The Realities of Nuclear War
Posted by snuffy_bodacious@reddit | preppers | View on Reddit | 403 comments
The blast of a nuclear bomb probably isn't as bad as most people imagine it is in reality.
Thanks to Hollywood and a series of other influencers, when we think of nuclear war, we think of a bomb going off, killing millions of people in a wall of fire for dozens of miles. We think of large swaths of the planet being rendered uninhabitable for hundreds of years.
I mean, Russia once detonated the Tsar Bomba, a 50,000 kt bomb that was the largest in human history. The destructive capacity of the bomb was immense.
The reality is, this bomb is far too big to be delivered via missile. The entire program was far more of a propaganda piece than a practical weapon for war. Most nuclear warheads owned by America, China and Russia range between 100-500 kt, and even then, most of those are closer to 100 kt than 500 kt. Larger bombs do exist, but it is practical to only deliver them by bomber.
The effective "kill" radius of a 150 kt bomb that is delivered by missile and detonated at the ideal altitude of about 1 mile above ground level will have enough energy to destroy homes up to 2.25 miles away. The thermal blast will be much larger, but this won't harm people who are inside or behind an object that blocks infrared light.
While this is a huge area, it is probably nowhere near as big as most people imagine. If you live in the suburb of a major metro where, say, 5 warheads delivered by missile suddenly go off, your chances of not dying in a wall of fire are actually pretty good.
But what about fallout? Fallout becomes a much bigger problem for ground detonations where the bomb is capable of kicking up a lot of dirt. The problem with this situation is that a ground detonation greatly mitigates the effects of the blast. This type of situation would be more common from a terrorist attack as opposed to an all-out nuclear war.
Fallout is bad, but somewhat easy to deal with if you know what to do. If we are in a nuclear war, and if you are downwind of a fallout cloud, your best bet is to simply stay inside your home for 2-3 weeks. The structure of your home will protect you from most of the ionizing radiation emanating from the contamination, which itself will decay very rapidly in a short period of time.
Finally, it's worth noting that America's enemies probably don't have very many active missiles that can deliver a payload. On paper, Russia has \~5,600 warheads, but only very small fraction of those are viable. Maintaining missiles is shockingly expensive. In 2022, America spent $50 billion to maintain its smaller fleet of \~5,000 warheads. That same year, Russia spent $60 billion on their entire military, including their missiles. Meanwhile, as the Ukraine war has demonstrated, it is clear that large portions of the money allocated for the military was squandered in corruption. It genuinely wouldn't surprise me if Russia doesn't have more than a few dozen viable warheads. Likewise, China has recently been caught with their own scandal where military personnel were caught straight up stealing important components for the missile to work properly.
With all that in mind, does the threat of nuclear bother me? Absolutely. But even as someone who lives in a major American metro, am I worried about dying in a wall of fire? Not really.
I will say, however, that disruptions to supply chains pose a far greater threat to your well-being than anything else. The easiest thing you can do to prepare for this is pretty boring: purchase a camping-rated water filter and a 90-day food supply (\~100 lbs of dry food storage) for everyone living in your home.
Beautiful-Quality402@reddit
Russia and the US both have over 1,500 strategic nuclear weapons on standby for use against one another. It would only take a few hundred nuclear weapons to make a country collapse and cease to exist as a nation state. In a full nuclear exchange most of the survivors would still die from the ensuing collapse. Starvation, violence, disease, exposure, etc. would kill as many or more than the nuclear weapons themselves within several years. The survivors would envy the dead.
snuffy_bodacious@reddit (OP)
Yeah, I talked about this. Russia is almost certainly not spending the required resources to keep this maintained. They just don't have the money.
not_my_monkeys_@reddit
Until quite recently the US and Russia engaged in mutual inspections of each other’s nuclear arsenals and delivery mechanisms under the New START treaty. Their capabilities were verified to be real as of at least 2020.
Sure their military budget has been badly stretched by the war in Ukraine since then, but the assumption that the Russians have simply let their strategic strike capability rot away strikes me as wildly optimistic.
BigOrcaMan@reddit
Their military preparedness, structure, command and control and post-soviet doctrine has been stress tested but nowhere near badly stretched. They are churning out new military districts and units. Fully armed and trained.
Manic_Mini@reddit
Fully Armed and Trained?
They're drafting conscripts who are getting training that is measured in weeks and issuing weapons and vehicles that have been in storage since the Korean and Vietnam war.
Russia is a paper tiger.
minosi1@reddit
You have zero conceptual understanding of how a draft-based or a draft-supported whole-society military operates.
Every man in Russia or Ukraine goes through mandatory military training after completing their education, with some exceptions.
In this every single one of those "few weeks training" conscripts from 2022, or volunteers since went through half a year or more of training and half a year or so of service a few years before being mobilized. These folks are no less trained than the average US grunt sent out to AFG before any of those "few weeks" refreshers.
The same is the case for most Ukrainians in their 30s and older being mobilised.
Manic_Mini@reddit
Russia’s Use of Inexperienced Conscripts for Kursk Defense Raises Questions - The Moscow Time
minosi1@reddit
First, you completely miss the context. But that is no fault of their own, Western propaganda /Moscow times included/ casually mis-translates on purpose.
Those "inexperienced" "conscripts" are the mandatory service folks after their training is over. These commonly serve in the border troops for the other half of their 12-month service.
That these folks are inexperienced is also true - as is every single soldier who was not under enemy fire. The same as pretty much the whole of the professional German Military, for context.
Further, in the Russian context this is consequential still as under their law a mandatory service soldier is not to participate in less-than-war military operations. Which the "Special Military Operation" legally is not. I.e. their law instructs that such a unit should be withdrawn from combat as soon as possible. Irrespective if it was effective, trained, untrained etc.
Their military draft and the mandatory service is formally reserved for "big war" scenarios only. So operational use of such units is a scandal, but not for the reasons you imply.
BigOrcaMan@reddit
Fair enough. Then let’s forget about ceasefires. Ukraine should fight on. Matter of fact it should be able to do so on its own. One on one.
Manic_Mini@reddit
Or we can continue to supply Ukraine with our own military surplus that’s on the brink of expiration and watch this generations version of the fall of the Berlin Wall.
A weak and crippled Russia is a net positive for the rest of the world.
Beautiful-Quality402@reddit
This claim aside, no sane political leadership would ever take a chance that their opponent’s 1,700 nuclear missiles aren’t well maintained. Only a third of their arsenal could work and it still would be enough to turn the US into a charnel house.
Cremling_John@reddit
You overestimate the Russian government's desire to cut costs while bullshitting their population 💀
snuffy_bodacious@reddit (OP)
I agree.
Russia was supposed to be a near-peer adversary to the US, but they can't even take on a 3rd rate military power on their own border. They're obviously a paper tiger.
GotGRR@reddit
There is a non-zero chance that the current administration would respond to a first strike by invading Canada.
... and a 100% chance that Canada would prove more formidable than Afghanistan.
Quiet_Photograph4396@reddit
....this doesn't make any sense
snuffy_bodacious@reddit (OP)
I'm genuinely open to clarification, because I'm not sure what you mean by this?
Nobody in the West is interested in nuclear war. I don't see how America/NATO would strike Russia first.
With plenty of evidence at our disposal, I would argue that Russia is maintaining, at most, 1/10th of the stockpile they claim to have on paper.
Beyond that, it is important to keep in mind that if Russia gets into a nuclear war with America, they have to target our allies as well throughout NATO. Considering how Russia shares a land border with Europe, they might actually be more of a primary target than the United States.
Is Russia's fleet of nuclear missiles capable of doing enough damage to completely shatter global supply chains? Probably. (This is the real threat of nuclear war.)
Is Russia capable of launching enough missiles to kill most people living in American cities in a wall of fire? Not even close. Even for people living in cities, the real threat stems from starvation and disease. In this case, some food storage and a water filter will be key to surviving.
BigOrcaMan@reddit
Please cite that evidence. Last I checked there was plenty of evidence of Russia’s imminent collapse 2 years ago, there economy about to get turned into ashes, mass starvation, fighting over toilets seats and washing machine chips? This whole thread is extremely presumptive at a foundational level.
Beautiful-Quality402@reddit
Not immediately winning in Ukraine is a far cry from their nuclear arsenal being barely functional.
MmeLaRue@reddit
No, but it can be very telling about Russia's overall defense readiness.
Putin had every reason to believe that Russia had the equipment and troops to ensure a blitzkrieg on Ukraine and take the whole shebang in three days. What crossed the border were tanks that hadn't seen new paint since "Turn Up the Radio" hit the airwaves, and soldiers with no training except to obey orders blindly and enter the meat grinder. Here we are, over three years later, with a well-trained and -equipped Ukrainian army holding its own and gaining back territory from a Russian invasion. Nobody counted on the level of corruption in the Russian defense department.
It's possible that Russia's nuclear arsenal is getting as much funding as it can get away with, but even there, we can't be sure how much is slipping through the cracks or how much is left. There was a ten-year gap in our knowledge of the Soviet Union's/Russia's nuclear capabilities because Yeltsin might have himself given the oligarchs the keys to the kingdom. Moreover, its ability to maintain the efficacy of its weapons along with its numbers is now seriously up for debate. The jokes about Russian nukes being melted down and components sold off hither and yon have some basis in fact - we don't know how many of those things still exist or in deployable condition, or how much fissile material made it out of the silos during the Yeltsin years.
TL;DR = shit went down during the 1990s and early oughts that Putin was likely lied to about, so everyone's estimates could be wrong.
snuffy_bodacious@reddit (OP)
Russia is getting their butts kicked by a 3rd rate military power on their border.
But hey, if you want to believe Russia is a great military power, cool. This view is delusional, but cool.
funky-fridgerator@reddit
He did not claim that.
Ok_Psychology_504@reddit
Just the stock market selling everything and running for the shelters the second missiles are in the air would destroy the global economy and the supply chain even before the first flash.
WHALE_PHYSICIST@reddit
Yeah imagine even 1/100. our 17 largest cities suddenly crippled. That would be really bad news to put it simply.
SunsetApostate@reddit
They have more things to target than just cities. The top targets are air bases, submarine ports, the missile fields, and command-and-control centers. A few population centers are tier-1 targets because of this (DC, San Diego, Norfolk), but most US cities are tier-2 targets at best.
GloriousDawn@reddit
Don't forget civilian infrastructure targets like major ports, oil refineries, industrial hubs...
eboob1179@reddit
Russia isn't necessarily our only concern anymore. China has over 600 modern and properly maintained warheads.
snuffy_bodacious@reddit (OP)
China has been hit with their own scandal regarding the readiness of their warheads. It turns out we had officers syphoning of missile fuel and replacing it with water.
Bored_Acolyte_44@reddit
OP you are essentially betting on maintenance here. There are other factors, not the least of which is that we dump insane amounts of money into defense contractors to upkeep our arsenal in the west.
I do believe there is truth to what you say, but I also believe that our costs to maintain our own bit is massively inflated past actual costs.
I'm also skeptical of our own ability to maintain our own stockpiles despite that massive investment. There have been so many accidents and close calls over the decades. There is a ton of hubris in play, and people make mistakes. Contractors like Boeing have been cutting corners for decades at this point and are not what they used to be.,
sim-pit@reddit
Threads was a propaganda piece by the BBC (filled with and run by upper middle class left wing Guardian readers) to scare the shit out of the British population into not even thinking survival is possible.
It was largely effective as the UK essentially assumed that there was no point in spending resources to prepare for survival.
What threads captured accurately was the initial attack and immediate aftermath.
The rest of the movie is just pure fiction and speculation at best.
The Soviets certainly thought it was survivable, and made plans and prepared in order to survive.
Willie_Weejax@reddit
Ah yes, of course you need the gratuitous shot at the left, for your own reasons that have nothing to do with Threads, or this post
KodyBcool@reddit
I love The Road
Willie_Weejax@reddit
Both the novel and the film are masterpieces, and a huge prepper inspiration (at least for me).
bwinter999@reddit
No man. Those are fiction. If you're going to use historical analogs at least use the WWII aftermath. I do think the secondary effects are extremely deadly but there are plenty of real reports and evals to go off of. Please do not use fiction for real preps.
hope-luminescence@reddit
I think you're really reaching here. And fiction written to be as bleak as possible is not a good source of factual information.
It's one thing to have collapse of the government.
It's another thing to have enough decay that people start seriously starving (note that plenty of resources are too dispersed to be destroyed by bombing)
It's another thing for "most" of the survivors to die.
It's yet another thing to come up to the level of "survivors would envy the dead", which is not really a technical or realistic description but rather in the realm of anti-prepping polemic.
cshermyo@reddit
What’s threads?
Child_of_Khorne@reddit
That's two for every major city and military installation in the US. That assumes all are functional and that Russia has no other targets in NATO.
Two is not enough for the vast majority of those targets and still leaves more than half the US population untouched.
It would neuter the US government temporarily, not kill the entire population. That's not how this works.
Recipe-Jaded@reddit
This. Yeah, the initial blast isnt as bad as hollywood portrays, but the ensuing chaos and radiation will be a massive issue for everyone, prepared or not.
Effective_Parsnip976@reddit
Kurzgesagt has a very nice video on that matter.
Recipe-Jaded@reddit
I love that channel
SunsetApostate@reddit
The radiation drops off exponentially and is a non-issue a month after the bombs fall. The radiation will only truly be a killer for the people who are above-ground for the first few days after the war. Which admittedly, will be a large number of people, given the US’s piss-poor civil defense.
hope-luminescence@reddit
This seems somewhat questionable - why would collapse be guaranteed, especially when Nations that were not in the war will still be intact?
Life_Sir_1151@reddit
Threads rocks
ResolutionMaterial81@reddit
With all the talk of Russia, China is not to be underestimated. One of the more recent reports I read had China on-track to achieve full nuclear parity with the US or Russia by 2035, & on track to confront ANZUS by the end of this decade. Keep in mind their Nukes are newer, as is their weaponry.
10s of thousands of Chinese simply walked across the Southern Border in recent years. Curiously, many were unaccompanied, military-aged, fit males.
https://youtu.be/M7TNP2OTY2g
If only a fraction were trained CC/Military Infiltrators...the damage created immediately prior to & during a conflict would likely be catastrophic.
Push is likely coming to Shove over the Taiwan issue...possibly during this decade. The consequences are likely to be Global...possibly direct military conflict with the US & PacRim allies. Japan has drastically increased military spending playing catch-up, as have NATO partners.
https://www.defensenews.com/global/asia-pacific/2025/01/16/japans-passes-record-defense-budget-while-still-playing-catch-up/
BallsOutKrunked@reddit
nukemap is always fun: https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/
and nuclear war survival skills is a free book: https://ia802306.us.archive.org/19/items/NuclearWarSurvivalSkills_201405/nwss.pdf
snuffy_bodacious@reddit (OP)
Nukemap is one of my primary sources for information on this subject.
