the ground and where you are.
If you are upwind of the blast, and a reasonable distance away, it might make sense to make a run for areas not effected by the blast and out of the immediate fallout pattern. Especially if there is an effort to rescue and remove survivors from the area underway. During an actual nuclear war there is unlikely to be any organized efforts by the surviving government, but after a terrorist attack, there will almost certainly be. And hopefully they will be broadcasting on emergency frequencies, hence the wind up radio.
If you are in the fallout area, unless you are in a well stocked fallout shelter, you are probably screwed. Rescue efforts are likely to be minimal for weeks. Food and water will be a problem. Not to mention people who've been wandering around in the fallout wanting to share your hidy hole. It could be pretty grim.
If you are upwind of the blast, and a reasonable distance away, it might make sense to make a run for areas not effected by the blast and out of the immediate fallout pattern. Especially if there is an effort to rescue and remove survivors from the area underway. During an actual nuclear war there is unlikely to be any organized efforts by the surviving government, but after a terrorist attack, there will almost certainly be. And hopefully they will be broadcasting on emergency frequencies, hence the wind up radio.
If you are in the fallout area, unless you are in a well stocked fallout shelter, you are probably screwed. Rescue efforts are likely to be minimal for weeks. Food and water will be a problem. Not to mention people who've been wandering around in the fallout wanting to share your hidy hole. It could be pretty grim.
From the practical point of view:
wouldn't it be the easiest to make a TV entertainment series that would play in a nuclear apocalyptic scenario and include 60-ish style warnings of what to do when you see a mushroom?
Maybe something fallout style? This would not make anyone panic, as it's entertainment, but the message would go into subconsciousness to most.
wouldn't it be the easiest to make a TV entertainment series that would play in a nuclear apocalyptic scenario and include 60-ish style warnings of what to do when you see a mushroom?
Maybe something fallout style? This would not make anyone panic, as it's entertainment, but the message would go into subconsciousness to most.
> include 60-ish style warnings of what to do when you see a mushroom?
Before the mushroom too. Like when the tide goes out before a tsunami.
I remember watching the 'Day After' a long time ago and in one scene is everyone on a highway - and all of their cars suddenly die/stall. I assume this is EMP blast related?
Before the mushroom too. Like when the tide goes out before a tsunami.
I remember watching the 'Day After' a long time ago and in one scene is everyone on a highway - and all of their cars suddenly die/stall. I assume this is EMP blast related?
It was EMP related. IIRC, it was explained previously in the film and I believe that there was some special effect to suggest an explosion had taken place in the stratosphere.
By the way, Jason Robard's character did one educational thing: bending (I hope that's the right word) as much as he can behind the dashboard.
Also the movie featured prominently a white noodle-like dust rain that had that charming effect of making people bald.
There was another film with William Hart (can anybody remember the title?) about a post-apocalyptic world where most electronics are fried due to EMP.
By the way, Jason Robard's character did one educational thing: bending (I hope that's the right word) as much as he can behind the dashboard.
Also the movie featured prominently a white noodle-like dust rain that had that charming effect of making people bald.
There was another film with William Hart (can anybody remember the title?) about a post-apocalyptic world where most electronics are fried due to EMP.
Read the article, do some blast physics Googling (especially for kinetic and EMP cones). If you are in EMP range (which applies to H-Bombs and N-Bombs mostly, the later you're very unlikely to see in a terrorist attack, just too damn difficult to build), then you are probably screwed anyway.
In the case you survive that, don't leave the car.. and pray!
In the case you survive that, don't leave the car.. and pray!
Jericho was a fantastic TV series about this very thing. It only lasted a season and a half, however.
It wasn't completely realistic, but most of the shows were about things the survivors had to do afterward to deal with contamination, breakdown of government, etc.
It wasn't completely realistic, but most of the shows were about things the survivors had to do afterward to deal with contamination, breakdown of government, etc.
From the BBC:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threads
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_Game
Threads is probably the bleakest thing ever shown on TV - all the more so when you realize that the attack on the UK used as the basis for the program was actually fairly optimistic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_Leg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threads
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_Game
Threads is probably the bleakest thing ever shown on TV - all the more so when you realize that the attack on the UK used as the basis for the program was actually fairly optimistic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_Leg
Apparently the first step is logging on to the NY Times. I didn't get any further than that.
