[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48852862]Nukes don't keep peace, diplomatic treaties do that. India and Pakistan have engaged in skirmishes and minor wars for decades despite both of them being armed with nukes.
If we had nukes in WW2, when would have they been used? When Japan annexed Manchuria? When Hitler annexed Czechoslovakia, or when he invaded Poland? When Russia invaded Finland and the Baltic states?
[/QUOTE]
this analogy is 100% applicable to the concept of war you realise
this argument is constantly wheeled out when talking about deterrence, but if correct, means that there would be no wars either (Hitler fucking gambled that the Allies would not respond when it came to Poland, "who wants to go to war over danzig" and lost). I mean, why would anyone want to go to war, even when they're taking little bits??
in fact, I find it funny that anti-deterrence thought is running on exactly the same lines as the logic that hitler used before WW2 when expanding, that didn't work - the fact you mentioned it yourself makes it even better
(in answer to your question, it'd have been when he invaded Poland because that's actually when France and British declared total war on Germany)
Do you guys still think Mutually Assured Destruction is a thing in 2015?
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;48858906]Do you guys still think Mutually Assured Destruction is a thing in 2015?[/QUOTE]
depends, deterance didn't keep russia from anexing crimea, but the threat to send in NATO troops and foreign supplies did cause russia to step back from the conflict
strategic nuclear weapons though are still a good deterant against an outright world war, though today they'd be the last weapon used as desperation
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;48858845]in fact, I find it funny that anti-deterrence thought is running on exactly the same lines as the logic that hitler used before WW2 when expanding, that didn't work - the fact you mentioned it yourself makes it even better
(in answer to your question, it'd have been when he invaded Poland because that's actually when France and British declared total war on Germany)[/QUOTE]
Except that still doesn't work out. France didn't invade Germany, and between October 1939 and April 1940 there wasn't really much in the way of hostilities going on. Would have they seriously nuked Germany over a relatively small conventional war in eastern Europe? Millions of innocent Germans would have died, their economy would be utterly destroyed, and then you still have the problem of the Soviet Union having annexed the eastern half of Poland.
Deterrence relies on a long unbroken string of lucky breaks that straddles the line between the annihilation of civilization and resolving a conflict.
-snip nevermind misread-
[QUOTE=squids_eye;48850274]We don't need to be a nuclear state at all. Most of Europe don't have their own nukes, why do we need them?[/QUOTE]
In part because we would have no time to retaliate. With both sides being equally willing to nuke central Europe in particular to hell and back.
It's due to the fact that we're fairly important for troop movements. Germans might potentially get their nukes, but they're incredibly unnuclear.
The polish don't care, the czechs are too small to bother, Austrians have a german aproach, slovaks are even smaller.
In essence, most european countries could construct a nuke. But their strategic position on the map just makes it a nonissue.
The UK on the other hand has a very good reason to have a nuclear deterrent due to it's location.
MAD isn't a bad policy. Without the threat of nuclear annihilation, the Cold War could've turned out much differently. The Brits need a strong deterrence, plus it's not a bad idea to have a few more if need be. Face it, global zero will never be a thing, nukes will continue to be produced, and possibly used. It's a good idea to have your own to prevent against that. Also, a nuclear war won't destroy civilization, it will set us back, but not destroy it all. Topics like this are why I love talking to the folks I do. I look like a murderous asshole who wants to see it all gone, but I can't exactly be proven wrong.
[QUOTE=Pilot1215;48861790]Also, a nuclear war won't destroy civilization, it will set us back, but not destroy it all.[/QUOTE]
Depends on the scale of the war. A full-scale nuclear war between say Russia and the United States would certainly mean the end of modern civilization.
Even if we ignored the physical harm to millions, psychological shock, the economic collapse, nuclear winter, etc, there is still the destruction of the Ozone layer and the runaway effects of uncontrolled global warming after the dust settled due to the sheer quantities of various lifeforms turning into greenhouse gases.
At the minimum we would enter a period of sustained longterm decline over which most of modern civilization would regress into a collection of agrarian kingdoms with relatively un-industrialized economies that are largely self-reliant and do not trade on a large scale. Living conditions would be probably comparable to the 18th century with 80% of the worlds population living in what we would describe as "extreme poverty". Maybe one in ten people would be left alive ten years after the war. It would take thousands of years for the most badly affected regions (major urban centers in particular) to become inhabitable once more. The survivors outside of such cities would be largely at the mercy of nature as harsh ultraviolet radiation and rising global temperatures would persist for just as long.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48857274]Most of the evidence is from the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, and given there hasn't been a nuclear war yet it's going to be pretty limited. However, we can draw upon studies looking at the damage caused to the atmosphere, which will knock-on with time:
[url]http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/acp-7-1973-2007.pdf[/url][/quote]
And that is where many nuclear war models fail time and time again. They for some reason choose (and continue to do so to this day) to use 1930s Japanese houses as a baseline. It's dumb and make your model incredibly flawed. It also assumes that cities are the primary targets in a nuclear war; they're not.
