The Myth That Nuclear Weapons Can Kill Everyone On Earth-many times over

I addressed this. You refuse to understand.

 

I understand.

Radioactivity from a fission fragment is just as deadly whether that fission fragment comes from an airburst or a groundburst.

 

You do NOT understand that "fallout" consists of more than just the fissile material in the weapon.

 

Whatever mechanism the fission fragment uses to come back down to the ground, it still comes back down.

 

You choose to be wrong; my time is too valuable for such nonsense.

 

Well no. I choose to be factually correct.

The split atoms from airbursts come down somewhere too.

 

I doubt that but it makes no difference. 4000 nukes is enough to completely annihilate the US.

 

will you show us your calculations?

 

The fallout from a ground burst is far more radioactive than an airburst.

 

Yes. One nuclear sub has 16 missiles (10 MIRV each) = 160 blasts from 5-7 times the magnitude of Hiroshima. Wipe 160 US cities of population 500,000 or more off the map and let me know what you are left with.

Now Hiroshima was an air burst .. if these were ground bursts they would be more lethal (due to increased radioactive fallout) than Hiroshima .. multiplied by 5-7.

So ... do you have that picture in your mind 160 Hiroshima's x 5-7. That's pretty bad right.

This is nothing - these nukes are firecrackers compared to ballistic missiles. Hiroshima was roughly 12,000 tons TNT equivalent. 12-14 kilotons. These were fission bombs (splitting the atom). Fusion bombs (fusing the atom) are much more powerful. A 20 megaton warhead is roughly 1500 times the power of Hiroshima. One thousand five hundred ... say it to yourself ...

Now - while the Russians no longer make 20 MT warheads - there are still a few from the good ol days that are in service. The reason they do not make them is because they are just to big .. there is simply no point. It is far more efficient to send one missile with 10 MIRVs 1 megaton each than a single 20 MT blast or 4 x 5 MT blasts.

Regardless a 1 MT blast is 75 times the power of Hiroshima -- and the Russians can drop thousands on us. No one has ever experienced a blast of this nature on a city. It has never been done.

The radioactivity from the Castle Bravo on the Bikini Atol could be measured around the world. The blast contaminated 7000 square miles.
Fishermen 90 miles down wind had exposure to fallout. They crew were hospitalized for serious radiation issues and one died.

Divide the continental land mass of the US by 7000 and you get about 450. This would theoretically contaminate every square inch of US soil. Realistically - you can divide that number by half and this would ensure nearly complete devastation.

But forget dividing by half (200). In a full out nuclear war we could have 2000 or more bombs dropped on us.

The majority of deaths do not come from the blast itself - although the blasts kill a whole lot. After such a strike - everything is radioactive - and there is no escaping the radioactivity like the fishermen or the people of Hiroshima could by leaving the area. There would be high levels of exposure for weeks if not months.

Uncontaminated food and water run out quickly. There is no power, no communication, no water when you turn on the tap and if it is working the water is likely too contaminated to drink.... no one coming to rescue you .. most hospitals are destroyed and the ones that do survive can not cope - assuming you have a way to get there and you better make your one tank of gas last because you won't be getting anymore anytime soon. Electronics are fried from the EMP's (an air blast EMP has a range of over 1000 miles) some cars would still be working but where do you drive to ? Chaos is everywhere. You are driving along and all of a sudden you run into a pothole that is (using Castle Bravo) that is 6500 feet in diameter and 250 feet deep

The chaos - struggle over scarce resources would kill vast numbers. Food and water run out quickly and there is no fresh supplies coming.

If you happen to live on a farm you better be well armed because the zombie apocalypse is coming to your door. Millions of people fleeing the blast zones overwhelm areas outside of the blast zone. Millions from Philadelphia are heading to the same place as Millions from New York .. and so on. No one knows where to go because you do not know where the bombs have dropped... radioactive fallout is everywhere and there is no escaping the fallout for most people. Some will hunker down the basements of houses and buildings but. One can last a fair time without food- and there probably would be some food for a short time - but without water - death comes very quick. Bottled water has become the new GOLD.