This link might work:
http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct2=us%2F0_0_s_0_0_...
http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct2=us%2F0_0_s_0_0_...
Delete and disable cookies for nytimes.com
You know that's not the point. If the NY Times wants me to read their articles they should not make it difficult.
In general, I agree with you. However, the NY Times is not just some random site on the Internet. It's one of the best sources for actual, meaningful content. So I make an exception for them, and have for more than ten years now.
back in the 1960s, USDA drew up several sets of plans for ag facilities, and homes, that contain fallout shelters. LSUAgCenter has a few of them still posted...
Three Bedroom House with Emergency Shelter http://www.lsuagcenter.com/en/our_offices/departments/Biolog...
Bunker-type Fallout Shelter (for beef cattle) http://www.lsuagcenter.com/en/our_offices/departments/Biolog...
Stall Barn & Fallout Shelter http://www.lsuagcenter.com/en/our_offices/departments/Biolog...
Fallout Shelter, Dairy Barn & Family Center http://www.lsuagcenter.com/en/our_offices/departments/Biolog...
Three Bedroom House with Emergency Shelter http://www.lsuagcenter.com/en/our_offices/departments/Biolog...
Bunker-type Fallout Shelter (for beef cattle) http://www.lsuagcenter.com/en/our_offices/departments/Biolog...
Stall Barn & Fallout Shelter http://www.lsuagcenter.com/en/our_offices/departments/Biolog...
Fallout Shelter, Dairy Barn & Family Center http://www.lsuagcenter.com/en/our_offices/departments/Biolog...
Finally. Some sense has been added to radiation attacks. Getting inside a building or making sure there is any sort of barrier between you and ionizing radiation is the best thing you can do.
Children of the Dust is a great book about what happens after a Nuclear attack - conclusion - best thing is to die.
Wow, it takes me back to when I was in elementary school and we practiced going to the fallout shelters in the basement ...
I can't get to the article, asks me to login!
It's totally retarded that people post links here to closed off nytimes articles. There should be some sort of policy to prevent such links.
Anyway, you can get around the nytimes restrictions simply by googling for the article and clicking through. It must be based on referers. Eg, go here and then click the top link:
https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&biw=1280&b...
Anyway, you can get around the nytimes restrictions simply by googling for the article and clicking through. It must be based on referers. Eg, go here and then click the top link:
https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&biw=1280&b...
The more survivable a nuclear war is perceived to be, the more likely nuclear war becomes.
True with rational actors. Massive nation states in the 20th century tended towards a certain degree of rationality by their ponderous nature. Cold war dogma will have to be updated in an era when you can not count on rationality from the actors possessing nuclear weapons, where small sets of individuals or potentially even individuals can control when and where they detonate.
Emphasizing the unsurvivability of a nuclear war encourages terrorists and marginal, rogue nation states and feeds into their ideation of "Once I have a nuke, they'll have to take me seriously!", a dynamic we can already see in the world. If you want to consider the effects of propaganda on world behavior (severed from the question of the truth of the propaganda), a good case can be made that now is the time to understate the dangers of nuclear weapons, that they are in the end just fairly large bombs, etc. Or perhaps just tell the truth, which is that they are dangerous and devastating, yes, but their effects have historically been overstated for the reasons discussed above.
Also, remember, part of what makes these nation states marginal is their lack of solid leadership and control. Iran right now thinks that a nuke is their meal ticket, but based on my reading of their own internal turmoil I would consider it a nontrivial possibility that if a nuke does show up there very significant internecine conflicts would begin and it's impossible to know who would actually end up with it; even if the current leadership retained control of the country the nuke may end up with somebody else. (Actually, the probability of the Iranian nuke actually ending up going off in Iran due to internal conflicts I would consider nontrivial, though certainly low odds relatively speaking.)