[quote]It still doesn't make sense. The official advice tells you to take the doors off and use them to construct a shelter, but to also keep your doors shut to prevent fires spreading.
In the instance that a fire catches in one house, it's all too easy for it to spread and engulf the neighboring houses since the inhabitants will either be dead or huddled in their shelter.[/quote]
Having a hardwood door over your head stops you from being killing when your roof gives way.
[quote]It's not so much that actual physical machinery is irreversibly destroyed, but the fact that modern civilization depends on critical institutions and telecommunications. In the destruction of these, civil authority dissolves within several weeks (Eastern Europe during WW2 being a good example).
Nuclear bombs explicitly target major economic assets (such as industrial districts, railways, roads, telecommunications hubs, electrical power generator stations, etc).
In the event of nuclear war, the biggest problem would be finding enough energy to power the machinery lying around, the skilled technicians who can operate the more complex machinery (many living in urban centers will be killed), clearing debris blocking the roads, etc.
I mean if bridges collapse and roads are covered in debris that's the transportation network effectively crippled. The copper wire and Fibre-optic cabling would be almost certainly destroyed in most urban centres, making much of the internet and telephone networks inoperable. Food supplies would be likely limited and difficult to move overland, while most authorities would find it difficult to restore order and organise reconstruction efforts, rationing, law, etc. Medical supplies would either quickly run out or become essentially impossible to manufacture due to the fact that major industrial centres would have been hit.
You're also forgetting toxic pollutants released by the destruction of various chemical plants, the psychological damage and shock on the survivors (as is common among the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki), the money economy effectively ceasing to exist, the complete cessation of most economic activity, etc.[/QUOTE]
Nuclear bombs [I]don't[/I] ordinarily target economic assets. Every nuke that you can destroy or render militarily ineffective on the ground is one less nuke that hits your country. The primary targets in a nuclear war are nuclear weapons themselves and their associated command and control.
Roads can be cleared, power and telecommunications infrastructure is not going to be destroyed except at a close range (it's designed to survive high winds and has a very small cross section!), and the authorities will get reconstruction going [I]at gunpoint[/I] if they need to. Most of the critical pharmaceuticals (painkillers, antibiotics etc) can be made in small labs if need be, like they are now illicitly. Machinery and other equipment is incredibly resistant to the primary kill mechanism of nuclear weapons; overpressure, thermal radiation and ionising radiation and will survive though their buildings may not. Toxic pollutants will be awful but they generally will be isolated to kilometres of their plants/storage areas (assuming they're targeted at all).
[editline]9th October 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48861945]Depends on the scale of the war. A full-scale nuclear war between say Russia and the United States would certainly mean the end of modern civilization.
Even if we ignored the physical harm to millions, psychological shock, the economic collapse, nuclear winter, etc, there is still the destruction of the Ozone layer and the runaway effects of uncontrolled global warming after the dust settled due to the sheer quantities of various lifeforms turning into greenhouse gases.
At the minimum we would enter a period of sustained longterm decline over which most of modern civilization would regress into a collection of agrarian kingdoms with relatively un-industrialized economies that are largely self-reliant and do not trade on a large scale. Living conditions would be probably comparable to the 18th century with 80% of the worlds population living in what we would describe as "extreme poverty". Maybe one in ten people would be left alive ten years after the war. It would take thousands of years for the most badly affected regions (major urban centers in particular) to become inhabitable once more. The survivors outside of such cities would be largely at the mercy of nature as harsh ultraviolet radiation and rising global temperatures would persist for just as long.[/QUOTE]
Oh please, you'd need global heating in the range of [I]at least[/I] 50c or more to even begin to see runaway global warming.
Either accept you're wrong and stop spouting shit, or come up with some actual evidence.
[QUOTE=download;48863867]Nuclear bombs [I]don't[/I] ordinarily target economic assets. Every nuke that you can destroy or render militarily ineffective on the ground is one less nuke that hits your country. The primary targets in a nuclear war are nuclear weapons themselves and their associated command and control.[/quote]
[t]http://i.imgur.com/UP3budg.jpg[/t]
england (especially the south) would get the most megatonnage per square mile of any country in a cold-war-gone-hot scenario, except maybe israel.
targets high on the list are airfields, critical supply and transport chokepoints, military bases (often close to populated areas), docks and harbors (again, highly populated), etc.
besides, in case you didn't know, the UK does not [i]have[/i] missile silos.