Throwawayconcern2023@reddit
Jfc one decent nuke and we're gone. We are 50 miles from a major city. Presumed we'd escape ha.
ftmikey_d@reddit
I feel ya. For me, it's also a bend-over and kiss my ass goodbye event. Sure as hell beats living in the fucking Midwest though. Lol. No shade to yall, just not my cup of tea. I'll cook and melt with the rest of my city, thank you. At least I won't get blown away by a damn tornado yearly.🤷♂️😂
dittybopper_05H@reddit
You would escape it. Presuming, of course, there isn't a closer target like a significant military base or something like that.
Go ahead and run Nukemap on your closest target, using a reasonable warhead (like, not Tsar Bomba at full power).
I mean, I'm about 30 miles as the crow flies from the state capitol and if it got hit with even a 5 megaton warhead, well, I'm sure I'd notice it, but according to Nukemap I'm 8 miles out from even the 1 psi light damage radius. So I'll notice it for sure, but it won't even break my office windows.
Now, depending on the attack profile, there may be an issue with EMP, which can cause problems. But while it will be bad, it would still be relatively survivable for people who have the knowledge about how to survive without modern technology, and who don't depend on modern technology for their survival (like people who need insulin, etc.).
Throwawayconcern2023@reddit
I trust my own thumb more. When the bomb falls, and the cloud appears, I'll know if I'm safe.
Drexx_Redblade@reddit
Pro tip: Cool guys don't look at explosions, and people who like having functioning eyes don't look at nuclear explosions.
olnlo@reddit
Fr and we should get an emergency alert like 20-30min before (hopefully) I'm not sticking above ground to look at the fucking cloud haha
Throwawayconcern2023@reddit
Heh heh. I take it you're not a Fallout fan?
https://youtu.be/ZJQuNX866RM?si=vx3gH_Pi1poswHXC
Drexx_Redblade@reddit
Actually I love Fallout, I just missed the reference.
dittybopper_05H@reddit
Follow the advice of Bert the Turle, and “duck, and cover…”.
dittybopper_05H@reddit
Nukemap is cool, but it has some very significant flaws.
Mainly, it doesn't take into account terrain. This could be done using elevation data that's freely available, but it would require more effort on Wellerstein's part to actually code it. Effects like thermal and ionizing radiation would be relatively simple to model: They are line of sight and it's relatively simple to account for them.
The blast effect is harder, as terrain can both dissipate and concentrate blast effects, but I think the effort would be worth it for a planning tool, which Nukemap most decidedly is not.
Secondly, it doesn't take into account buildings and walls and other shielding that can protect an individual from the thermal radiation (and to a lesser degree ionizing radiation). This is a much toughly nut to crack, but if you actually
follow Bert the Turtle's advice, you'll
snuffy_bodacious@reddit (OP)
This is a really good point and duly noted.
I would argue that when we account for terrain, it only mitigates the initial impact of a nuclear device - especially one that is detonated at ground level.
Tasty_Philosopher904@reddit
The first wave of explosions that happens at high altitude is just for the EMP effect throughout communications and command and control of the enemy country. So people would lose power and all communication. But if you watch the documentary Trinity and beyond and you wanted to attack an enemy City then you would definitely use tactics like precursor loading and detonate at altitudes less than a thousand feet create a giant blast wave of radioactive detritis. And while the tsar bomba is not realistic on a missile up Russian media is happy to talk about their Poseidon super giant nuclear torpedo that would effectively irradiate the entire Eastern seaboard.
Child_of_Khorne@reddit
EMPs are entirely speculation and Russian media relies on people having no idea how reality works.
snuffy_bodacious@reddit (OP)
The Russians like to talk. That's for sure.
WSBpeon69420@reddit
Even the EMP from an air burst that isn’t detonated at high altitude will have localized effects. If they do a very very high altitude with a very very big bomb the effects could be larger
Effective_Parsnip976@reddit
The ''fun'' part of Nukemap is how i can maximize the death count in my country (the Netherlands), by how and were to detonate the Tsar Bomba :).
xX420GanjaWarlordXx@reddit
I am genuinely saying this, not to be contrarian, but to know how many others are like me.
Nukes simply aren't one of the things I concern myself with prepping for.
I am far more concerned with climate change, economic collapse, and civil war than nukes.
Am I dumb for thinking this way?
olnlo@reddit
I think a lot of people who like to be prepared don't imagine or care to even try to survive nukes lol if there's a full scale world attack no thanks. Just a few that's a different story
Drexx_Redblade@reddit
Not dumb, but you may not be evaluating the risk factors correctly. Assuming you're in the US a true economic collapse isn't happening without something like an EMP or nuclear exchange preceding it. Economic depression sure, but $=0 economic collapse just isn't a thing with even a marginally functioning country/government.
Civil war is also insanely unlikely, we're too fat and content even if the media want's you to believe everyone is outraged, most people don't have the motivation to fight a war they'd rather watch Netflix and order Door dash.
Climate Change is something to be concerned about in the long term, but how you prepare is gonna vary heavenly based on your location. It's also not gonna be a civilization ending threat, things will get harder/cost more to get, there will be starvation in the 3rd world.
In my opinion, a nuclear exchange is more likely than the first two. We (the worlds largest nuclear power) are currently in a proxy war with the worlds 2nd largest nuclear power. I does not take a lot of missteps in such a contentious situation for one party to launch or be precised as launching.
TheGhostOfArtBell@reddit
Nope, I'm glad I'm smack in the middle of two or three first strike zones. Pop a beer and watch the fireworks.
illumiee@reddit
Nope, if the world around me is already getting nuked, why would I want to live in a radioactive wasteland or bunker? I would rather hope to be in the blast radius and vaporized.
Kayakboy6969@reddit
And with your pant off going out with a bang.....
olnlo@reddit
Nukemap is amazing!!! I never thought to prepare to survive a nuke in the city near me, assuming I'm in that range where you can go into your basement and put a few ft of soil in front of the windows to survive the blast, but that the house would catch fire and fall on us/trap us...
But even at 1200 kilotons, that wouldn't be the range of our family house. I did buy potassium iodide for everyone lol and had a plan of a 30min window soil technique when Russia first invaded Ukraine and threatened everyone with nukes if they intervened. Obviously that didn't happen so I just stopped thinking about it, assuming we wouldn't survive such a horror anyways
IamDa5id@reddit
That’s cool.. thx!
fakyu2@reddit
Saved for later
Angylisis@reddit
Should this map actually do anything?
BallsOutKrunked@reddit
Pick the weapon, pick the location, hit detonate.
Angylisis@reddit
Weird, it's just not working for me. Maybe I'll look at it not on mobile and see if that changes anything. Thanks for answering.
terrierhead@reddit
Hell yeah, free book! Thanks!
ftmikey_d@reddit
I feel ya. For me, it's also a bend-over and kiss my ass goodbye event. Sure as hell beats living in the fucking Midwest though. Lol. No shade to yall, just not my cup of tea. I'll cook and melt with the rest of my city, thank you. At least I won't get blown away by a damn tornado yearly.🤷♂️😂
NuclearHeterodoxy@reddit
>Fallout becomes a much bigger problem for ground detonations where the bomb is capable of kicking up a lot of dirt. The problem with this situation is that a ground detonation greatly mitigates the effects of the blast. This type of situation would be more common from a terrorist attack as opposed to an all-out nuclear war.
You grossly underestimate how many targets require a surface or near-surface burst. Every silo, every relevant bunker or underground target, every runway at bomber bases. In a largr exchange there would be fallout everywhere.
>On paper, Russia has \~5,600 warheads, but only very small fraction of those are viable. Maintaining missiles is shockingly expensive. In 2022, America spent $50 billion to maintain its smaller fleet of \~5,000 warheads. That same year, Russia spent $60 billion on their entire military, including their missiles. Meanwhile, as the Ukraine war has demonstrated, it is clear that large portions of the money allocated for the military was squandered in corruption.
Russian warheads require regular rebuilds from the ground up (rather, from the pit out), and as such the average age of Russian warheads is considerably lower than American ones. It is the US warheads where reliability is a greater concern, not the Russian ones. Indeed, to a close approximation the US has not built a single new warhead from the ground up in 36 years, after it shut down the lone American pit production plant. Russia, by contrast, builds hundreds of pits per year; see page 62 here https://fissilematerials.org/library/gfmr07.pdf
Now, on the level of launchers and delivery vehicles I do broadly trust the US to perform better than the Russians (Trident II is a god-tier missile). But this "Russian warheads mostly don't work because they aren't properly maintained" stuff that's been floating around since February 2022 is an urban myth.
snuffy_bodacious@reddit (OP)
I didn't underestimate anything, because I didn't estimate anything to begin with.
I don't know how high of a priority the bunker-targets would be as opposed to hundreds of other viable targets - not just in the US, but across US allies around the world.
The report you cite is almost 20 years old. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia has always been super-duper short on cash. Their GDP is smaller than Italy's. Even US intelligence was surprised by how poorly Russia's military performed since the start of the Ukraine war - i.e. even their meager resources have been squandered by corruption. They have been anything but competent or efficient in how they allocate resources to protect their national security.
Meanwhile, the brain-drain has been brutal to Russia. Much of their (mostly Soviet Era) intellectual brain power required to maintain something as sophisticated as a nuclear missile has either retired, died, or fled the nation. They can barely (except... not really) maintain their network of gas and oil pipelines.
Their attack on Ukraine is almost certainly an act of desperation for their failing state.
Hence, I'm just not convinced Russia is anywhere near capable of launching anything more than a tiny fraction of their fleet of nuclear missiles.
nyradiophile@reddit
Nuclear War is Bad.
Don't any neolib or neocon chucklehead tell you otherwise.
noah7233@reddit
Given that the untied states has radar and counter missle systems to shoot down missiles heading inbound to the usa mainland. I think that's less of a worry compared to more tangible threats such as a plane disguised as a civilian aircraft carrying a payload or even materials being smuggled into the states via land or water.
snuffy_bodacious@reddit (OP)
Yeah, this is a concern.
Time and again, I keep coming back to worries over supply chain disruption rather than the actual explosion from the nuclear device. You don't have to do that much damage to have very significant downstream effects on what we need to keep the masses fed.
Perilous-wizard@reddit
Much worse with AI now. Listen to this weekends Interesting Times podcast with the guy who quit Open AI. The super intelligence will see us as bugs and exterminate.
snuffy_bodacious@reddit (OP)
I fear this might be correct.
needanewnameonreddit@reddit
I get where this post is coming from, but it downplays a lot of important realities and misses the mark on several points.
First, the idea that nuclear bombs "aren’t as bad as people think" is misleading. Yes, Hollywood dramatizes things, but that doesn’t mean the real effects are tame. A 150 kiloton bomb is still ten times more powerful than the one dropped on Hiroshima. That bomb flattened a city and killed over 100,000 people. A modern missile-based strike, especially in a dense metro area, would do far more damage than just "destroying homes" within a couple miles. You’re not just talking about structures falling—you’re talking about firestorms, radiation burns, mass casualties, and total infrastructure collapse in that zone.
Second, the argument that fallout only matters in ground detonations misses a key detail. In an actual nuclear exchange, multiple bombs going off across several targets could still spread fallout through the atmosphere depending on how they're used. Wind patterns don’t care if the detonation was in the air or on the ground. Fallout from even airbursts can still contaminate areas downwind, especially when multiple strikes occur close together.
Also, telling people to just "stay inside for 2–3 weeks" is oversimplifying survival after a nuclear event. Not everyone has a basement. Most homes aren’t built to shield against radiation. Supplies run out fast. Power and water might be gone. And if you live in an apartment or share space with others, your options are even more limited.
The take on Russia and China not having many functional nukes is risky speculation. The fact that their governments are corrupt or underfunded doesn't mean their nukes don’t work. Even if only a few dozen missiles launch, that’s still more than enough to cause massive
Mindless_Library_797@reddit
I think there would be much more cancer and biological harm from the dust from collapsed buildings and smoke and other chemicals from burning buildingsband vehicles than from radioactive fallout.
snuffy_bodacious@reddit (OP)
It depends on what people think. I've talked to lots of people about this. Most people think that if they live in a city where a nuclear explosion happens, they're automatically dead from a wall of fire. This simply isn't true.
This is not the argument I'm making.
The roof of your home will probably protect you from most ionizing radiation.
I agree, which is why I stress water and food. The real threat of a nuclear war would be the disruption to supply chains.
Likewise, I've gone into a lot of people's homes to help get their food storage together. By far the biggest hurtle they have is limited space. With a little know how, a 3-12 month supply of food can take up surprisingly little space.
GloriousDawn@reddit
I live within 2 miles of a TOP10 hardened strategic target, which means it's not getting a single 150 kt blast but multiple 800 kt warheads. So there's a good chance i'll really die from a wall of fire, and that means i'll be one of the lucky ones. Because a nuclear blast is not a hurricane, wildfire or earthquake or nuclear accident. It is all of these things at once, but worse. (from Kurzgesagt - What if We Nuke a City?)
What an understatement. It's not just that power and water might be gone, as the previous commenter wrote, it's that after a global thermonuclear war, they might never come back. You can forget all your supply chains, for every product.
The most advanced computer chips manufactured in Taiwan, in TSMC's ultra valuable fabs ? Gone in the first blast. Problem is, you need slightly less advanced chips to rebuild the machines producing them. But the factories for those are probably gone too, so you have to get back to the basics and rebuild 50 years of infrastructure while everybody struggles to find food for the day. Half a century of progress is erased in 30 minutes, and it will take at least a couple of decades to get back there - if ever.
So when you say the blast of a nuclear bomb probably isn't as bad as most people imagine it is in reality, yeah maybe one bomb isn't that bad. But full-scale nuclear war ? Your 90-day food supply won't cut it. You're on your own until the end.
Due_Schedule5256@reddit
The biggest killer from nuclear war will be famine. I fully believe in nuclear winter, if you have hundreds of cities burning for weeks and months, the entire northern hemisphere is going to suffer a major reduction in output.
People lost their minds and hoarded Toilet Paper! during the Covid pandemic. America has long ago been divided along so many lines, does anyone really think that we'd all get along and rally like it's 1941? Especially if someone like Trump is to blame for getting us into the war? A nuclear war would be followed by a civil war in America.
Not to mention without cities you lose almost all of the logistic hubs that control everything from railroads to interstates to computer technology of all kinds.
BallsOutKrunked@reddit
This is kind of the whole prepper thing and the participation trophies for keeping your phone charged and a full tank of gas are in fact not disaster preparedness, they are just general responsible adult behaviors.
comcain2@reddit
Tritium. You're forgetting tritium. It's the key to boosting fission warheads and the key to fusion weapons (H bombs). Without tritium, they fizzle.
It has a half life of 12 years, then decays into helium 3, a neutron poison. Its made in special high powered reactors. The US almost ran out and we were draining the tritium out of bombs as we decommissioned them. It took 3 old bombs to restore the tritium for one, at Pantex.