Emphasizing the unsurvivability of a nuclear war encourages terrorists and marginal, rogue nation states and feeds into their ideation of "Once I have a nuke, they'll have to take me seriously!", a dynamic we can already see in the world. If you want to consider the effects of propaganda on world behavior (severed from the question of the truth of the propaganda), a good case can be made that now is the time to understate the dangers of nuclear weapons, that they are in the end just fairly large bombs, etc. Or perhaps just tell the truth, which is that they are dangerous and devastating, yes, but their effects have historically been overstated for the reasons discussed above.
Also, remember, part of what makes these nation states marginal is their lack of solid leadership and control. Iran right now thinks that a nuke is their meal ticket, but based on my reading of their own internal turmoil I would consider it a nontrivial possibility that if a nuke does show up there very significant internecine conflicts would begin and it's impossible to know who would actually end up with it; even if the current leadership retained control of the country the nuke may end up with somebody else. (Actually, the probability of the Iranian nuke actually ending up going off in Iran due to internal conflicts I would consider nontrivial, though certainly low odds relatively speaking.)
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were relatively tiny nuclear bombs. The results were absolute devastation of the sort that most nations rightly don't want to endure.
It isn't world-ending apocalyptic if North Korea launched its entire arsenal, but it would be incredibly devastating, which is exactly why the world treats it with such kid gloves. No one is overstating the concern regarding that, and a nuclear attack on Tokyo or, less likely, the West Coast of the US, would be horrifying.
Just to go back to Japan for a moment, note that in most world conflicts the decision to be aggressive or not is a very selfish one from the perspective of leadership: Leaders and peoples who feel that they and their family are impervious, or at least reasonably impervious, are far more likely to engage in and prolong conflict. To talk terrorism for a moment, as that has come up, NY city residents, as a general rule, tend to be against US oversea actions, whereas people in rural states -- where the risk of so-called "blowback" is dramatically reduced -- are far more emboldened.
The world faces incredible peril if the people with their finger on the button, so to speak, can do so with any comfort that they themselves will ultimately be okay.
It isn't world-ending apocalyptic if North Korea launched its entire arsenal, but it would be incredibly devastating, which is exactly why the world treats it with such kid gloves. No one is overstating the concern regarding that, and a nuclear attack on Tokyo or, less likely, the West Coast of the US, would be horrifying.
Just to go back to Japan for a moment, note that in most world conflicts the decision to be aggressive or not is a very selfish one from the perspective of leadership: Leaders and peoples who feel that they and their family are impervious, or at least reasonably impervious, are far more likely to engage in and prolong conflict. To talk terrorism for a moment, as that has come up, NY city residents, as a general rule, tend to be against US oversea actions, whereas people in rural states -- where the risk of so-called "blowback" is dramatically reduced -- are far more emboldened.
The world faces incredible peril if the people with their finger on the button, so to speak, can do so with any comfort that they themselves will ultimately be okay.
No, the world faces incredible peril because the people who will sooner or later have their finger on the button don't care whether they (or at least their physical bodies) are ultimately OK.
Mutually assured destruction is not a problem for terrorists or suicide bombers who feel that their own martyrdom would be of benefit to them.
Mutually assured destruction is not a problem for terrorists or suicide bombers who feel that their own martyrdom would be of benefit to them.
Terrorists aren't as inhuman and single-minded as you've been essentially brainwashed into thinking. They have the same motivations as most other human beings. In many cases the "harem of virgins" is a Western ruse, and really they are looking out for their family that often benefits from significant "bereavement" payments.
It's interesting how many Western movies include the heroes essentially committing suicidal acts. That's commendable. Terrorists...well they're just irrationally crazy!
Further, to carry out a terrorist plot the actors usually need substantial support by people who aren't as...committed (see: Osama himself). Syria, for instance, was often considered a major sponsor, or at least facilitator, of terror, but since the Afghanistan war they've been one of the most committed to making sure terrorism is stopped. There are a lot of such middlemen who have selfish reasons to ensure that terrorism does not occur.
I find the concept, though, that nuclear weapons are only sought because of some sort of incorrect illusion of their effectiveness to be simply shocking. Does anyone really believe that? Does anyone really believe that even at the most "pessimistic", a nuclear weapon would be at least a thousand times more effective than anything any terrorist could dream up?