[quote]The first underground missile silo was built in the 1950s by the United Kingdom, to house their Blue Streak missiles. Only one test underground missile silo was built in the UK, at RAF Spadeadam. The UK cancelled the Blue Streak silo project, since the Soviets had developed missiles that could attack with little warning and insufficient time to arm Blue Streak missiles. The UK's ICBM nuclear missile launch mode was changed in 1960, to Submarine-launched ballistic missiles.
[/quote]
and even if we [i]did[/i], soviet nukes headed for them would still be within range of population centres and other critical infrastructure. britain is a small and densely populated island, we can't just put our missile silos in wyoming or north dakota where nobody lives.
[quote]Roads can be cleared, power and telecommunications infrastructure is not going to be destroyed except at a close range (it's designed to survive high winds and has a very small cross section!), and the authorities will get reconstruction going [I]at gunpoint[/I] if they need to.[/quote]
that small cross section means jack shit when it comes to a few high altitude EMPs. all non-hardened telecommunications and power infrastructure can be disabled across western europe with a comparatively low megatonnage expenditure. even a lot of military comms aren't hardened against EMP, civilian and govt has no chance.
so the roads are going to be cleared with, what exactly?? fuel stockpiles will disappear quickly and they won't be replenished any time soon -- oil imports are obviously non existent, refineries destroyed, power grids disabled, logistics in ruins, dams burst, bridges destroyed, rail networks crippled. so you're left with manual labor, which is pretty calorie-intensive, and you've got limited food ...
[quote]Oh please, you'd need global heating in the range of [I]at least[/I] [b]50c[/b] or more to even begin to see runaway global warming.[/quote]
uh I hope to god that was a typo, because the earth has not been that warm at any time in the past few billion years or so. either way, citation fucking needed.
[QUOTE=download;48863867]And that is where many nuclear war models fail time and time again. They for some reason choose (and continue to do so to this day) to use 1930s Japanese houses as a baseline. It's dumb and make your model incredibly flawed. It also assumes that cities are the primary targets in a nuclear war; they're not.[/quote]
While houses are built differently, the biggest difference is that modern housing is full of extremely flammable manufactured products made from plastics. Considering that bombs can generate temperatures hot enough to boil iron, the flammable contents of homes can include carpets, floorboards, door frames, certain foodstuffs, cardboard and paper, all of the various sorts of plastics and textiles, etc.
Also the British government explicitly planned for the annihilation of a great number of cities, many of which are (or are close to) major population centers.
[img]http://robedwards.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c091653ef01a3fd184b85970b-500wi[/img]
[url]http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/05/uk-government-top-secret-list-probable-nuclear-targets-1970s[/url]
[quote]Nuclear bombs [I]don't[/I] ordinarily target economic assets. Every nuke that you can destroy or render militarily ineffective on the ground is one less nuke that hits your country. The primary targets in a nuclear war are nuclear weapons themselves and their associated command and control.[/quote]
Except most governments explicitly targeted major population centers, economic assets, centers of government, etc too. While it is true they target military bases and the like first, you're forgetting that many of them are also hitting areas where there are major populations, industry, infrastructure, etc.
To give an example, my home is within the blast radius of an airport, military facilities, and a center of government. The city of 500,000 I live in would be almost certainly destroyed.
[quote]Roads can be cleared[/quote]
With what? Even if you somehow scrounged up the machinery and fuel to clear them, what are you going to do about bridges, replacing damaged sections, the destruction of embankments and cuttings, subsidence, etc.
There's also mentioning that asphalt roads in the bomb zones would literally boil away from firstly the nuclear bomb itself, and then later the massive fires.
[quote]power and telecommunications infrastructure is not going to be destroyed except at a close range (it's designed to survive high winds and has a very small cross section!)[/quote]
Most civilian infrastructure isn't shielded against EMP. Most power stations (especially those fuelled by coal and nuclear material) would become impossible to operate under such conditions.
[quote]and the authorities will get reconstruction going [I]at gunpoint[/I] if they need to.[/quote]
Most of the armed forces would most likely degenerate into roving bands requisitioning food and medical supplies in the name of a government which ceases to exist. The physical and psychological damage to survivors would make reconstruction efforts in the first month virtually impossible.
[quote]Most of the critical pharmaceuticals (painkillers, antibiotics etc) can be made in small labs if need be, like they are now illicitly. Machinery and other equipment is incredibly resistant to the primary kill mechanism of nuclear weapons; overpressure, thermal radiation and ionising radiation and will survive though their buildings may not. Toxic pollutants will be awful but they generally will be isolated to kilometres of their plants/storage areas (assuming they're targeted at all).[/quote]
You talk about how you can force people at gunpoint to repair and operate such things. This strategy doesn't work very well even in peacetime conditions, and this an environment where food and medical supplies are limited, armed soldiers have effectively absolute authority, and the government has effectively ceased to exist. Placing your hopes on this being the way to rebuild a country in which half of the population has died in the space of a few months is nothing short of incredible.