The US had to restart an old reactor to make some. Even Congress got off its butt and agreed on this.
Now imagine Russia, broke, desperate in 1992-2020. Are they going to run a special reactor at Mayak to crank out tritium? Hell no, they need that uranium for power reactors like RBMKs, that also make plutonium. Russia has a boatload of plutonium.
I'm betting most of Russia's ICBMs will fizzle from lack of boosting and neutron poisoning. As long as Russia is broke, they can't crank out tritium. We should increase the sanctions and break their economy.
It still won't be fun to be directly under the impact point of a high Mach warhead, but enough bulldozers can fill in the hole.
In the meantime, I hope our missile fleet is getting tritium updates.
FlipsTipsMcFreelyEsq@reddit
First stage is still a good old A-bomb. Yes the second stage is needed to increase the power, but the first stage still can create canned sunshine.
comcain2@reddit
I agree.
However, the key is boosted yield. D+T injected into the fission core right before detonation fuses, showers the core with neutrons, greatly increasing the yield. Boosting is common in weapons since the Pacific tests verified it works. Greenhouse George gave 220 kilotons! Not bad!
That fission yield is vital to trigger the fusion part. 20 KT isn't enough energy to trigger fusion. 60 KT is. There were many fizzles in US hydrogen bomb development from this sort of thing.
Tritium decays into a neutron poison that soaks up neutrons and saps the energy of the fission reaction, sometimes to a fizzle. Tritium's half life is 12 years.
Modern H-bombs are a very delicately balanced Swiss watch so as to not waste critically short fissionables, Tritium, etc.
Thanks for your reply. By the way, Wikipedia has a surprisingly in-depth writeup on H-bombs, look up "Castle Bravo".
David
snuffy_bodacious@reddit (OP)
This is a good note, though I didn't forget tritium. I just didn't mention it because my article was already too long.
If I remember correctly, most of America's tritium has been replaced with lithium-6, which is more stable.
RancidSmellingShit@reddit
I feel like if anything, Hollywood almost understates explosions. Over the last few years with all the footage of various wars, i've often been quite shocked at how powerful one basic regular missile can be, reducing entire apartment blocks to rubble and killing dozens with one. It makes me shudder to think about how Hiroshima would be and now nukes are 10x more powerful.
TimmyDayz@reddit
Way bigger than 10 times bro, more like 100 or more
snuffy_bodacious@reddit (OP)
Operation Meetinghouse took place just a few months prior to Hiroshima. It was a single bombing raid that killed more people than either of the nuclear strikes, but it only involved conventional explosives.
Polar_san_@reddit
There's simulations of where the bombs would fall, I'm really dead if they drop them, I'm near a military base so good luck for the others
snuffy_bodacious@reddit (OP)
It depends on how close you are to the base, how many bombs are dropped, and whether or not the enemy prioritizes your particular location or not.
I will argue that because of Russia's economic woes, they almost certainly can't deploy more than 200 warheads.
Now this sounds like a lot, except it would take at least 400 warheads to knock out America's ICBM silos. Meanwhile, America has important allies around the world, which Russia will also have to take into consideration as potential targets. One could argue that Russia would be more worried about their NATO next door neighbors in Europe than the Americans on the other side of the planet.
Polar_san_@reddit
Interesting, but the military base I'm talking about is like the second most important base in my country, so in case of bombs being dropped I think I wouldn't survive, I'm close enough, maybe about 2 km or so.
I know that the preparation for the after bombs is the hardest thing, I already have a backpack prepared for that but without any food in it.
Since Europe announced the 72 hours kit I started preparing, so I have some cans of food, water and more in my house but I fear the worst in that case (only if it's a nuclear war where bombs are being thrown).
Any_Earth_497@reddit
I did a job for some nuclear launch facilities around the Midwest. Those LCC’s are pretty damn deep underground and they still say even a near miss would about kill everyone down in those capsules. Multiple blast doors that weigh 20k lbs even. Thats straight from the people who deal with this stuff daily.
Admirable_Classic_63@reddit
I've read several of these posts and haven't seen anyone discuss that the amount of radiation these bombs produce depends upon one of the 3 ways they can be programmed to detonate. Basically, the more dust and debris the bomb kicks up, the higher the rad count. Low altitude air burst produces the least amount of contaminated debris and the largest circle of contamination. Surface burst produces more radioactive debris, spread in a smaller circle from ground zero. Below surface burst creates the most radioactive debris, the tightest circle of effected area, and takes the longest time to become safe to inhabit. Terrain is a factor, and higher elevations with good amounts of average monthly rainfall will clear of radiation the quickest. Water itself will be sterile but will not be radioactive. The dust and debris particles in the water will be what is dangerous. The deeper underground your drinking water comes from, the less radioactive surface debris it will contain as the ground itself filters the water. There are areas within the old Nevada testing grounds that, because of low rainfall, will take a long time before they become inhabitable. Visiters will need to limit their exposure time in those places.
Infamous-Adeptness71@reddit
This analysis is interesting but not compelling. A nuclear exchange is as bad as you imagine or worse, which is why no nation's leader has dared to employ it in the 80 years this capability has existed...since Nagasaki anyway.
Can you survive? Sure. Can humanity survive? Sure.
It will still be horrific.
panzertodd@reddit
I'm truly amazed at such mindsets.
You all assume the worst of the enemy, constantly looking down on them while boasting your own capacity. You assume the Russian and Chinese are not maintaining their stockpile while yours are in tip top condition.
You assume they cannot strike your cities while you can deliver your payload to their doorsteps.
You assume they will fall when the bomb drops while you will rise from ashes.
And what is this so called evidence of yours comes from? Oh. From the government that you always claim not to trust yet when it comes to shitting on the Russian or Chinese you will gobble it all up.
And this hubris of yours will be your downfall.
You can barely survive a covid lockdown without riots and shits. And now you wanna survive a nuclear fallout which essentially wipe out your infrastructure. Truly hubris.
Americans forget what makes them great. That they were together as a community. Now each other will kill your neighborhood just for the slightest issue. And you want to live together and build back america from the ashes?
You can barely even maintain your current cities and it's infrastructure while china is doing great. And somehow you will think the Chinese when struck by a nuclear weapon will suffer more than you.
You think the Chinese will riot the moment the nuke goes off but you truly underestimate their sense of community. Look. The moment you have a wildfire your cities burn as you blame one another while the Chinese combined arms together to fight the fire. In a nuke exchange the Chinese will rise together in arms to rebuild while you kill each other for the small granola bar.
As a wise man said, China was there 5000 years while America didn't even exist as a country. And they will be around for longer.
But hey, as Sun Tzu says, don't interrupt the enemy when they are making mistakes.
snuffy_bodacious@reddit (OP)
Russia... that one country that is getting their butts kicked by a 3rd rate military power on their border?
panzertodd@reddit
Yeah. One that fights against a Nato supplied and trained Ukraine. Also you western media keep saying russia are running out of troops and ammo yet they still in the fight and Ukraine is losing. So.much for getting their ass kicked
But hey, again I hope you keep that kind of mentality. It definitely helps the other side when you keep looking down on them.
Also Ukraine is not third rate. They inherited lots of Soviet weaponry.
snuffy_bodacious@reddit (OP)
In 2003, America stages forces on the other side of the planet, and then proceeded to move in and conquer Iraq in just under a month.
Russia tried the same thing on their own border against an arguably weaker opponent, and Ukraine managed to repel the initial invasion. Then, after several weeks when it was obvious Ukraine wasn't going to fold like a blanket, NATO stepped in to give Ukraine some supplies to keep them going.
Russia failed to conquer Ukraine, in large part, because of how poorly trained and equipped their troops were. It is clearly evident that Russia was mismanaging large portions of their military expenditures to finance yachts for wealthy oligarchs.
Hence, it is extremely unlikely Russia has done a good job of maintaining their fleet of nuclear missiles.
I'm not necessarily making this argument, but only because I would never underestimate Russia's willingness to throw bodies into the meat grinder.
We can have a much longer discussion about this, but Russia has suffered at least 500,000-900,000 casualties since the war began. Can they keep this going? Maybe. However, the long-term repercussions of this on a civilization are devastating - especially for a nation that is already in steep demographic decline.
Russian demographics still suffer nightmares from the horrors of the Great Patriotic War. It was a significant part of why the Soviets could never really compete with the United States economically throughout the Cold War.
panzertodd@reddit
Jfc. You really wanna talk about Iraq war. Why am I not surprised.
First. Iraq army was already devastated from uts pervious war with Kuwait. Second, a lot of the units they are using are export models. Like the lion of Babylon. They don't even have the proper ammo for the tank. Also it's a damn coalition of nation against Iraq. It's like calling the whole neighborhood to beat up one crippled kid and now you wanna brag how great you are.
The great "ruSSia has SuffEred limBilliOn" casualties claim. The typical of Russian can only use human waves tactics. That shit is old as hell yet you all still buy into it daily . Remember how they portray Russian being forced into charging at machine guns with only one rifle in your movie Behind Enemy Lines? Same bullshit all over and over again . That shit never happened yet you all love to believe in it.
You keep saying Russian don't maintain their nuclear weapons. What source do you have to back that up? Or did you make it the fuck up, senator? But nvm. Let's do some math, shall we?
Assuming 90% of Russian nukes are dud, that leaves them with 170 warheads that is still functioning. Again assuming your defenses are so great that you intercept 90% of them again. That's 153 and that leaves 17 warheads going thru your country. And that is 17 major cities being hit with Washington being the main target.
Now you have lost governance. Your old power grid will not survive the emp blast. You will lose power, fuel, food and water supply very quickly. With your nation having extremely high obesity rate and disease like diabetes, many will fall like flies even if they didn't die in the blast.
And seeing you no longer have governance, a vacuum in power means ppl will fight for power. And you red loves to kick the blues and vice versa. Good luck rebuilding america.
Russia on the other hand can and will survive from the ashes. Large portion of their country and ppl was destroyed during WW2 and they rise up. You on the other hand has always been on the safe side of the world. The only suffering you has was pearl harbor and that was minute compared to what the Russian went through.
Again, Russia was there before there was even a nation called USA. They will be there, even after a nuclear exchange.
snuffy_bodacious@reddit (OP)
Simmer, dude.
If you understand war logistics, America's invasion of Iraq was orders of magnitude more difficult than Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
I actually don't have a problem with this assessment. I don't think you ever really processed my argument.
LOL.
panzertodd@reddit
I understand war logistics and understand that while it is a feat that US invaded Iraq, again it is a whole neighborhood vs one boy. What you wanna brag about?
Your argument has been saying how nuclear war isn't as devastating as Hollywood makes it to be and how you can survive cause russia isn't maintaining it's stockpile as you claim. I process it clearly and this makes my statements.
You can lol all you want when you clearly underestimate the opponent and fail to study history. I pray you live long enough to see the bomb drops on US so you can play your fallout fantasy for few weeks before succumbing to whatever ill the war brings.
suricata_8904@reddit
Iirc, air detonation will cause an EMP pulse that will fry electronics/grid. Radius would depend on yield, I guess. Just doing that would be civilization destroying.
snuffy_bodacious@reddit (OP)
This is actually a complicated question.
The book One Second After details how this could work, except even then the author gets some important aspects of the physics wrong.
suricata_8904@reddit
I guess it will be discussed when it happens-or not😏
snuffy_bodacious@reddit (OP)
I would agree that an EMP strong enough would effectively knock out the electrical grid. It will not, however, destroy all small electronic devices for hundreds and hundreds of miles.
suricata_8904@reddit
If small appliances fry it’s an extinct level event, I guess.
hope-luminescence@reddit
Only one going off in space / upper atmosphere. I don't think it would be global, either.
TheIrishWanderer@reddit
Has anybody else noticed the complete lack of attention being given to the expiry of the New START treaty next year? Am I completely losing my fucking mind, or does no one seem to care? Are people even aware of the fact that, as it stands, the US and Russia could end up in another arms race in under 12 months?
snuffy_bodacious@reddit (OP)
Russia isn't in a position to get into an arms race with the United States. Not even close.
TheIrishWanderer@reddit
Why not? Putin is absolutely deranged, and he views NATO as a threat. There is no reason to suggest he won't start stockpiling his arsenal as soon as possible. In fact, there is little evidence that he has not already started doing so, since suspending the treaty in 2023.
snuffy_bodacious@reddit (OP)
Because Putin's economy is smaller than Italy. He's already bankrupting his nation with sanctions and a war that is going to kill/disable a million young Russian men vital to growing an economy before this is over.
TheIrishWanderer@reddit
You're absolutely correct about the problems with the Russian economy, but I think it's the other way around, i.e. - because of the sanctions and diplomatic efforts against Russia, he'll feel compelled to demonstrate a show of force by increasing his stockpile. Russia is trying to intimidate NATO and the US together, and you also have to factor in that sanctions haven't stopped the war already, so there's an argument he simply doesn't give a shit about them. Nuclear power is very valuable from Putin's point of view, politically and militarily, and I think he'll prioritise it. He's already given weapons to Belarus and his posturing doesn't look good.
Plus, this doesn't even factor in that Trump doesn't believe in arms control either.
AntBeaters@reddit
Google MERV lmao
snuffy_bodacious@reddit (OP)
You mean like the UGM-133 Trident II missile carrying up to eight W76 Warheads?
Yeah. I know about that. I base my arguments on that information.
lmao
AntBeaters@reddit
That’s American ❤️
snuffy_bodacious@reddit (OP)
If anything, Russian warheads tend to be lower yield than America's.
AntBeaters@reddit
The largest nuke to ever detonate was Russian
snuffy_bodacious@reddit (OP)
Yes, I know. If you took time to read my article, you'd maybe note how I already talked about it.
GravySeal45@reddit
Read Nuclear War by Annie Jacobs. It is literally the absolute best current info on the whole nuke situation right up to the limits of classification.
TLDR: If the nukes fly, we ALL die
snuffy_bodacious@reddit (OP)
I'm familiar with this book. She is precisely one of the "influencers" I'm talking about at the very beginning.
While Ms. Jacobsen doesn't get anything technically wrong, she successfully spins the narrative to make you afraid. It's a great way to sell books.
No_Hovercraft_439@reddit
Did you happen to read the prologue and see the list of people she interviewed for the book and their credentials? What I took away is there is not onesy-twosey nuke detonations. Once the veil is pierced with one launch, mutual destruction is unleashed.
snuffy_bodacious@reddit (OP)
Yes.
Far-Respond-9283@reddit
So she is not an expert in this field, just an influencer?
snuffy_bodacious@reddit (OP)
She's selling books.
David_Parker@reddit
Arguably, she’s not an expert, just someone who reported on it.
hope-luminescence@reddit
I have heard that book come under heavy criticism from experts. And I do not see a plausible mechanism of action for that to happen.