Hopefully the attack doesn't come in the winter because many of those living in the north will Freeze.

 

Hopefully you also know this. Why would our own nuclear submarines unleash their missiles onto the USA cities?

I can think of no other country that has the nuclear fleet as we have.

As to Russia firing missiles into this country, I no longer believe that is possible.

I already was well aware of what you posted but you did a fine job.

Here is my version. This country shall never bear the destruction of nuclear bombs.

Why not? The discussion of our nuclear submarine fleet explains that well. We would destroy any country trying to take us out. And this does not include our Air Force that also has nuclear weapons.

 

I do not understand your first comment - our subs would not be nuking the USA .. they would be nuking Russia. The one sub in my example was a Russian nuclear sub those would be the one's nuking the US.

I completely agree that nuclear war with Russia is well "MAD" mutually assured destruction. The question was not whether or not there is a significant probability of this event happening. The question being addressed was what would happen if it did.

Of course it is "Possible" that Russia would fire missiles at the US ... it is just not probable.

 

You did not say what Russian nuclear sub could pull that off. I assumed by your description you were speaking of a better known US nuclear sub and I wondered why use our sub.

We are on the same page of probability.

There are more important things for me to do than to ponder the irrational and unlikely.

 

Every Russian ballistic missile sub can pull that off. Here is one of the newer models.

http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-most-advanced-submarine-just-launched-2017-11

 

From your own article.

"Though the US Navy has far more submarines in active service both in SSBN's and attack submarines, the Russian Navy's recent moves and its newest submarine plans, show a sign of changing strategy, with a new focus placed on challenging the US Navy's dominance — particularly underwater."

 

As you have agreed, simply not probable.

 

Because the silos are easily destroyed by a direct hit, whereas the control centers are deeply buried and well-protected.

Yes. The only difference is in where that fallout comes down. With a groundburst there is a strong plume of fallout directly downwind from the explosion. With an airburst the fallout comes down elsewhere in a rainstorm.

 

That is incorrect. The same fission fragments are produced no matter if the bomb explodes in the air or on the ground.

 

I agree nukes can't kill someone many times over.

But the first time will do the trick.

 

What falls out in an air-burst?

It has to attach to something. What does it attach to?

 

It is very possible. I am unaware of the readiness of their current submarine fleet, but they still have a large number of ICBMs that can strike us.

Also, the premise of this thread wasn't limited to modern times as far as I could see. There was a time when Russian ICBMs alone could carry more than 6000 warheads into the US -- and all of them half-megaton or larger. And that's not counting their submarine fleet, which was was more than capable back then regardless of their readiness today.

 

Nukes would only have to hit major urban centers to kill a majority of a given population. Then there would be the fallout-related deaths, whether from radiation poisoning or in the aftermath, with society potentially broken down to such an extent that people starve or can't get necessary medical treatment (this last one has apparently been an issue in Puerto Rico just as a result of the hurricane).

 

They’re not really anymore deeply buried than silos. Most launch control centers are just silos themselves, but with people and electronics in them instead of a missile.

It’s easy to take them offline (especially with redundant targeting of 2-3 warheads each) even if you don’t annihilate them. They’ll be out of communication to their silos.

Dude, it’s absolute bullshit to claim that an airburst has the same amount of fallout as a groundburst.

 

The fission fragments would drift down even if there was nothing for them to attach to. However, as it happens they get absorbed into cloud droplets and come down when it rains.

Rainstorms downwind from an airburst can be quite lethal.

 

Right .. and good thing too. This does not change the fact that Russia does have the capability to annihilate the US .. and we have the same capability to annihilate them. This is the reason why such an event is not probable ... MAD .. Mutually Assured Destruction.