[quote]Oh please, you'd need global heating in the range of [I]at least[/I] 50c or more to even begin to see runaway global warming.
Either accept you're wrong and stop spouting shit, or come up with some actual evidence.[/QUOTE]
We're already past the point of no return for global warming, considering that glaciers and poles have been losing massive quantities of ice every year. The impact of destroying the ozone layer and converting massive quantities of material (asphalt, plastics and textiles, wood, organic material, etc) into greenhouse gases would certainly mean a longterm temperature increase on the order of 2+ degrees Celsius, which is enough to cause persistent, widespread harvest failure in most of the worlds countries. Without the advanced economies and skills necessary to adapt, the survivors would be little better equipped than their medieval forebears were in the face of climate change.
[QUOTE=kurgan;48865457][t]http://i.imgur.com/UP3budg.jpg[/t]
england (especially the south) would get the most megatonnage per square mile of any country in a cold-war-gone-hot scenario, except maybe israel.[/quote]
Lol what? Why the Hell would Israel be anywhere near the top of a nuclear target list? They're one of the smallest nuclear powers on the planet. Hell, because there won't be much of a US to keep their neighbours in check afterwards they're unlikely to use any of their weapons. Where the hell did you pull that picture from anyway?
[quote]targets high on the list are airfields, critical supply and transport chokepoints, military bases (often close to populated areas), docks and harbors (again, highly populated), etc.[/quote]
Anything that immediately doesn't damage a country's ability to wage nuclear war will be very very far down the list of nuclear targets. Supply deports, supply depots, docks and harbours (unless they're hosting nuclear armed vessels) simply don't matter
[quote]besides, in case you didn't know, the UK does not [i]have[/i] missile silos.[/quote]
No shit Sherlock.
[quote]and even if we [i]did[/i], soviet nukes headed for them would still be within range of population centres and other critical infrastructure. britain is a small and densely populated island, we can't just put our missile silos in wyoming or north dakota where nobody lives.[/quote]
You have large swathes of Scotland market with a population density of 0-25 people/km^2. So yes you could if you really wanted too. If you had actually read what you posted you would have see that they cancelled ICBM programs because the time from launch detection to being able to retaliate was too short.
[quote]that small cross section means jack shit when it comes to a few high altitude EMPs. all non-hardened telecommunications and power infrastructure can be disabled across western europe with a comparatively low megatonnage expenditure. even a lot of military comms aren't hardened against EMP, civilian and govt has no chance.[/quote]
EMP isn't the all ending weapon that it's made out to be in movies. Power distribution is designed to survive lightning strikes, it can survive the voltages caused by EMP. The voltage rise by EMP has to do with the cable ('antenna') length. Given the backbone of the civilian communications network is fibre optic which doesn't conduct electricity you're not going to see enormous amounts of damage too it.
So I need a citation on the claim that military comms aren't EMP hardened, and I need the citation that if [I]civillian[/I] telecommunications infrastructure is destroy the UK falls into anarchy.
[quote]so the roads are going to be cleared with, what exactly?? fuel stockpiles will disappear quickly and they won't be replenished any time soon -- oil imports are obviously non existent, refineries destroyed, power grids disabled, logistics in ruins, dams burst, bridges destroyed, rail networks crippled. so you're left with manual labor, which is pretty calorie-intensive, and you've got limited food ...[/quote]
By hand? Anywhere that has had low casualties won't be utterly wrecked. You're not going to need heavy machinery to clear roads there.
[quote]uh I hope to god that was a typo, because the earth has not been that warm at any time in the past few billion years or so. either way, citation fucking needed.[/QUOTE]
I pulled a low guestimate out of my ass based on my understanding of runaway climate change. To have runaway climate change you need all of the elemental carbon on the planet (plants etc) begin to oxidise due to the temperature rise.
It's hard to take you seriously where you don't even use capital letters. Also, the UK isn't the centre of the world, let alone the EU, Russia or the US. Every other country on the face of the planet isn't going to fall into anarchy because you guys were gone. It will be difficult afterwards, but not world ending.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48865654]While houses are built differently, the biggest difference is that modern housing is full of extremely flammable manufactured products made from plastics. Considering that bombs can generate temperatures hot enough to boil iron, the flammable contents of homes can include carpets, floorboards, door frames, certain foodstuffs, cardboard and paper, all of the various sorts of plastics and textiles, etc.
Also the British government explicitly planned for the annihilation of a great number of cities, many of which are (or are close to) major population centers.
[img]http://robedwards.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c091653ef01a3fd184b85970b-500wi[/img]
[url]http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/05/uk-government-top-secret-list-probable-nuclear-targets-1970s[/url][/quote]
By law in pretty much every Western country homes need to meet certain fire-proofing standards. That means nearly every large plastic item in your home (carpets, curtains etc) has fire-retarding chemicals mixed into them. At distances that the bombs will boil metal you're not going to survive the overpressure so it's a moot point. As I said, these are things that increase your chances of surviving at a distance. They're not designed to protect you at close range.