David_Parker@reddit
So allegedly, what I’ve heard (even though I read the book and would agree) is that a lot of experts disagree with her, but I have nothing to really back that up with.
snuffy_bodacious@reddit (OP)
I agree with the experts who disagree with her. She doesn't technically get anything wrong (that I'm aware of), but she spins the narrative to make people afraid. It's simply a great way to sell books.
I try to back my argument with the numbers I outline my post.
livefast_dieawesome@reddit
I’m fairly sure the book was a self-described worst case scenario.
Is it frightening? Yes.
But the book is also up front about what it is: the absolute worst possible case scenario for a nuclear war. It wasn’t describing “what if one or two bombs go off in populated areas” - the premise is “what if multiple nuclear powers used the fullest extent of their nuclear capabilities on eachother?”
icosahedronics@reddit
you missed the point - it is also a "worst-case scenario" in the sense that nobody can prove what the results of large scale nuclear exchange would be, so the author chose the most damaging estimates possible. this is what is called a bias, it makes predictions but there is no reason to think this prediction is more accurate than others and good reason to think it is less accurate.
monty845@reddit
A full scale nuclear exchange would be absolutely catastrophic. But even then, experts disagree on how complete a wipe of humanity it would be. And we aren't just talking scattered pockets of humanity in New Zealand or something, we are talking 10s of millions surviving in a primary target like the US.
BallsOutKrunked@reddit
To be fair a lot of experts disagree with each other too. Nuclear winter, as an example.
811545b2-4ff7-4041@reddit
Even without a nuclear winter, countries targeted would lose so much infrastructure, you'd be hard pressed to survive for very long anyway.
CillyKat@reddit
I was coming to recommend this book. It was a fantastic bit terrifying read (listen).
snuffy_bodacious@reddit (OP)
Be weary of anyone selling fear.
MCRV11@reddit
Wary
Weary is tiredness
Affectionate-Leg-260@reddit
Weary seams correct in today’s world.
visionxchange@reddit
Seamz
Seams is stitches
Affectionate-Leg-260@reddit
I ain’t no snitch!
Mechbear2000@reddit
I'm tired Boss.
Character_Tie3884@reddit
In my opinion, there is no point to worrie over somtehing you cant controll. If it happens I hope it explodes wright over my head so I dont need to face the aftermath in all different aspects.
snuffy_bodacious@reddit (OP)
A water filter and some food storage could save your life.
This is a prepper sub, after all. We're not here to embrace death.
Character_Tie3884@reddit
Oh I'm with you. Despites my opinion on nuclear threat my bugout bagg and stuff always stands ready just in case.
DeFiClark@reddit
Ever read Hiroshima?
That thing was tiny in comparison.
Probably isnt as bad as…
People turned into shadows
People with their hands turned inside out like gloves
People with burns all over their bodies except where the white stripes of their sailor shirt blocked the flash
Dude, read some history.
snuffy_bodacious@reddit (OP)
I've read about Hiroshima. I have a sneaky suspicious feeling I'm far better read on the nuclear bombings than you are.
Here's some history for you. I'll bet you didn't know that just a few days prior to the bombing of Hiroshima, Operation Meetinghouse took place - i.e. the firebombing of Tokyo, which killed more people than either of the nuclear bombs.
DeFiClark@reddit
lol.
Studied nuclear policy and strategy to the grad school level so yeah, I’m very familiar with the Tokyo (and Dresden) fire raids.
Unlike the rest of Russian forces, their nuclear weapons program is comparatively well funded and there’s around 1,700 operational warheads.
snuffy_bodacious@reddit (OP)
Are you familiar with tritium (or lithium), and why it is important to modern nuclear devices? Are you familiar with how expensive it is to keep this stockpile up-to-date? Even America has a hard time finding the cash to keep logistical supply chains running to do this.
Why would Russia be so corrupt to squander military expenditures in every area except their nuclear missile program?
...especially in light of a conventional war where they are only finding themselves embarrassed?
Let me be clear, as I've already stated, the threat of nuclear calamnity is very real, just not in the way most people believe. Even if Russia is capable of successfully striking America with a couple dozen warheads, this would lead to a shattering of supply chains.
My point? You're probably not going to die in a wall of fire. Even if you live in a major metro where no less than five nuclear warheads land, your chances of surviving the blast are probably better than 50%.
FerdinandTheGiant@reddit
A few days….? You wanna double check on that?
hope-luminescence@reddit
This is a thing that happens within a radius of no more than a few miles.
dittybopper_05H@reddit
Warhead effects don't scale linearly based upon yield, because of the inverse cube law. This is true of *ALL* explosions, nuclear and non-nuclear.
So if a 150 kt device had been dropped on Hiroshima instead of a 15 kt device, the area damaged wouldn't have been 10 times greater, it would have only been about 3.3 times greater. Even bumping that up to 1.5 mt, or fully 100 times the yield of the Little Boy bomb, results in a damaged area about 12.2 times larger.
Dude, read some technical stuff about nuclear weapons and their effects.
Also, ironically, the damage at Hiroshima was much greater than at Nagasaki because of the firestorm, which was because buildings of wood and paper collapsed upon ceramic shichirin with still burning coals in them from cooking breakfast. Nagasaki was bombed closer to lunch time.
Modern cities don't have enough of a fuel load per square meter to result in a firestorm.
DeFiClark@reddit
The projected impact of an SS18/R36M2 hit on a major US city:
15.1 sq mi fireball radius 442 sq mi moderate blast damage 2,360 sq mi third degree burns
Projections for DC: 1.6 million dead, NYC 5.5 million dead, LA 2.8 million, Chicago 2 million
(RAND projections)
I don’t need to go on.
Your specious arguments are based on yields that aren’t even close to the capabilities of modern nuclear weapons.
dittybopper_05H@reddit
Yeah, no. Current warheads on a R-36M2 is a max of 750 kilotons.
Fireball radius is under 1 kilometer.
Even for the Tsar Bomba at full power (100 megatons) the fireball radius is only about 6.7 kilometers
You have no idea what you’re talking about.
DeFiClark@reddit
I used the M2 because that’s what the Rand projections used. The M2 has been phased out: the M6 remains in service and each has 10 MIRV each warhead with between 550 and 750kt.
DeFiClark@reddit
My bad, not radius, 15.1 sq mi impact area for fireball
dittybopper_05H@reddit
Even your fireball calculation is wrong, though:
Area for a 1 kilometer fireball radius would be, for a surface burst, be 3.14*1^2 = 3.14 square miles.
You’re confusing something like blast area or thermal radiation for fireball radius.
Canyoufly88@reddit
Midwest is done for tho.
Irradiating the bread basket and destroying the top soil is their bet here.
hope-luminescence@reddit
Questionable.
Besides the fact that that's not even an easy thing to do, that leaves the military that can hurt them intact.
snuffy_bodacious@reddit (OP)
I agree with this.
Canyoufly88@reddit
Whats questionable lol. It's literally their plan.
zestyowl@reddit
Question, what if they nuked an area where we keep our nukes? Like if they targeted all or the Manhattan Project sites? Or something like that?
snuffy_bodacious@reddit (OP)
America keeps its stockpile of nuclear warheads spread out over a very large area, and people have spent a lot of time making sure they are placed strategically to mitigate lives lost.
For example, America keeps \~400 ICBM silos located throughout the American Midwest in areas where the population is sparse. The strategy behind this is called Sponge Theory - i.e. the silos will hopefully soak up strikes from the enemy to prevent at least some strikes on population centers. To knock out America's ICBM silos would require at least 400 warheads all by itself, and it is highly unlikely Russia is able to deploy this many warheads.
hope-luminescence@reddit
Violently destroying a nuke does not set it off. (Also, the Manhattan project was forever ago, we don't keep our stuff there neccessarily).
Nukes are delicate precision machines, they need to be working properly to explode.
zestyowl@reddit
I live in Seattle. A good deal of the nation's arsenal is near me.
CooperWatson@reddit
It doesn't cost as much to maintain nukes in Russia because they do not contract things like that out to private industry.
snuffy_bodacious@reddit (OP)
This is wrong on at least three counts.
1) Russia does indeed rely on private industry for their military.
2) The government is almost never more efficient than the private for-profit industry. (I could go off on this tangent, but most people would be utterly shocked how little money American defense contractors - i.e. the Big 5 - make supporting the US military. For example, Apple generates more annual revenue than all defensive contractors combined.)
3) Russia is currently getting their asses handed to them by a third-rate military power next door, and this is largely because of how Russia completely mis-managed their military expenditures leading up to the war. This means it is very unlikely Russia has been spending the proper resources to keep most of their fleet of nuclear missiles in operational condition.
Lazy_Transportation5@reddit
I once heard it said that nuclear war may not be the end of the world like they thought it was, but no one wants to argue otherwise because it would still be really really bad.
snuffy_bodacious@reddit (OP)
I think I agree. I am, by no means, arguing that nuclear war isn't a big deal.
I'm merely arguing that, with a little effort, nuclear war can be survivable.
OppositeIdea7456@reddit
Grid down 90% of the population dead in 3months.
snuffy_bodacious@reddit (OP)
The experts say somewhere between 66-90%.
Near_NYC@reddit
"If you live in the suburb of a major metropolitan area"
Most people do not live there. Most people live inside the major metropolitan area. One 100kt bomb over NYC will kill millions. That is the reality.
snuffy_bodacious@reddit (OP)
Maybe, but it seems this is unlikely true. When I run a simulator over New York City with a 240 kt bomb, we get just over 400 k fatalities. A 100kt bomb would be significantly smaller than this.
Vegetable-Foot-3914@reddit
This is probably the shittiest piece of propaganda i've seen today. Just in case, you weren't subtle at all
snuffy_bodacious@reddit (OP)
I'm glad I could brighten your day with something.
TheCarcissist@reddit
I honestly think a high altitude application is the most strategic. Bomb one city, kill a couple hundred thousand, large scale EMP, kills millions in weeks and you still have infrastructure to take over one day
snuffy_bodacious@reddit (OP)
I tend to agree, except it's hard to believe China or Russia has any interest in taking over American infrastructure when their own populations are in demographic collapse. China already has at least double the housing they need for their own people.
WhereAreMyDarnPants@reddit
In August 1945, Tsutomu Yamaguchi, a 29-year-old engineer for Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, was on a business trip in Hiroshima.
August 6, 1945 – Hiroshima
He was on his way to work when the first atomic bomb was dropped. He was within 2 miles of ground zero. The blast blew him into a potato field, burned his face and arms, and ruptured his eardrums. Dazed, injured, and barely alive, he spent the night in a shelter, then decided to return home…
August 9, 1945 – Nagasaki
His home? Nagasaki. Yamaguchi arrived home, bandaged and battered, and tried to warn his coworkers at Mitsubishi about what had happened in Hiroshima. As he was describing the atomic blast to his supervisor…
BOOM. The second atomic bomb was dropped.
Once again, Yamaguchi was within 2 miles of ground zero. And once again, he survived.
Despite his injuries and radiation sickness, he lived to be 93 years old, raised a family, and became an advocate against nuclear weapons.
His wife also survived the Nagasaki bombing. She had gone out shopping with their baby and sought shelter in a tunnel just moments before the explosion. Their child? Also survived.
This family lived through the only two nuclear bombings in history, and all of them lived long lives.
It’s real. Documented. Verified by the Japanese government. Tsutomu Yamaguchi: the man who walked through hell twice and lived to tell the tale.
snuffy_bodacious@reddit (OP)
Yeah, I've heard that story before. Super crazy.
PuddlesMcGee2@reddit
Could you please send this in a message to 10yo me in 1985 who had to sleep with the light on to prevent nuclear war? Cool thanks.
snuffy_bodacious@reddit (OP)
LOL. I can genuinely relate to this.
tangowhiskey89@reddit
Tsar Bomba was detonated over 50 years ago. You sure you know what maximum yields are deliverable by missile? I love it when regular people repeat what I’ve also heard in TV documentaries about nuclear weapons. As if we plebs are allowed to know what they’re actually capable of. Maybe there’s something else that has already made nukes obsolete.
snuffy_bodacious@reddit (OP)
We know a lot about what modern nuclear weapons are capable of, actually.
tangowhiskey89@reddit
Not enough for you to accurately say what modern weapons are capable of. You’re a bit too arrogant after watching that documentary. Unless you’re military intelligence?
snuffy_bodacious@reddit (OP)
I'm an engineer with a background in the nuclear industry.
Or maybe I'm just arrogant. Whatever you want to believe.
tangowhiskey89@reddit
I would think an engineer would have some level of humility to admit that they're not privy to what the military is doing, and what weapons of mass destruction are available.
All I'm saying is that we (you) don't really know what "modern" weapons are actually out there and available to use. You don't need to treat this conversation like a competition. It's just better to err on the side of uncertainty rather than get on a soapbox and tell us what's fact with 100% certainty.
hope-luminescence@reddit
It's not humility to say we don't know what the military is doing when we actually have a fair idea what the military is doing.
tangowhiskey89@reddit
That’s called arrogance. You might know what your buddies in the army are doing. You don’t have a clue what’s going on in military intelligence. Time to get over yourselves and admit you don’t know.
hope-luminescence@reddit
A lot of this stuff is even just published. OSINT exists, etc.
Assessment of what is out there isn't a new thing.
tangowhiskey89@reddit
You’re a civilian. Continue believing whatever you want to. You’re not in the know but I’m aware it feels good to think so.
hope-luminescence@reddit
These are things you can say without having a shred of evidence for them. You can say them equally whether they are true or false.
Are you claiming to be in the know yourself?
There is no reason for me to distinguish this from tinfoil hat nonsense.
tangowhiskey89@reddit
Anyone who uses the term “tinfoil hat nonsense” as a means of argument should be dismissed entirely. Asking for evidence of secret government projects is equally as stupid.
hope-luminescence@reddit
Then why do you know any more than me?
The notion that the government knows big secrets about physics (most scientists do not work for the government) or has applied things that the normal technical literature knows nothing about is an extraordinary claim.
tangowhiskey89@reddit
I didn’t say I knew more than you, but I am saying that my position that “we don’t know” is more logical than yours. The laws of physics don’t have to be broken to invent a revolutionary weapon system either.
hope-luminescence@reddit
No, but there are also the rules of engineering and discernible patterns of procurement and large projects.
"We don't know, so it might be any crazy thing" is only the vaguest form of knowledge, if it can even be considered that.
tangowhiskey89@reddit
"any crazy thing" is just your opinion of what I presented as possibilities due to your limited tolerance for information outside of your comfort zone.
hope-luminescence@reddit
This isn't comfort zones. It's about stuff that's really unlikely and that there's little evidence that it's plausibly going to happen in the foreseeable future.
tangowhiskey89@reddit
You’re ignorant and it’s not my job to educate you of everything I’ve ever read in my life. Get off Reddit and open your mind.
hope-luminescence@reddit
Frankly, I think it's a general category error, or a mentality born of spy fiction, to think in terms of governments having all kinds of ultra-secret capabilities like this.