It's interesting how many Western movies include the heroes essentially committing suicidal acts. That's commendable. Terrorists...well they're just irrationally crazy!
Further, to carry out a terrorist plot the actors usually need substantial support by people who aren't as...committed (see: Osama himself). Syria, for instance, was often considered a major sponsor, or at least facilitator, of terror, but since the Afghanistan war they've been one of the most committed to making sure terrorism is stopped. There are a lot of such middlemen who have selfish reasons to ensure that terrorism does not occur.
I find the concept, though, that nuclear weapons are only sought because of some sort of incorrect illusion of their effectiveness to be simply shocking. Does anyone really believe that? Does anyone really believe that even at the most "pessimistic", a nuclear weapon would be at least a thousand times more effective than anything any terrorist could dream up?
"Terrorists aren't as inhuman and single-minded as you've been essentially brainwashed into thinking. They have the same motivations as most other human beings."
As a whole, this is true of the leadership. This is virtually true by definition because being that inhuman and single-minded is incompatible with leadership and anybody who tries fails as a leader. Unfortunately, the way they lead is to fire very very potent memetic weaponry around with relatively wild abandon and they do unfortunately end up producing True Believers in quantity. We know this, because a suicide bomber almost by definition has to be a True Believer, and suicide bombers definitely exist. I would tend to agree that most terrorist leadership would rather use the nuke as a stick to beat people with rather than fire it but I am uncomfortable with the scenario in which one or more True Believers come to believe that their leadership are actually traitors and in their True Belief fire the weapon anyhow. Terrorists build their structures around some very toxic and volatile belief structures and we are justified in being very concerned about the combination of that and nuclear weaponry. Perhaps not "terrified" but certainly a matter of justifiable international concern. (I would reserve terrified for 5-15 years in the future when biological warfare becomes easy enough for them.)
It only takes one True Believer.
As a whole, this is true of the leadership. This is virtually true by definition because being that inhuman and single-minded is incompatible with leadership and anybody who tries fails as a leader. Unfortunately, the way they lead is to fire very very potent memetic weaponry around with relatively wild abandon and they do unfortunately end up producing True Believers in quantity. We know this, because a suicide bomber almost by definition has to be a True Believer, and suicide bombers definitely exist. I would tend to agree that most terrorist leadership would rather use the nuke as a stick to beat people with rather than fire it but I am uncomfortable with the scenario in which one or more True Believers come to believe that their leadership are actually traitors and in their True Belief fire the weapon anyhow. Terrorists build their structures around some very toxic and volatile belief structures and we are justified in being very concerned about the combination of that and nuclear weaponry. Perhaps not "terrified" but certainly a matter of justifiable international concern. (I would reserve terrified for 5-15 years in the future when biological warfare becomes easy enough for them.)
It only takes one True Believer.
You are right.You always have the puppets (the ones that are brainwashed and usually die in their own actions) and then the puppet masters , the ones that organize and send the other to die and they keep for themselves the talk and the ideology they usually don't follow. Well like all the politicians in the world they tell you to do things they usually don't. i have not seen many politician in the first line of nothing except parties and restaurants.
Now I grew up in the '60s, within 30 miles of a cluster of Titan missile silos, practically surrounded by them (one of them blew up in the '80s! What fun that was!) So I knew that I could duck and cover till the cows came down and it wouldn't do any good. Because I'd be incandescent gas.
However, in my grade school and teenage nightmares it was Russian HBombs that I was obsessing about. Terrorist bombs are likely to be much smaller, closer to the size of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs. Or smaller. So "assuming the position" is actually pretty good advice if you aren't killed instantly.
Staying put to avoid fallout is another issue. It depends on how close to the blast you are, and what the prevailing winds are doing. If I were in a good spot, say a building basement or the subway, I'd probably stick with it. In a car or a heavily damaged frame building, I dunno. The roads are likely to be impassable, so the best bet might be to head for a larger, building basement or other underground structure.
Assuming the current inhabitants are taking in stragglers...
The article is amazingly light on analysis and actual advice.
Well, another reason to keep those wind up radios around.