[quote]Except most governments explicitly targeted major population centers, economic assets, centers of government, etc too. While it is true they target military bases and the like first, you're forgetting that many of them are also hitting areas where there are major populations, industry, infrastructure, etc.
To give an example, my home is within the blast radius of an airport, military facilities, and a center of government. The city of 500,000 I live in would be almost certainly destroyed.[/quote]
[Citation needed]
As for blast radius, it's not neat circles on a map where if you're inside the circle everything vanishes or if you're outside the circle you're fine. It all depends on the distance you are from the centre of the blast and the yield. At different distances you gett different blast effects, from heavy overpressure to serious burns (or outright vaporisation) to broken windows and the equivalent of a sunburn.
[quote]With what? Even if you somehow scrounged up the machinery and fuel to clear them, what are you going to do about bridges, replacing damaged sections, the destruction of embankments and cuttings, subsidence, etc.
There's also mentioning that asphalt roads in the bomb zones would literally boil away from firstly the nuclear bomb itself, and then later the massive fires.[/quote]
Any point where asphalt bursts into flames and roads are so heavily blocked that they can't be cleared by hand going to be seeing near 100% fatalities it's not worth in the short term clearing.
[quote]Most civilian infrastructure isn't shielded against EMP. Most power stations (especially those fuelled by coal and nuclear material) would become impossible to operate under such conditions. [/quote]
Again, most power infrastructure is designed to survive the voltages involved in EMP. Telecommunications infrastructure (where it's copper wire) is also designed to survive those voltages to a degree.
[quote]Most of the armed forces would most likely degenerate into roving bands requisitioning food and medical supplies in the name of a government which ceases to exist. The physical and psychological damage to survivors would make reconstruction efforts in the first month virtually impossible.[/quote]
Yeah, not happening. This isn't soldiers in a foreign country, these are soldiers [I]at home[/I], with families and friends. They're not going to suddenly turn into marauding bandits.
[quote]You talk about how you can force people at gunpoint to repair and operate such things. This strategy doesn't work very well even in peacetime conditions, and this an environment where food and medical supplies are limited, armed soldiers have effectively absolute authority, and the government has effectively ceased to exist. Placing your hopes on this being the way to rebuild a country in which half of the population has died in the space of a few months is nothing short of incredible.[/quote]
In peacetime conditions soldiers have no power. I'm not going to place my hopes on it rebuilding a country, rather to keep order so we can get back to rebuilding the country.
[quote][I]We're already past the point of no return for global warming[/I], considering that glaciers and poles have been losing massive quantities of ice every year. The impact of destroying the ozone layer and converting massive quantities of material (asphalt, plastics and textiles, wood, organic material, etc) into greenhouse gases would certainly mean a longterm temperature increase on the order of 2+ degrees Celsius, which is enough to cause persistent, widespread harvest failure in most of the worlds countries. Without the advanced economies and skills necessary to adapt, the survivors would be little better equipped than their medieval forebears were in the face of climate change.[/QUOTE]
[citation needed] on pretty much every claim you've made there, especially the first one.
[QUOTE=download;48869480]By law in pretty much every Western country homes need to meet certain fire-proofing standards. That means nearly every large plastic item in your home (carpets, curtains etc) has fire-retarding chemicals mixed into them.[/quote]
Note that fire retarding chemicals don't make it impossible for items to burst into flames. What it means is that it's a bit harder. In the case of nuclear bombs, firestorms, and nobody to put out the fire, you're pretty much fucked.
There's mentioning burst gas pipes, firefighting teams being unable to operate, timber yards, trees, the fuel in cars and trucks, and the dead bodies of animals and humans.
[quote]Any point where asphalt bursts into flames and roads are so heavily blocked that they can't be cleared by hand going to be seeing near 100% fatalities it's not worth in the short term clearing.[/quote]
This includes most of the major highways and their intersections. You also haven't mentioned the impact of destroyed bridges, many of which would be virtually impossible to repair without major industrial facilities operating.
[quote]Again, most power infrastructure is designed to survive the voltages involved in EMP. Telecommunications infrastructure (where it's copper wire) is also designed to survive those voltages to a degree.[/quote]
Most telecommunications infrastructure and power generational facilities are notoriously fickle and require constant specialized maintenance from large numbers of skilled people and automated systems which do not need a nuclear war to mess things up.
In the event of nuclear war, the idea that it would still be operating in any significant capacity is patently absurd.