We have a fairly good idea of what nuclear weapons exist and what size they are. There has been a pretty distinct shift towards smaller ones (smaller than 1 megaton) since the days of Tsar Bomba.
If there's something that has made nukes obsolete, it's either some kind of out-of-context mindscrew that nobody could ever predict, so there's no point planning against it, or it is not very useful when totally secret and probably very difficult to keep totally secret for a long time (word always gets out on projects that employ thousands of people).
tangowhiskey89@reddit
I think you’re naive and possibly full of yourself if you think you’re an insider to military technology. What about directed energy weapons that cause earthquakes? Space based weapons? Or a nanotechnology “plague” that we can’t even see? These ideas aren’t that far fetched and have even been discussed by intelligent agencies. You’re just out of the loop still mentally living in the Cold War era.
hope-luminescence@reddit
My explicit point is that I *don't* think I'm an insider. I think that based on history, the structure of science and and military procurement, etc , there is no reason to think that there's much special stuff that an insider would see differently from public sources. Military technology generally lags behind what's out in public.
The atom bomb itself was the sterling example of super secret super-science... and all of the theoretical basis for it was published before WWII started. The basic idea of what was possible and what wasn't possible was already apparent.
Like nuclear missiles fired from space instead of from planes or subs or the ground? Yawn. This has been considered and found pointless, and while it affects nuclear war strategy it does not affect civil defense or prepperism for personal and community survival.
how? Does that even make sense? Wouldn't that just look like having conveniently timed earthquakes in places that already are earthquake-prone?
You mean an artificial biological weapon? It's been considered.
The ones that are significantly outside of what's conventional, are pretty far fetched. The ones that are very close to what's conventional, like artificial biological weapons or launching missiles from space, are less far-fetched. I know this because I live in reality. There isn't a secret set of laws of physics made up by the CIA (even if the psychos in the CIA think that there are / say that there are to keep the Chinese off balance).
This has nothing to do with the Cold War era, or different eras in general.
tangowhiskey89@reddit
You’re literally just telling us that you’re making educated guesses based on what the public has seen. I don’t know why you’re so dedicated to this idea that we still have nukes from the Cold War and nothing has changed whatsoever in 50+ years except miniaturization of warheads. That’s your position and it’s a flimsy one. Military technology lags behind public technology? What on earth are you smoking? You’re quite obviously referring to basic field equipment or infrastructure and not weapons of mass destruction. Also, Lockheed Skunkworks is something you should read up on before you continue to claim we’re still stuck in the early atomic era. And yes eras matter what a dumb thing to say.
hope-luminescence@reddit
Ok, what are your sources? What do you know is happening?
Everything that Skunk Works ever was known to have done was an application of general physical and engineering proposals that were publicly known.
The specific realm of WMDs has been fairly stagnant over 30 years, main new advance is 1. The rise of China and 2. Hypersonic missiles.
tangowhiskey89@reddit
Hypersonic missiles and China LMAO. You HAVE to stop watching CNN like it’s reality. Do you really have 0 concept of what propaganda or social programming is?
My point was never that I knew more than you. I’m just not arrogant or naive enough to believe that world powers are still struggling with Cold War problems in 2025.
hope-luminescence@reddit
Indeed you don't seem arrogant and naive enough to believe that.
You seem much more arrogant and naive. And you have turned your lack of knowledge into something like secret knowledge.
What is your freaking source?
tangowhiskey89@reddit
My source for acknowledging that we probably don't know how advanced weapon systems have become since the Cold War? It's just logical. At what point in history was the public ever completely aware of military projects like the Manhattan Project? That would be a national security issue. To admit that we're probably in the dark about the most advanced weapons available today is not arrogance.
You saying that there can't be any secrets because of what YOU have learned about physics and engineering through public education systems is arrogance.
SufficientMilk7609@reddit
Hello, I'm new here, but I wrote a guide on how to protect ourselves at home, mainly in a flat or apartment, also on the ground where I explained materials and thicknesses for the construction of an NBC bunker, I also include a guide for growing and caring for birds, fish, insects and mollusks inside a bunker. As well as recycling waste to self-sustain the entire system, you can find the guide in my profile, it can be read for free. A cordial greeting
unknown_anonymous81@reddit
EMP is equally alarming as Nuclear.
A swarm of exposure drones could wipe or a city also.
EMP. CME from the sun and Nuclear are all powerful.
Zoren-Tradico@reddit
Yeah... I'm going to leave here some actual science in a friendly format:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iPH-br_eJQ
hope-luminescence@reddit
... except that that's entirely politically motivated? Did you miss all the links in the description and the ending part of the video?
Zoren-Tradico@reddit
Is a science channel, and the science of the video is solid
hope-luminescence@reddit
I'm not denying that, although I think it's editorialized to heck. Nuclear War Survival Skills this is not.
Zoren-Tradico@reddit
Main income for the channel is their own shop, they don't depend on sponsors
hope-luminescence@reddit
Didn't claim it wasn't.
Zoren-Tradico@reddit
Then why assume they got dictated what to say and what not?
D1rtyH1ppy@reddit
Nuclear war is planetary genocide. We all will die. You are trying to rationalize a single nuclear strike. The reality is that all the missiles would launch on a first wave attack, followed by second and third wave attacks. It wouldn't be just the US or Russia, it would be everyone all at once.
hope-luminescence@reddit
That makes zero sense.
There are not enough missiles to kill everyone, not by numerous orders of magnitude. Not even at the peak of the Cold War (there are way less now).
Why would someone who isn't a party to the conflict screw themselves over by launching without a very good reason?
D1rtyH1ppy@reddit
I'm not a huge fan of Lex these days, but this guest thoroughly walks you through what would happen. I guess you can decide for yourself what would happen.
https://youtu.be/GXgGR8KxFao
hope-luminescence@reddit
That's Annie Jacobsen, who i would not consider a reputable or trustworthy source.
That's three hours. I took a very quick look at parts of it and didn't see much that was meaningful in terms of:
why present likely-to-actually-be-fired nuclear arsenals would lead to extinction or near extinction, rather than nothing close
why nuclear powers that aren't parties to the conflict would get involved when this seems like it is to nobody's benefit.
why the extremely maximalist scenario she likes is plausible or likely in general.
also what's with the aliens and psychic powers talk?
snuffy_bodacious@reddit (OP)
Nope.
D1rtyH1ppy@reddit
Ok
TheRealBunkerJohn@reddit
Avoiding getting nuked directly? Agreed there's a much lower chance if you live outside any major city. The vast, vast majority of deaths come from infrastructure failure after that.
https://www.ki4u.com/goodnews.htm
In the end, if you're prepared for self-sustainability without power, you just need to make a few modifications and you're set for a nuclear exchange. It's the lack of infrastructure that'll kill most people (90%+) after the bombs stop falling.
AmountCommercial7115@reddit
Salted bombs do not exist in anyone's inventories and if for some reason they resolved to add them now it would take years.
TheRealBunkerJohn@reddit
Do not exist "officially" in anyone's inventories.
Considering the Russian Dead Hand system is fully activated, I operate under the assumption they (and therefore, the West) absolutely would have a few. Because logically, it'd be sheer lunacy to have such weapons.
Logic isn't the ruling factor anymore.
hope-luminescence@reddit
Dead Hand supposedly just commands normal launchers to shoot normal missiles, why *would* they?
TheRealBunkerJohn@reddit
To ensure an enemy nation could never realistically recover and retaliate. Colbalt warheads are area-of-denial weapons. Cover key areas with it, and you remove those areas from ever being settled again.
AmountCommercial7115@reddit
A salted bomb is purely a propaganda/terror weapon, it's pointless if you cover it up. If we aren't aware of any, then they almost certainly don't exist.
Historical_Abroad596@reddit
Name checks out
snuffy_bodacious@reddit (OP)
I think I pretty much agree with everything you state here.
TheRealBunkerJohn@reddit
I did think you hit the nail on the head though- many people are very focused on surviving "the blast" versus the scenario afterwards, which is the bulk of preparations.
kg7koi@reddit
Laughs in MIRV delivered ring detonations
AirCanadaFoolMeOnce@reddit
Yeah if there’s an exchange of nuclear weapons I’m probably going to scratch the itch on the back of my head with a shotgun mate. Not going to die a painful death of radiation poisoning. It was real while it lasted.
hope-luminescence@reddit
... are you going to check if the area you are in is even suffering enough radiation to cause even the slightest inconvenience?
Some people are looking for any excuse they can find to die. I am interested in prepping so I can live.
AirCanadaFoolMeOnce@reddit
I’m near an absurd amount of civil and military targets.
SavingsDimensions74@reddit
We operate globally on a JIT (just in time), highly optimised supply chain with very little redundancy built in. It makes things cheaper for us all, but it’s a brittle system.
Any major nuclear exchange would screw over so many things that the actual initial blasts, while devastating, would seem like a birthday present in comparison to what comes next.
Practically all deliveries would be disrupted for weeks at the very least.
It takes less than a week of lack of resources for people to start looting etc so a month of nothing would create a chaos that would be self perpetuating.
The thought that a significant nuclear exchange would not result in billions dying within 2 years is fanciful.
Taking guesses on how well maintained particular parties to any exchange would make The Deer Hunter Russian roulette seem like a low risk investment.
Our systems are brittle and fragile. A nuclear war would create a dystopian planet where we would get annihilation, chaos, horror, both short and medium term.
hope-luminescence@reddit
Billions seems rather extreme.
What about the parts of the world that aren't even modernized in that way?
SavingsDimensions74@reddit
They’re already living on a razor thin existence and rely on aid massively. They’ll be the first victims on a mass scale. The poorest always are
snuffy_bodacious@reddit (OP)
I agree.
minosi1@reddit
Not sure I understand the OPs post right. Hoping not.
The whole thing reads like some Neocon looking to PR-justify launching an all out nuclear war to push his favourite imperial agenda in the hopes the other parties get screwed more in a zero-sum game while he gets to wait it all out in a shelter.
If you genuinely mean it, there is still hope for you. For a start, if you have any delusions about Russian (or Chinese) nukes "not being ready", or "not being maintained", read on about that a bit from non-westrn sources.
Hint:
The Russian have almost completely renewed their arsenals over the last two decades, expecting a big confrontation with the West. As of now, Russian nukes as well as their delivery vehicles are on average between half to 2/3 of the age the US arsenal depending on the information source. They also /almost/ do not stock stupid gravity bombs anymore. So one can conclude on the relative effectiveness/survivability of their arsenal from that. That their nuclear industry as a whole is today way, way bigger than the US one is just additional context. Rosatom is the biggest nuclear business in the world by scale as well as depth. Only on scale the Chinese are coming close while on depth they are in a class of their own. The 1980s nuclear sector superiority of the US is gone. The guys retired and no new gen to replace them.
hope-luminescence@reddit
Why would he post here, then, rather than in the corridors of power?
bgplsa@reddit
Anyone with any sense hopes to evaporate in the initial strike; take your bad takes back over to r/climateskeptic where “I’m an engineer” is considered authoritative enough to gamble with the future of the species.
hope-luminescence@reddit
This is entirely untrue
It seems like gambling with the future of the species would involve not preparing to survive a nuclear war.
And a nuclear war is very much survivable -- if one is prepared to do so and not in a place that is likely to be bombed.
snuffy_bodacious@reddit (OP)
I'm gambling with the future of the species?
Wild_Chef6597@reddit
The effects of a nuke blast persist after the bomb is dropped. The location is contaminated for years until a clean up initiative is created. If it's a nuclear exchange, then civilization is effed in the A. Since humans are social animals, they will congregate and form new communities, doing the clean up themselves just to grow crops. Hunting will be hazardous, as there will be a ton of strontium-90 in the soil, which would be picked up by plants and bioaccumilate in animals that eat those plants and eventually, us.
The first 30 years will be hell on Earth.
So when the bombs start dropping. I intend to sit on my porch and watch the fireworks.
hope-luminescence@reddit
The most knowledgeable people seem to disagree with you.
thicctessenceoflife@reddit
“Not that bad”… ahahahahaha this group
hope-luminescence@reddit
It is indeed not "that" bad, where "that" bad is either the fake scenario Annie Jacobsen made up, or the mythic version of nuclear war where fireballs are hundreds of miles in diameter and fallout lasts for centuries.
Far-Respond-9283@reddit
This sound more like you trying to cope with the consequences this will carry if some of this stupid leaders dare to use nuclear bombs. I can't blame you tho because I hope I die immediately in the bombing.
hope-luminescence@reddit
I hope you survive, and in the dawn rise up to work and regret ever wanting to die.
snuffy_bodacious@reddit (OP)
I carry water for no politician.
livestrong2109@reddit
I give this the lowest level of priority on my prep list. 2 K100 full face masks, full body remediation suits, and iodide tablets. I keep some pills in both my car med kits and the hazmat gear in garage. Doubles for casting gear with the masks.
What am I really going to do if we all decide to screw ourselves...
hope-luminescence@reddit
The most important prep for nuclear war is food, ideally for months plus.
dittybopper_05H@reddit
If you've got the suits and the face masks, you don't really need the potassium iodide tablets.
The only thing potassium iodide does is load up your thyroid with Iodine. This protects your thyroid if you happen to ingest Iodine-131. but other than that it has precisely zero effect. It doesn't help with Strontium-90 or any of the other isotopes.
Also, while thyroid cancer sucks, if you have to get cancer, thyroid cancer is the one you want*: Treatment if caught early (check your neck for lumps) is a thyroidectomy, followed by a low-iodine diet, and then ironically a dose of Iodine-131 to burn out the remaining thyroid cells.
You have to be on levothyroxin the rest of your life, but it's cheap.
No other radiation treatments. No chemotherapy. No losing your hair or feeling sick.
I know this because the distaffbopper developed thyroid cancer about 18 years ago this last Thanksgiving. She's still fine and cancer free.
Point being, you shouldn't be eating or drinking anything that has fallout in it, or breathing it in. If you can avoid doing that, you don't need the potassium iodide pills. If you can't avoid doing that, Iodine-131 is the least of your worries. I'm not saying it's a totally useless measure, but it's far less important than most people believe.
*One exception: Anaplastic thyroid cancer is nasty and aggressive with a relatively low survival rate, but it's only about 2% of thyroid cancer cases.
livestrong2109@reddit
It doesn't hurt anything, and we don't have multiple suits. So the pills are in our cars.
snuffy_bodacious@reddit (OP)
While I'm not opposed to this, I'd argue that the boring preps are still more important, even for a nuclear war. Food storage will save more lives than hazmat suits.
livestrong2109@reddit
Ohh God yes, and I do the full run down for normal stuff. This is just my +1 (in case of nuke break glass).