[quote]Yeah, not happening. This isn't soldiers in a foreign country, these are soldiers [I]at home[/I], with families and friends. They're not going to suddenly turn into marauding bandits.[/quote]
The point is that with the collapse of civil authority and the breakdown of transport and travel, it will become nearly impossible for central authority to operate. These soldiers will protect family and friends obviously, but they will steal food and medical supplies from others.
Bear in mind this wouldn't happen instantly, but would progress gradually over the course of several months as food stocks ran low. Most authorities in charge of food and medicine distribution would only release these supplies after enough people had died from radiation poisoning - so as to conserve limited resources.
[quote]In peacetime conditions soldiers have no power. I'm not going to place my hopes on it rebuilding a country, rather to keep order so we can get back to rebuilding the country.[/quote]
Keeping order would be difficult, even with martial law. Considering the state of the survivors, it would be hard to force them to rebuild society. Many of them would die from radiation poisoning and injuries, followed by the suicide rates, disease, thirst, starvation, murders, etc. The rest would be psychologically broken, sick and malnourished, and with having lost many of their friends and family.
A nuclear war would result in the British population being reduced to about 3-6 million people. Population recovery would take several centuries.
[quote][citation needed] on pretty much every claim you've made there, especially the first one.[/QUOTE]
It's in that paper I linked earlier in the thread (and will do below). The first goes without saying because by this point its the default position of mainstream scientists and only climate change deniers say that this warming isn't happening. Fact is that by the end of the century this planet will be around 1-2 degrees hotter. With nuclear war having carbonized a lot of things this will result in what is termed "nuclear summer", which will make it at least 2-3 degrees hotter by the end of the century (which is enough to cause harvest failure in most of the worlds agricultural producing regions).
Much of the Ozone layer would also be destroyed. The increasing integration of the global economy also means that as time goes on, a nuclear war of today would become increasingly devastating due to the interdependence of countries upon one another. If 100+ major cities were to be nuked in such a war, the global economy and many of the worlds governments would collapse.
(this is the paper btw) [url]http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/acp-7-1973-2007.pdf[/url]
You seem to have a wildly underestimated impact of how disastrous such a nuclear war would be. While it wouldn't make us extinct, it would be likely to halve the worlds population within a decade.
We'll all go together when we go.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48869923]Note that fire retarding chemicals don't make it impossible for items to burst into flames. What it means is that it's a bit harder. In the case of nuclear bombs, firestorms, and nobody to put out the fire, you're pretty much fucked.[/quote]
At the range you're dead anyway from overpressure.
Again (I think I've said this 4 or 5 times now?) these are things that protect you [I]at distance[/I]
[quote]There's mentioning burst gas pipes, firefighting teams being unable to operate, timber yards, trees, the fuel in cars and trucks, and the dead bodies of animals and humans.[/quote]
Again, the distance at which these things will be bursting into flames you're dead from overpressure.
[quote]This includes most of the major highways and their intersections. You also haven't mentioned the impact of destroyed bridges, many of which would be virtually impossible to repair without major industrial facilities operating.[/quote]
Highways generally go through the countryside and terminate at cities. There are too many of them and not valuable enough to target.
Large bridges probably won't survive, but heavily constructed concrete bridges probable will except at close range and they're (again) not targets.
[quote]Most telecommunications infrastructure and power generational facilities are notoriously fickle and require constant specialized maintenance from large numbers of skilled people and automated systems which do not need a nuclear war to mess things up. [/quote]
They're redundant at every level and unless the power plants have been targeted (unlikely given the priority for nuclear weapons and nuclear infrastructure) they're still going to be there. There is also a lot of them, everywhere. Gas pipelines for them will also most likely survive and the amount of refining needed for natural gas is almost non-existent. The gas rigs in the north sea are far too dispersed to be a target (you would need a warhead per rig).
[quote]In the event of nuclear war, the idea that it would still be operating in any significant capacity is patently absurd. [/quote]
The over pressure effects of nuclear weapons are well documented. It's not hard to calculate the distance at which a these structures will be destroyed.
You might lose 25% to 50% of your electricity generation capacity but you're now down a large number of people and many more have had their power knocked out so it's not as big an issue.
[quote]The point is that with the collapse of civil authority and the breakdown of transport and travel, it will become nearly impossible for central authority to operate. These soldiers will protect family and friends obviously, but they will steal food and medical supplies from others.[/quote]
The military has radios and a very clear chain of command. Command won't just break down. Military command would ahve disperse before hand to prevent their destruction.
[quote]Bear in mind this wouldn't happen instantly, but would progress gradually over the course of several months as food stocks ran low. Most authorities in charge of food and medicine distribution would only release these supplies after enough people had died from radiation poisoning - so as to conserve limited resources.[/quote]
It will take 2 weeks for most of the non-recoverable radiation casualties to die without medical assistance. Most people would struggle but you can survive two weeks on low food if you're going to survive.
[quote]Keeping order would be difficult, even with martial law. Considering the state of the survivors, it would be hard to force them to rebuild society. Many of them would die from radiation poisoning and injuries, followed by the suicide rates, disease, thirst, starvation, murders, etc. The rest would be psychologically broken, sick and malnourished, and with having lost many of their friends and family.
A nuclear war would result in the British population being reduced to about 3-6 million people. Population recovery would take several centuries.[/quote]
I would like to see your source for a 90% casualty figure, because really that's absurd. Even a US all out counter-value attack on the USSR was projected at 25% to 40% of the Soviet population and that was using a order of magnitude more weapons than anything the Russians would waste on British cities (Pg 100 [url=http://atomicarchive.com/Docs/pdfs/7906.pdf]here[/url]).
In reality it would be far less because anything short of national suicide is going to be a counter-force attack.
[quote]It's in that paper I linked earlier in the thread (and will do below). The first goes without saying because by this point its the default position of mainstream scientists and only climate change deniers say that this warming isn't happening. Fact is that by the end of the century this planet will be around 1-2 degrees hotter. With nuclear war having carbonized a lot of things this will result in what is termed "nuclear summer", which will make it at least 2-3 degrees hotter by the end of the century (which is enough to cause harvest failure in most of the worlds agricultural producing regions).
Much of the Ozone layer would also be destroyed. The increasing integration of the global economy also means that as time goes on, a nuclear war of today would become increasingly devastating due to the interdependence of countries upon one another. If 100+ major cities were to be nuked in such a war, the global economy and many of the worlds governments would collapse.
(this is the paper btw) [url]http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/acp-7-1973-2007.pdf[/url][/quote]
What? I never said climate change isn't happening, I said I want a citation that we would reach the tipping point of runaway climate change in a nuclear war let alone we're already there.
And, again, another study that assumes all cities are built like 1930s Japanese homes made of paper. And then they go on to talk about one weapon per city nonsense, that's simply not how a nuclear war would be fought. They then talk about soot amounts generated - number that would be comparable to large wildfire that happen every year all over the world.
[quote]You seem to have a wildly underestimated impact of how disastrous such a nuclear war would be. While it wouldn't make us extinct, it would be likely to halve the worlds population within a decade.
We'll all go together when we go.[/QUOTE]
I can make claims too: you've massively over-estimated it.
[editline]10th October 2015[/editline]
Wildfire soot emissions: [url]http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_other/rmrs_2014_loehman_r001.pdf[/url]
[QUOTE=download;48870530]At the range you're dead anyway from overpressure.
Again (I think I've said this 4 or 5 times now?) these are things that protect you [I]at distance[/I]
Again, the distance at which these things will be bursting into flames you're dead from overpressure.[/quote]
Except the government nuclear advice leaflets make a lot of rather optimistic assumptions. Assuming you aren't near a nuclear bomb, in a solidly-built house that doesn't get knocked over, and assuming the roof doesn't get torn off, assuming no fires start or spread, that you manage to survive in your Inner Core or Refuge throughout the explosion intact, etc there are still numerous problems.
The survivors will have to stay indoors on limited food, water, and medical supplies for a minimum of a week with virtually zero contact with the outside world. The mains electricity, water, and gas will be cut off. Consider how many elderly people, children, sick/injured people, etc there are. At minimum will almost certainly receive some form of radiation poisoning, some form of psychological damage, and quite possibly some mechanical injuries.
This also assumes that everybody had the time and ability to construct essentially what amounts to a table fort to protect yourself from the effects of ionizing radiation. In the weeks after the distribution of such advice and before the bombs hit there would be widespread panic buying, rioting, protesting, assaults on government officials, desertions among members of the armed forces, etc. The leaflets assumes that the reader can do things well beyond the capabilities of the average Briton, many people would die from misinterpreting the leaflets, ignoring them, or simply from bad luck.
[quote]Large bridges probably won't survive, but heavily constructed concrete bridges probable will except at close range and they're (again) not targets.
They're redundant at every level and unless the power plants have been targeted (unlikely given the priority for nuclear weapons and nuclear infrastructure) they're still going to be there. There is also a lot of them, everywhere. Gas pipelines for them will also most likely survive and the amount of refining needed for natural gas is almost non-existent. The gas rigs in the north sea are far too dispersed to be a target (you would need a warhead per rig).[/quote]
[img]http://robedwards.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c091653ef01a3fd184b85970b-500wi[/img]
Notice some targets. Birmingham, Glasgow, Leeds, Sheffield, Teeside, Newcastle, Bristol, Cardiff, Belfast, Liverpool, Manchester. What do many of them have in common?