More_Dependent742@reddit
OP, you need to stop watching fairytale nonsense like The Day After, and watch Threads. "Threads remastered BBC" is on Archive.org
snuffy_bodacious@reddit (OP)
I cite quite a few data points to justify my argument.
What am I getting wrong?
minosi1@reddit
You have picked the points which suit the conclusion your sought.
Or whoever's work you based/founded your thinking on.
Proper analyses makes conclusions from information. When you try to justify whatever conclusions you made by having sources, it makes it clear you do no analysis. Just basic bibliographic research to support a position taken externally from that research.
One does not seek "sources" to make an analysis. "Sources", in the WP parlance, are the analysts, or, actually, people writing about what the analysts wrote.
When trying to understand something internally, one seeks information. False. Correct. Everything in between. But no "sources".
hope-luminescence@reddit
I think that everyone who is predicting apocalyptic pessimism for nuclear war is doing this.
snuffy_bodacious@reddit (OP)
So... no facts to counter me with. Okay.
minosi1@reddit
Wanted to be nice on you, but OK, I will bite:
Finally, it's worth noting that America's enemies probably don't have very many active missiles that can deliver a payload.
You simply made this up. Good for you using "probably" to keep it "safe".
On paper, Russia has \~5,600 warheads, but only very small fraction of those are viable.
Now you follow this as open falsity, not gonna waste my time disproving it. There is zero basis to this wish o yours.
Maintaining missiles is shockingly expensive.
This is even more shocking falsity, in lieu of the one above. One needs not even know anything about other countries systems to know nuclear weapon systems are the most cost effective of them all. THAT is why every one wants them. Calling them "expensive" is sheer lack of knowledge at best, gaslighting audience at worst.
In 2022, America spent $50 billion to maintain its smaller fleet of \~5,000 warheads.
Of that $50B formal figure the wast bulk is not the warheads but the whole ecosystem labor costs. Just translating it to Russian or Chinese wages you are at $10B equivalent. And that is before one takes into account the US civilian nuclear sector is effectively dead today, leaving the military budget to fund retaining any expertise hubs still left in full. Unlike in RU or CN where the civilian nuclear programs fund the bulk of the people in the sector.
That same year, Russia spent $60 billion on their entire military, including their missiles.
Again a nice fallacy of context. No serious analyst comparing country capabilities uses financial numbers for that. You are just picking the metric that suits your narrative, either completely oblivious to it being informationally worthless, making all conclusions based on it as worthless, or, giving you some benefit of the doubt, you add this "fact" to support your pre-made conclusion, without thinking it through.
Meanwhile, as the Ukraine war has demonstrated, it is clear that large portions of the money allocated for the military was squandered in corruption.
True, as in .. any military or any organisation. This is no argument. It is just an emotional appeal to an uninformed reader to make him feel good as you skip mentioning the waste one could find in US military financing.
It genuinely wouldn't surprise me if Russia doesn't have more than a few dozen viable warheads.
And now the finale, You have "prepared" the audience, so now you go with the big one - and openly false statement shrouded in "it would not surprise me".
Taken at face value, if it would truly "not surprise you", then you have literally zero business discussing the topic you are discussing here. ChatGPT would be way more qualified in comparison to anyone "not being surprised" by that garbage propaganda statement being reality.
The other option, bar your whole piece being a paid PR sting, is you simply do not have the fundamental, sociology, economy nor international politics backgrounds to comprehend how ridiculous that statement is and how it undermines any credibility you had left up until making it.
Likewise, China has recently been caught with their own scandal where military personnel were caught straight up stealing important components for the missile to work properly.
Same as above.
---
I see no more point in teaching you here about the weak spots in your reasoning, or, worse, paid propaganda.
The core issue is you are not doing an analysis here but a justification of a conclusion using the standard range of debate tools from weak arguments to open fallacies Be it intentional or not, until you address that problem, it is a waste of my time to discuss here.
snuffy_bodacious@reddit (OP)
Oh, you were being nice before?
And yet, that's exactly what you did?
And you're right. I'm paid to write this. The money is amazing. You're so smart.
minosi1@reddit
And you're right. I'm paid to write this. The money is amazing. You're so smart.
I did not write that.
Work on not falling back to straw mans, fallacies in general, as the first tool of choice in a debate. It does not suit you.
Cheers.
AndroidAmongUs@reddit
"i did not write that! i just heavily implied it!!" dont move the goalposts. also you STILL failed to actually argue any points the OP made, spending most of your time trying to insult the OP. not really sure why you're commenting on this thread at all if you don't have any true constructive criticism to give. let's be less grumpy next time we post on reddit.
minosi1@reddit
OK, I will try put it bluntly for your and others benefit:
Since I know just about nothing about the OP, except the stuff written here, I can only speculate on why he wrote such a badly put together piece.
There are two main possibilities to a mainstream propaganda-aligned posting like this:
a) the OP either uninformed and inexperienced to notice fella who just fell for it, I am HOPING that is the case, hence I bother even replying
b) the OP is a paid shill, that would also explain the preponderance of falsities and fallacies in his position
I cover both since I have no way of knowing where the OP stands. That is the exact opposite of what you imply, your use of a strawman. You added your own on top which I will not react to to not waste more electrons.
---
Telling someone that what they are saying SOUNDS as if it was an intentionally spouted narrative is NOT the same as saying they are paid to spout it.
It is a subtle indirect warning to let them know they are so far from a merit-based discussion it is almost impossible to react to their statements with a straight face.
AndroidAmongUs@reddit
Which propaganda is OP's post specifically aligned to? Link please.
are you experienced in nuclear war? would you mind sharing your experiences below?
once again, you imply, but somehow we're in the wrong for inferring lol
oh nice, reddit's favorite word! can you quote directly the strawman i made?
also I do love when people online heavily imply something and then gaslight immediately after when you pick up on it. anyways back to the topic at hand. can you, using any sources, ACTUALLY argue against the points OP makes. we'll all be waiting :) also i urge you to quit being so grumpy over a post which ultimately matters quite little and was written to engage a healthy discussion.
AndroidAmongUs@reddit
Threads was made in the 80s when MAD was the general consensus regarding nuclear war which is considered outdated by many in the field today.
dittybopper_05H@reddit
Threads is propaganda. It was specifically written as an anti-nuclear film. As is The Day After, and pretty much every film that touches on this subject.
DO NOT USE FICTION AS A BASIS FOR YOUR PREPS.
simontweel@reddit
Threads was the reason I started prepping. The movie might be the single most terrifying thing I have ever watched, especially after I learned it is an accurate simulation of a nuclear war and outcome.
nickMakesDIY@reddit
Bro, they just need a nuclear sub in the gulf to blow up 3 nukes in the air like EMPs and the entire country is pretty much done for. That's the premise for One Second After.....
snuffy_bodacious@reddit (OP)
So you're saying the real threat would be a severe supply chain disruption?
We agree.
TheRealBunkerJohn@reddit
I mean, if "severe supply chain disruption" is a code for "90% of the U.S. population dead within a year" then...yes?
hope-luminescence@reddit
I think the notable things are:
As an individual prepper, there is a lot you can do to mitigate that for yourself, and it flows from Tuesday preps fairly easily.
Prepping across society buys time for people to get things moving again and mitigates it a lot.
snuffy_bodacious@reddit (OP)
Yes. The best preps to survive such a situation is some food storage and a water filter.
TheRealBunkerJohn@reddit
Unfortunately, you'd likely need a year+ of supplies and knowledge of how to be self sustainable. Next to a nuclear exchange, an EMP/cyber attack (or anything that destroys the grid,) is a nightmare scenario.
snuffy_bodacious@reddit (OP)
A year supply of food is ideal (it's what I have), but I'd still argue that a 90-day supply will increase your chances of being among the small minority of survivors by significant margins.
And, of course, I'm not negating the need for other preps like medical supplies and firearms.
TheRealBunkerJohn@reddit
For the majority of disasters, I'd agree that a 90 day supply would be ideal. For massive disasters such as nuclear war or grid failure, I have to recommend 1 year+ due to how many factors there are.
cryptodog11@reddit
Not sever, end.
snuffy_bodacious@reddit (OP)
tom-ae-to, tom-ah-to.
nickMakesDIY@reddit
If interruption then ur 100lbs od dry goods is going to hold you over. If the end, then you will need waaaaay more stuff....
snuffy_bodacious@reddit (OP)
I agree, but it is important to win the battle before the war.
Tackling the issue you're talking about is a whole other discussion.
Puzzleheaded_Gene909@reddit
More like Stone Age.
dittybopper_05H@reddit
This is actually dangerously false.
The protection factor (PF) of a typical framed home is something like 2 or 3. If you get fallout that is equivalent of just 1,000 milliSieverts an hour outside your home, which for a 5 hour exposure is fatal for 50% of people within 30 days (with medical treatment), with a protection factor of 3 you'd still get a fatal dose within just 15 hours.
You need a significantly higher protection factor. Building a fallout shelter in your basement can increase that protection factor to around 40 or so. That is survivable, because 1,000 / 40 = 25 mSvt/hr, which is similar to getting a full body CT scan every hour, but increases your risk of cancer later.
A better option is an underground shelter with 3 feet of packed dirt on top. Packed dirt has a "halving thickness" of 3.6 inches, meaning that depth of dirt reduces radiation by half. With 3 feet, or 36 inches, you end up with a protection factor of 2^(10) = 1,024 protection factor. If the outside fallout radiation level is 1,000 mSvt/hr, you'll only get 1,000 / 1,024 = 0.98 mSvt/hr.
hope-luminescence@reddit
An actually correct problem being pointed out in a sea of people desperately making stuff up to justify dying.
It's been noted that 1. a very makeshift shelter-in-a-house shelter is way better than nothing at all and 2. that in likely scenarios most people probably won't be facing *that* much intense fallout, and a lot of people combined that with 3. a misunderstanding of the implications of the inverse square law and decided that a normal house gives plenty of protection.
Icy-Medicine-495@reddit
Russia has not conducted a nuclear explosion test on their arsenal since the fall of the soviet union.
Russia has been proven to be a paper tiger military with poor equipment and even poorer logistics.
Scarecrow_Folk@reddit
The last US detonation was in 1992. Basically the same time.
flowRedux@reddit
We don't need to do that anymore because we have very large and very expensive computers and basements full of egg head scientists that simulate those blasts instead. Also the aforementioned billions we spend physically maintaining the arsenal.
Scarecrow_Folk@reddit
They dropped a never tested nuke design on Japan. I don't think computers were the driving factor there
Icy-Medicine-495@reddit
Good point. Lots of the OP and my point is mentioned in this video of why Putin can never use nukes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iId3y9JtTbs
Scarecrow_Folk@reddit
Fair points there but honestly, I don't really care that much. The only question in full nuclear war will be if you're lucky enough to die quickly or if you suffer via radiation or starve in the eventual nuclear winter 5-10 years later.
RobertB16@reddit
How so?
Icy-Medicine-495@reddit
Proof of poor logistics?
-They ran out of fuel for their vehicles almost immediately when they first invaded Ukraine
-They sent airsoft equipment to soldiers instead of real body armor.
-They are using North Korea artillery shells because they cant produce enough of their own.
-They are using T51 tanks now
-They can't conquer a neighboring country in 3 years and they where considered one of the top military threats.
RobertB16@reddit
Oh I completely agree with you that they're a mess, but they aren't a paper tiger. Because - even still all of what you Said it's true, they still hold ~20% of Ukraine. And even worse: NATO/US has sent guns, ammo, SAM's, airplanes, tanks, long range ballisitc missles... and the russians are still there.
Fück this war, but Ukraine isn't winning.
Lethalmouse1@reddit
It's also a huge mistake to consider Ukraine as Ukraine the way people do via the war.
They are fighting the combined GDP war weaponry of like what? 5 Ukraines via NATO assistance. Russia did make some errors and one of them too was I really think Russia didn't expect the US to do as much as it did.
Without Javelins which are not native to the war originally, Russia is far more successful.
People talk about Russia vs Ukraine like Russia is the Spanish with guns taking a long time to Conquer the Aztecs, while forgetting that in this case the aztecs were given lever actions in the 1500s.
In essence, the Ukraine/Russia divide in say population is 4.5.
The equivalency is US vs Modern Germany or UK. But then, imagine Germany/UK getting the equipment to equal and rival the US on top.....
That's not a "paper tiger" if the US struggles.
This is like saying that the US flies F22s into Germany expecting to have air superiority and drives Abrams Tanks in. Again expecting superiority. Now suddenly Germany is gifted F22s to cancel the airpower and Abrams tank equivalents and anti-such tank devices they didn't have at the start.
No logical person thought Russia was much more than it is. And no logical person thinks Ukraine proves it is much less.
Russia is clearly like 10% less effective than you should have thought they were. And Idk why anyone has this idea that Ukrain is a country of 20K people with spears. They were no superpower, but they weren't rocking pointy sticks.
The biggest odd arguement I've seen is the idea that Russia is so evil, if they could do better they would. And that the US is so good, that they could have done way better (say the L in Afghanistan) but didn't.
But this always assumes Russia is a literal comic book villain who would both want to literally wipe out Ukraine to nothing + that they wouldn't be scared of backlash. And that the US could beat the Taliban because we could nuke the country into a parking lot.
But also, if Russia does that that proved they are a comic book villain.
That's silly. And it's also predicated on the idea that the initial war was 100% never what Russia did.
That is, the assumption of the avg Westerners is that Russia did not go into Ukraine with its stated objectives of priority:
Secure the separatist regions (which by and large it did and did first)
Go to Kiev to remove "hostile/coup" government and install a "legitimate" government of Ukraine.
No, the concept of Russia's failure level assumes purely in every one of these talks I've seen that Russia went into Ukraine from day one with one objective priority:
"Take over the whole of Ukraine in a few days and make Ukraine in total Russia again."
Not only does that not fit with what Russia did tactically or logistically, but it is or at least especially, was, silly as shit.
Russia severely over estimated their exact abilities, basically by 10%. 10% more effectiveness and they would have had Kiev in the initial.
Later, Russia was fucked, because they had no plans in particular to deal with a Whole West supplied Ukrainian Army.
minosi1@reddit
Later, Russia was fucked, because they had no plans in particular to deal with a Whole West supplied Ukrainian Army.
Umm. We are all looking live on the Russian plan to deal with Whole West military. The attrition warfare thingie is how peer wars are fought. They very much planned for that.
On one hand we are seeing the "light" version of their "big war" plan as civilian infra is mostly spared.
On the other hand, their planners have it WAY harder than fighting the whole west scenario they planned for. In this it is similar to how restrictive ROEs heavily affected US combat results in both Iraq and AFG.
The conflict being limited, their planners are not allowed to take down Western ISR assets which would have been the first targets in a "proper" big war. Nor are they allowed any long fires into Germany, France or Slovakia where most Ukrainian ammo is made. Things that would have been one of the first to hit in a full-on war. One can think of it in many ways, but "not planned for" is true only in the sense they did not plan for a "pimped-up-police-style" operation with the politically-imposed ROE tying their hands in eliminating external ISR assets and external weapons production being off-limits as well. In a full on war both would be prime targets, including any space-based kit.
---
To stay on topic here a bit. IF the whole situation has showed anything, it is that the biggest threat to a prepper in a war situation is his own government. Having a contingency plan to hide/escape from its control while it is still relatively cheap /resources/money/risk/ is way more important than any amount of supplies one may have. Without that, one is only meat for the grinder. Waiting for one's turn. In this the many dystopic society-collapse-breeds-tyrany movies are pretty close to reality actually.
Lethalmouse1@reddit
To the former portion, mostly yeah, some of that difference of expression is a bit speech pattern too.
Anyway, the second part is why I tend to say that a large chunk of "prepping" is really a hobby-expression, a D&D, comic book, stamp collecting etc.
Latest tactical gadgets, "Gotta catch em all!"
The debate portion is when and to what degree. I suppose. Obviously full doomers basically think the Mad Max world is 3 days away. So, building the net worth isn't as important as cool stuff.
But the true answer to preparedness is to get financially stable and then, get overseas assets, so you're able to be a prepared refugee. Even if you can't bring stuff.
Even a lot of collapses or issues are going to be more regional to a degree. And you're likely to better survive if you're done "fighting" for the homeland, with the ability to refugee in style.
For normal financially established people, I'd generally say some $50,000 broken into at least two disparate countries. Enough to get a foothold for a start over and not be a true refugee with nothing, having some ability to grease low level wheels etc.
Really, unless one thinks the world is ending and their lineage is pointless, after the basics (like a few months supply in the bank/logical functional items), a lot of prepper money would be better dedicated to investing/debt/etc until normal life is prepped.
"I can survive a nuke for 30 years"
Mixed with:
"One bad 6 months of lay offs and I'll lose the house my stuff is in."
Is kind of a bad prep. Actually... thinking out loud, a few preps are simple and logical, like a wood stove etc. Whatever. These are dual life utilities, usable in money world and prepper mad max world. So this sort of floats in a seperate area.
The money rule should actually be in tandem with the "preps". 1 week survival money + 1 week of food etc. 3 months survival money + 3 months "preps."
Of course money gets self generating (well, so can some preps), so meaning if you can't live without a job for 20 years, you probably shouldn't have dedicated the time/resources to 20 years bunker.
minosi1@reddit
Agreed.
BTW, were are to describe the whole affair in cynical terms. A.k.a. the terms Stavka level folks think in, the whole Ukraine affair so far is a dream-come-true mass scale whole country exercise. The prep of all preps on a country scale for a total world war scenario.
When this ends, Russia will have a full generation, maybe two, of not only battle-hardened military people, but a top to bottom information-battle-hardened society and, most importantly, battle-hardened organisational structures across the economy. West would have basically "created" a literal war machine the world has not seen before. Not even the Wehrmacht of 1941 would compare, being just the military side of an otherwise weak country.
I do not think many in the West, especially in Europe, realise what they are building up with their arrogance. If this continues, and mouse like Estonia continue their provocations, I can see Russia of 2030, with its military machine well oiled by then, actually taking the bait and acting like the rising Imperium they are portrayed today. Just driving the Estonians and Lithuanians out to the sea, Normandy style, US just left to mediate between the EU and RU, trying to ensure so Latvia does not follow.
I do not like where this is going one iota given where I am based. But in all this, the actual topic of this thread - a mass nuclear exchange - is less likely by the day. Would put it an order of magnitude less probably than it was in the spring of 2021. And that is A good thing^(TM) on itself.
Icy-Medicine-495@reddit
Ok paper tiger is probably an overstatement. But Russia was way overhyped for their war capabilities.
minosi1@reddit
Except they did not.
Except they did not. Not to actual combat units. Nothing wrong training with airsoft kit.
Except they are not. Not for the reason you state. NK has a pile of shells they cannot use themselves. It is in NK interest to sell (old) shells in trade for raw materials to make new ones. A year into the war or so RU artillery was confirmed still be to be onto 1960s stockpiles. Since then it got complicated as they setup a better system, allocating new shells to new barrels and older shells to partially worn barells so not as easy to track this anymore.
There are no T51 tanks. As for T54, those were seen mostly with reserve units and as SP artillery - as was always their secondary job. Besides, think what happens to an M2 Bradley if it happens to meet an T54 with an AP ammo loaded. It would not be pretty.
Except they can. Look up what were RU official objectives in this conflict. "Conquering a country" was not one of them. You need to talk to US on how that "can conquer" worked out in Iraq. And that country had no real external support to speak of.
In short, cool down on the propaganda stream bro.
snuffy_bodacious@reddit (OP)
I outline "how so" in my post, if you read it.
RobertB16@reddit
Oh I didn't mean to reply to your post, but while we're at it, you didn't take into account the famine produced by nuclear winter.
"Atmospheric soot loadings from nuclear weapon detonation would cause disruptions to the Earth’s climate, limiting terrestrial and aquatic food production (...) We estimate more than 2 billion people could die from nuclear war between India and Pakistan, and more than 5 billion could die from a war between the United States and Russia—underlining the importance of global cooperation in preventing nuclear war."
(https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-022-00573-0)
snuffy_bodacious@reddit (OP)
I did implicitly, but not explicitly. This was on purpose.
My post was already too long. At least 80% of the people responding to my post aren't reading all of it and are therefore missing the argument I'm trying to make.
Beautiful-Quality402@reddit
Has the US?
snuffy_bodacious@reddit (OP)
No, but this is not because of lack of funding.
BallsOutKrunked@reddit
If you think they're a paper tiger go grab a rifle and head to eastern ukraine. I have zero love for the russian state or its leader, and they always try to punch above their weight class. But they assassinate people all around the world and while their European land war hasn't worked out great for them I'd still rather have their position than Ukraine's right now.
snuffy_bodacious@reddit (OP)
Precisely!
CooperWatson@reddit
Nukes don't exist.
Previous_Driver7189@reddit
Its gonna be sh*t.
Femveratu@reddit
This is a good reminder. For a long time there was a U.S. propaganda push by scientists and others to portray nukes as so destructive that they should never be used as it would be the end of everyone and there was just nothing we could do about it.
While their heart was in the right place, not only is this not true, other countries actually have prepared bunkers and hardened places like certain subway and metro stations to better withstand the effects and shelter people.
Russia in particular views it’s preparations as part of its deterrent. It plans for a segment of its population to go east and survive.
minosi1@reddit
Russians were always assuming US would do a first massed strike against counter-value targets from day one. They knew it was the actual US plan for a big war up until the mid to late 70s.
As for the "moving into Siberia" and, in general, abandoning the today populated areas to rebuild in the wilderness, that is not a "nuclear war" plan but a "big war plan". It is the strategy they planned for since the times of Napoleon. It just gets rehashed any time a risk of a big conflict comes on the table.
US is different in this in a way, but not much in the grand scale of things. The issue for Russia is that they have highly-concentrated cities, making them relatively easy targets thus necessitating more preparations in those cities. In contrast, the huge US suburbs are much harder to /directly/ eliminate. Their spread out nature is a defensive measure in its own right.
Femveratu@reddit
Hun, very interesting point on the nature of our suburbs
BackflipFromOrbit@reddit
You should read Nuclear War by Annie Jacobsen to find out just how fucking bad a nuclear war would be. Best case scenario is still comparable to a mass extinction event.
snuffy_bodacious@reddit (OP)
I strongly suspect I'm more familiar with that book than you are. She has her critics, among whom, I am one.
BackflipFromOrbit@reddit
She sells fear to the reader, but the book is not technically inaccurate. You should be fucking scared of a nuclear exchange. Downplaying the severity of even a singular nuclear strike is asinine.
I've read the book 4 times. You're assumption that "you are more familiar with the book than me" is likely a bit overblown. My job is very much part of the new age of nuclear exchange capability.
AndroidAmongUs@reddit
we're also talking about the same author who believes Stalin made little people alien clones to fly a spaceship. As much as I enjoy her work, she isn't the most sane lol.
Moist_Surroundings@reddit
Nuclear War A Scenario by Annie Jacobsen is a excellent book that covers nuclear war quite well.
JRHLowdown3@reddit
It's definitely everyone serious about survival should take into consideration.
Moving away from the big cities and nuke targets is the best prep you can make regarding this.
Some basic knowledge and common sense is going to be important.
If you have a basement and not in a blast zone then your most of the way there and will only need to do some minor work to get things ready. Having proper gas masks, survey meters and dosimeters and JLIST or MOPP type suits for each family member will be important.
The above is the only scenario specific preps, everything else is your common preps- year supply of food, water source and storage, etc.
Old billboard vinyl ads that are often cheap or available free, are nice to have to cover firewood sheds, garden areas, etc.
moocat55@reddit
I was chatting with someone about having some food put away for fear of hurricanes and was mocked for wearing a tin foil hat. So, just remember, keep your stashed food a secret. The world will be full of starving fools.
Owltiger2057@reddit
The biggest and best reality is that 5 minutes after the first detonation, all of the "armchair experts," on Reddit will become experts on reality. Not that anyone will hear them...
Odd-Afternoon-589@reddit
I think you’re right. Air bursting shouldn’t cause much fallout, as there’s not much to irradiate in the air. It’s obviously a much smaller yield, but they had Air Force officers stand underneath the detonation of a genie rocket at altitude. There was only a de minimus increase in radiation and the officers weren’t affected.
I think it was in the Sandia Labs’ oral history on nuclear strategy documentaries, at least on the US side in the 70s when terminal guidance got so much better they shifted from a mix of counterforce and counter value to almost exclusively counter force targeting and scaled back the yield significantly. So yeah, they’d hit an airfield with a dozen war heads, but they’d be in the 50kt range and all air bursts.
Also, I’ve heard that even if there were a significant number of ground bursts, the prevailing winds go east/west and not north/south, so folks in the southern hemisphere wouldn’t see much fallout effect.
Remarkable_Ad5011@reddit
Knowing my luck, a missile would bear off course and hit my back yard…
EducationalCharity78@reddit
Wall of Fire? I’m guessing you’re talking initial blast. Not taking into account fire storms from burning buildings. Dresden didn’t require a nuclear bomb to become hell on earth. An EMP will hit and almost certainly take out domestic water. Not just your showers, but fire hydrants and fire trucks. Your average fire truck doesn’t have an immunity to that or the mass of cars and debris blocking roadways. I think a lot of “preppers” accuse not preppers of being unrealistic to ease their minds, but I think some of those same preppers are guilty of doing the exact same in the opposite direction. If you don’t have a basement, and your house is not made of a solid rock, you’re not going to be feeling the best after a few weeks. Are your windows boarded in advance? Do you even have the wood on hand to board them. The blast may not take your house out, but I would be willing to be windows a lot farther then 2.5 miles out. Have you been wise enough not to let anyone in your area know that you are prepped? Because as much as relying on the concept of humanity is good at heart is nice, I think COVID showed us that a lot of people worry about themselves at any cost. I’m not saying we are all screwed, but I think a large majority unprepared, underprepared, and prepared will not see an end to the winter.
No-Sandwich6638@reddit
I don’t think the nukes need to vaporize everything in order to get the job done.
snuffy_bodacious@reddit (OP)
I agree.
pomjones@reddit
Stop using ai if you cannot create proper threads please.
snuffy_bodacious@reddit (OP)
I wrote this. Not AI.
masonicangeldust@reddit
I live in an Air Force town that is 100% a target if it happens, even in a small scale town. I've come to accept that I'm cooked lol
TangeloEmergency9161@reddit
i’m by stratcom. see you in the next life lol
snuffy_bodacious@reddit (OP)
How close is your town to the base?
masonicangeldust@reddit
If you look on a map it looks like it's almost in the middle of town, but that's if you consider some of the suburbs part of the town. Whole city would likely get hit by several nukes, this town manufactures a lot of weapons and missile parts.
Paranormal_Lemon@reddit
No but it could be delivered to any coastal city submarine.
100 1Mt missiles would do more damage, it would be more spread out.
snuffy_bodacious@reddit (OP)
I'm not 100% sure about what Russia has, but the deployable warheads that come from the Ohio Class Submarine are 100 kt, not 1 Mt.
Likewise, for reasons I already outlined, there are reasons to be very doubtful about how many nukes Russia can actually deploy.
MerijnZ1@reddit
There's also the Russian torpedo nukes meant to cause a tsunami across the east coast, speculated to be 2+ Mt (Congressional Research Service). If a full on nuclear exchange between superpowers happens, most people will survive the blast. Most people would also perish not long after.
And ngl, I don't think betting on Russia's maintenance when it comes to a nuclear arsenal is worth it.
Hollywood dramatizes things. Do what you can to be prepared. But if all nukes fly, we're all gone
KeuningPanda@reddit
Good take, way more sensible than most things you read and what people believe.
Incendiaryag@reddit
There's a lot of validity to what you're saying. Ppl will be like "no point prepping we're all dead if the nukes drop" but chances are not, so better to consider how you would handle the awful aftermath.
EAMONTEREY10@reddit
Scary
smellswhenwet@reddit
Thank you for that excellent explanation.
Lancifer1979@reddit
What about the release of thermal energy, aka heat? We’ve seen enough wildfires and what they can do and how quickly they do it in recent times. What would 600 mile an hour winds following your ground zero reaching 10,000°F in less than a second? Inside a city and surroundings, Even if you’re in a basement and the blast wave doesn’t destroy you you’re likely to cook
SunsetApostate@reddit
NukeMap allows you to see the area where dry wood is likely to burn. For 100-500 kt weapons, it’s smaller than the 5 psi overpressure area. It’s definitely a risk, but like everything else with nukes, it is not an all-consuming threat.
snuffy_bodacious@reddit (OP)
I agree.
Oztraliiaaaa@reddit
Bombing nuclear power reactors will end an economy just look at Fukishima and Chernobyl.
snuffy_bodacious@reddit (OP)
The Japanese economy isn't doing great, but that has nothing to do with Fukushima.
WSBpeon69420@reddit
Nice write up! I would also mention that a terrorist attack probably wouldn’t be with a type of nuclear bomb you’re talking about. A dirty bomb would probably take out a few city blocks but they are called dirty bombs because the objective is to spread radiation. So even in that in a major city would obviously be pretty bad but also very localized
snuffy_bodacious@reddit (OP)
Thank you.
gb11809@reddit
Many should go visit Hiroshima…
snuffy_bodacious@reddit (OP)
Operation Meetinghouse took place just a few days prior to Hiroshima. It was a bombing run over Tokyo that killed more people than either of the nuclear bombings, but only involved conventional explosives.
Physical_Package6726@reddit
How about 2 fission devices set to detonate at a high altitude generating an EMP? How dire is the EMP threat really?
snuffy_bodacious@reddit (OP)
This would knock out the electrical grid. In 2015 Congress held a hearing and the invited experts opined that in the event of a collapse of the electric grid, somewhere between 66%-90% of people would perish.
Personally, I agree with this assessment.
minosi1@reddit
No one uses fission devices these days. Any left were disassembled for raw materials decades ago or are waiting for such a treatment. And definitely not for EMP purposes.
Besides, EMP is a weapon of war, its primary purpose to fry (unshielded) electronics, collapse power grids and the like. On its own it is a like a hurricane hitting a place. Unpleasant, but not big of a deal on its own.
The "funny" thing with nukes used for EMP strikes is one does not employ them in such a way unless there is a full scale nuclear war in progress ... in such a scenario, I would prefer ten EMP strikes over my head instead of a single air burst one. Any day.
DublDenim@reddit
OP you are severely misinformed. please read “nuclear war, a scenario” by annie jacobsen
the problem isn’t one nuke, it’s every country being forced to fire their entire arsenal all at once. anyways read the book.
snuffy_bodacious@reddit (OP)
I am quite familiar with Annie Jacobsen's work. She is very much one of the influencers I was referring to at the top.
While I'm unaware of where she gets anything technically wrong in her book, she has quite a few detractors (among whom, I am one) who criticize her for spinning the details to make it as frightening as possible.
I don't entirely fault her for it. Fear, after all, is a great way to sell books.
ResponsibleBank1387@reddit
One boom will be just Chernobyl. Nuclear warheads flying will be emptying the barn. Even if you’re right and only 10 percent work, that’s enough to do serious damage to the world. Some places will only get residual damage.
snuffy_bodacious@reddit (OP)
Nobody knows how many warheads will fly on either team, though I should always note that the radioactive contamination left over from a nuclear explosion is extremely small, especially when compared to Chernobyl.
When they dropped the very first bomb in New Mexico, scientists were surveying ground zero within hours.
kkinnison@reddit
at this point I doubt Russia is even able to properly maintain it's nuclear arsenal to be concidered anything more than a paper tiger/bear.
and even if they did we are only talking about a few thousand nukes, focused on Military, infrastructure, and ports. Population centers are not really good targets as they can "wither on the vine" dur to supply chain disruptions.
but overall, I rather get caught in an initial blast that have to deal with the fallout and suffering that follows
minosi1@reddit
If you were talking about the US arsenal, which was not renewed for decades, unlike the RU one, you may have a /hypothetical/ point. In reality even the US with its ancient arsenal does regular maintenance on it to ensure it is operational. Like every single nuclear power does.
What so many people, most journalists included, completely miss is the economical aspect. While expensive individually, on the back-for-buck scale nuclear weapons are EXTREMELY CHEAP compared to respective conventional military. That is why poor countries like NK seek nukes. It gives them much better bang for the buck than investing same resources into conventional forces. For this reason only anyone assuming that nuclear arsenals of ANY nuclear power are neglected is either doing propaganda to justify a first strike on the party in question or is simply an uninformed fool. Being the most cost-effective, nuclear forces and arsenals of EVERY country are the last to see budget cuts, if at all.
kkinnison@reddit
eat borcht Russian stooge you are not being paid enough
David_Parker@reddit
Jesus there’s so much wrong with this statement.
It’s like saying dealing with cancer isn’t nearly as bad at it’s portrayed. You’re actually comparing death as worse than suffering through a nuclear explosion.
liquiddandruff@reddit
You should work on your reading comprehension.
snuffy_bodacious@reddit (OP)
You aren't actually processing the argument I'm making.
unicornlocostacos@reddit
Yes I’m gonna need more tire clearance bro
SimpleProfessor1938@reddit
This is seriously wrong, even small fusion bombs are megatons tnt. Not 100K tons Zar bomba might be too big. Bit most fusion bombs are small enough for bombers, icbms, cruise missiles. Russia has hundreds of fusion, and hundreds of fission bombs. They have missiles that carry 5 bombs. Aside from icbms and medium range missiles, russia has several types of hypersonic missiles.
snuffy_bodacious@reddit (OP)
Okay. The Ohio Class Submarine is equipped with the UGM-133 Trident II missile, which is used for nuclear strikes. What kind of warheads is this missile typically equipped with?
buttlickerurmom@reddit
I am so thankful you posted this to such great detail because this is my greatest fear; and people always act like I'm paranoid when it's the one of the greater risks of threat to us if shit goes down. Did most of populace outside of CIA predict 9/11? Outside of healthcare community, who expected COVID 19?
Usually people respond with "I don't want to live in a world post attack" but if you know the details like you posted, it's likely survivable with correct prep which is why I'm on this sub 😁
Other than living outside of 2.5-5 miles of likely blast radiuses, my greatest concern that this didn't touch is the lack of awareness how much changing clothes/wiping self matters in terms of after immediate fall out. & Having a radío
ALTERFACT@reddit
One nuclear blast alone can ruin your entire weekend.
snuffy_bodacious@reddit (OP)
I mean... I agree?
Heck_Spawn@reddit
I'm about 210 miles from the prime target for US enemies, but I'm upwind. I'm also 20 miles downwind from where NOAA samples the 3rd cleanest air in the world. Pretty sure the fallout would be minimal. I'm more worried about Kim's guidance systems...
HearMeRoar80@reddit
China's manufacturing capability can produce as much missiles and warheads as they need. They can literally produce 1000s a day if they wanted to. They can do it cheap too.
Fantastic-Spend4859@reddit
I remember hearing the nuclear tests in the 70's. Meh.
OnTheEdgeOfFreedom@reddit
This is accurate, but let me add some other issues. Mind you, I do not believe nuclear war is an issue at this time; this is just me employing some of my usual Pedantic Rigor(tm).
First, it's not certain that HEMP weapons exist, but they're certainly feasible and I'd guess they do exist. These don't do direct physical damage per se, but they will take down the power grid over hundreds or thousands of miles - and handful would certain shut down the US power grid pretty much everywhere. I'm not going to get into why I think that's a civilization crasher for the US - I have a long essay on it elsewhere - but if you're going to prep for nuclear war, this is the thing that should absolutely concern you, and it's also vastly difficult to prep for (in the US). Frankly, if you're seriously worried about nuclear war and think HEMPs exist, you should be packing for a different country. In my opinion.
But leaving HEMPs out, at least a few cities would be leveled or at least become unlivable in a nuclear war, between the detonation itself, the fires that would erupt, and in a ground burst, fallout. Yes it's possible for people to avoid fallout with more or less simple precautions. Most people won't - they will panic and try to flee the city. Roads will jam and people, in their panic and now trapped, will likely turn violent. Given the number of guns in the US, that doesn't go well. And in the ensuing panic, people aren't going to be reporting to work, and infrastructure, like shipping in food, managing water, parts of the grid etc, will likely fail. The radiation will be nearly irrelevant - if food isn't arriving, the city will be out of food in \~3 days and then everyone will need to leave, flooding the surrounding area with a few million refugees. Then you have additional problems with raiding, epidemics and all that.
But the real problem will be paranoia and disinformation. Without HEMPs, a large part of the US is still functioning, which means internet is likely still available in many places. It will be flooded with fake news stories and other forms of disinformation, plus well-intended but paranoid misinformation. I saw the disinformation campaign launched during the Covid pandemic and how many people believed total disinfo. This isn't going to be better and people will start following advice which snarls all attempts at recovery, encourages violence, or simply causes health issues. To put this in perspective, it's estimated that about a third of the Covid deaths in the US - a solid 330,000 deaths - were preventable if people had followed public health recommendations. In a nuclear attack, there would be a lot more fear and panic overriding critical thinking, a much larger disinfo campaign, and the number of people mislead would (I think) be pretty damn vast. (Imagine if people were told, and please note, this is NOT TRUE, that quickly drinking 12 ounces of tincture of iodine made you immune to radiation.)
In summary, nuclear war doesn't kill most of you with heat or any other forms of radiation. It's the chaos and infrastructure damage that does the real damage, and it could continue for months (or in the case of HEMPs, become a permanent state of affairs.)
People prepping their cell phones with Faraday cages and stocking potassium iodide and thinking they would get through are simply prepping for the wrong risks (and with the wrong materials - KI isn't usually used for nuclear strikes.)
snuffy_bodacious@reddit (OP)
Bingo.
SunsetApostate@reddit
Thank you for this write up. I have been researching nuclear war, and have mostly come up with the same conclusions. Media and popular culture promote a criminal level of fatalistic complacency when it comes to nuclear war.
ExternalFoundation84@reddit
I’m in a circle of people that acknowledge that there are existing weapons that are worse than nuclear weapons on destructive scales but also don’t have nuclear fallout and radiation. Look at what’s starting to be leaked from reality check newsnation
ST-2x@reddit
Totally on board with your reasoning. I also think that if Russia were to try a first strike, they would need to focus on the opposing military’s nuclear forces and not on cities due to their lack of readiness. Ukraine convinced me that Russia cannot pull off a first strike, and would have a weak response to a first strike from the US.
Rachaelmm1995@reddit
I live next to a nuclear base. We’re realistically worried about accidental leaks.
If there’s actual war, I’d get bombed first due to the base, so I wouldn’t even know about it. 💁♀️
snuffy_bodacious@reddit (OP)
When you say "nuclear base", are you referring to the ICBM silos?
If this is what you mean, I still think you'd be surprised about your chances for surviving the first few days/weeks of a nuclear war.
First, why would a foreign adversary even bother targeting the American ICBM silos?
Taking out the silos is going to be difficult and may not be worth the effort. The very existence of the silos has more to do with trying to divert enemy nuclear warheads away from major cities (i.e. Sponge Theory), and there is considerable debate around this in the US Military as to whether or not this makes sense. Quite a few generals/analysts are arguing that we shouldn't even bother keeping the silos because the enemy isn't worried about them at all. (Personally, I think I agree with them, but I could be wrong.)
Second, assuming the ICBM's are attacked, how close are you to them in reality?
If you live in Minot, ND, most of the ICBM are more than 20-30 miles from the city. This is well outside the blast radius for virtually all nuclear bombs.
Rachaelmm1995@reddit
No. A military nuclear submarine base.
If there was a fire of something on one of the subs there could be a spill.
The subs are able to contain most issues but nowhere near as much as nuclear stations would.
Correct-Meal-3302@reddit
Yeah you right - you would be cooked
Rachaelmm1995@reddit
😂 I’m at peace with it
Mammoth-Atmosphere17@reddit
While “sponge theory” suggests that the Plains would absorb nuclear strikes, it’s not that the cities themselves would be spared. The very existence of dispersed silos is to complicate enemy targeting, which in turn reinforces their role in deterrence. If the enemy has to target fields of nukes in Wyoming, that doesn’t mean they’re not targeting Houston’s oil reserves & port, it just means Houston may get a few fewer nukes. That’s not a win for humankind.
snuffy_bodacious@reddit (OP)
Personally, I'm skeptical of Sponge Theory to begin with. Assuming I'm wrong...
A few 100,000 people spared from the horrors of war is a net positive.
Mammoth-Atmosphere17@reddit
Spared the horrors? Not sure that would be the case. Just not killed outright.
snuffy_bodacious@reddit (OP)
Once people realize they aren't automatically going to die if a nuclear war breaks out, reasonable measures to prep for this (food and water) suddenly makes a lot of sense.
I realize there is still a larger concern regarding the long-term consequences associated with no longer having access to Amazon Prime, but this is a longer discussion for another time. (Short conclusion: to be among the 10-30% of survivors, it really helps to have at least a 90-day supply of food.)
Mammoth-Atmosphere17@reddit
No one is talking about Amazon Prime and basically reducing opposing arguments to a matter of convenience is bullshit. If you really think that’s what this is about, then you’ve led a lucky life.
Since you seem young and naive, I’ll point out there’s a large percentage of people that don’t have a weeks worth of food on hand no matter how hard they try to save, forget about 90 days or more.
Have you ever really paid attention to the aftermath of a major disaster? Now multiple that by 100s and realize the whole world is shut down…not covid shut down, but completely broken.
ForeverDMdad@reddit
https://a.co/d/fzJyCEc
This was an interesting read.
That_Play7634@reddit
I live in a metropolitan area of 3 million people. My house would likely survive a medium strike on downtown, but my windows would not. However, there's not really a strategic target downtown. 1st priority targets are military installations 80 and 100 miles away. Secondary or tertiary might be the interstate exchanges or the airport which would cause some chaos. But if the grid went down for an extended time... Threads gave me nightmares.
snuffy_bodacious@reddit (OP)
I think I agree. Your hypotheticals are interesting to ponder.
I doubt Russia has this capability, but let's say Russia manages to deploy 500 warheads. If you were Russia, who do you prioritize? America might be the obvious answer, but shouldn't the rest of NATO, Japan, Korea and any other nation hosting an American military base be taken into consideration as well? America and its friends (which are many) are really spread out over the globe.
After determining who you prioritize, the next question is what you prioritize.
There are four basic areas you'd be worried about...
1) Population centers.
2) Supply chain hubs (ports).
3) Conventional military ports and bases.
4) ICBM bunkers.
Taking out just the American ICBM bunkers would require at least 400 warheads.
From there, if you live in a major metro and it somehow managed to get hit with 4-5 warheads, your chances of surviving the blast is actually pretty good.
None of this is to say life would be hunky-dory, but when we realize the reality of the situation, prepping for it suddenly seems reasonable. This is something I think most people can tackle.
AdditionalAd9794@reddit
My understanding is russias biggest ICBMs have the payload to deliver 3 800kt warheads, or a combination of smaller to the US. Russia claims to have 320 total ICBMs, about 50 with the aforementioned payload capacity
snuffy_bodacious@reddit (OP)
Maintaining nukes is crazy expensive. How many of the nukes that Russia claims to have are actually deployable?
AdditionalAd9794@reddit
Russia claims 6000ish, plenty enough to equip all their ICBMs
snuffy_bodacious@reddit (OP)
Russia claims a lot of things.
I highly doubt most of their 320 ICBMs are operational.
Torch99999@reddit
Which is still pretty small compared to the size of the US.
DigitalInvestments2@reddit
Nukes are fake
cryptodog11@reddit
You’re right in the sense that you’d have a chance at not being killed by the blast. The problem is the resulting fires. You’d have fires from the blast because thinks like trees and tires would spontaneously combust at those temperatures. Then you’d have more fires from all the power and chemical plants that would result from the EMP. These fires would become mega-fires because there would be no firefighters to put them out. Nikita Kruchev said that the survivors will envy the dead and I agree with him.
esepinchelimon@reddit
I think the threat is less the potency of a single bomb and more the implications of many.
One nuke gets launched and it's pretty much a guarantees domino effect
Jackmeoffvegas@reddit
If there’s a nuclear war I hope the warhead lands right on my head.
tianavitoli@reddit
i've always found panic to be a calming activity
Rachaelmm1995@reddit
Don’t panic, the answer is 42.