Many of them are populated cities which developed or rapidly expanded during the industrial revolution, and for a long time (and to a degree today) many of these places retain some atrophied form of heavy industrial facilities, the infrastructure developed for them (rail, road, power, telecoms), and the educational facilities along with many of the people who used to work or continue to work in these fields. Other targets on the map include major ports.
Another important mention is the direction of the highways. Only one major highway connects Scotland and England (The M74), which is effectively a continuation of the M6, a major highway connecting much of the industrial cities up to one another and forming a backbone to the country. Considering that multiple bombs fall on it at various points and the fact it crosses multiple large rivers would make repairing exceptionally difficult. It would be virtually impossible to travel on a north-south axis. Many alternate routes are effectively narrow medieval roads that happen to have tarmac on the top of them.
[quote]You might lose 25% to 50% of your electricity generation capacity but you're now down a large number of people and many more have had their power knocked out so it's not as big an issue.[/quote]
Saying that losing up to half of your electrical generation potential doesn't matter anyways because the people who would be using it are dead isn't exactly the best argument to convince somebody that nuclear war is somehow survivable.
[quote]The military has radios and a very clear chain of command. Command won't just break down. Military command would ahve disperse before hand to prevent their destruction.
It will take 2 weeks for most of the non-recoverable radiation casualties to die without medical assistance. Most people would struggle but you can survive two weeks on low food if you're going to survive.[/quote]
What about the injured, the old, the sick, the young, pregnant women, people with mental disorders, etc? I mean this also assumes that people would have two weeks of food and water that's safe for consumption throughout it all, which in itself is absurd.
[quote]I would like to see your source for a 90% casualty figure, because really that's absurd. Even a US all out counter-value attack on the USSR was projected at 25% to 40% of the Soviet population and that was using a order of magnitude more weapons than anything the Russians would waste on British cities (Pg 100 [url=http://atomicarchive.com/Docs/pdfs/7906.pdf]here[/url]).[/quote]
Your own source mentions the following, which doesn't bode well for survival of the state:
[quote]The situation in which the survivors of a nuclear attack find themselves will be quite unprecedented. The surviving nation would be far weaker—economically, socially, and politically— than one would calculate by adding up the surviving economic assets and the numbers and skills of the surviving people. Natural resources would be destroyed; surviving equipment would be designed to use materials and skills that might no longer exist; and indeed some regions might be almost uninhabitable. Furthermore, prewar patterns of behavior would surely change, though in unpredictable ways. Finally, the entire society would suffer from the enormous psychological shock of having discovered the extent of its vulnerability.[/quote]
[quote]From an economic point of view, and possibly from a political and social viewpoint as well, conditions after an attack would get worse before they started to get better. For a period of time, people could live off supplies (and, in a sense, off habits) left over from before the war. But shortages and uncertainties would get worse. The survivors wouId find themselves in a race to achieve viability (i. e., production at least equaling consumption plus depreciation) before stocks ran out completely. A failure to achieve viability, or even a slow recovery, would result in many additional deaths, and much additional economic, political, and social deterioration. This postwar damage could be as devastating as the damage from the actual nuclear explosions.[/quote]
Also remember that the Soviet Union is much much bigger, with a population dispersed very widely. The study mentions that between 35-77% of the US population could die, and in the case of Britain (which is a small and densely populated island which is heavily reliant on external trade) the death and destruction would be likely larger. In fact much of the source you cited there pretty much agrees with my position, and it seems cautious to even suggest that complex society as we presently know it would survive such a conflict.
[quote]What? I never said climate change isn't happening, I said I want a citation that we would reach the tipping point of runaway climate change in a nuclear war let alone we're already there.[/quote]
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming[/url]
[quote]Climate model projections summarized in the report indicated that during the 21st century the global surface temperature is likely to rise a further 0.3 to 1.7 °C (0.5 to 3.1 °F) for their lowest emissions scenario using stringent mitigation and 2.6 to 4.8 °C (4.7 to 8.6 °F) for their highest.[9] These findings have been recognized by the national science academies of the major industrialized nations[10][b] and are not disputed by any scientific body of national or international standing.[12][/quote]
[quote]another study that assumes all cities are built like 1930s Japanese homes made of paper.[/quote]
They assumed so because while the houses themselves are not made of paper, the contents are filled with much more paper, plastics, and other combustible compounds than in 1940s Japan.
[quote]They then talk about soot amounts generated - number that would be comparable to large wildfire that happen every year all over the world.
Wildfire soot emissions: [url]http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_other/rmrs_2014_loehman_r001.pdf[/url][/QUOTE]
The source I used earlier estimates that the emission of the soot would still cause major problems with the ozone layer that would result in substantial ozone loss as a likely outcome. That alone would cause significant problems for a population already struggling to rebuild.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48872029]Except the government nuclear advice leaflets make a lot of rather optimistic assumptions. Assuming you aren't near a nuclear bomb, in a solidly-built house that doesn't get knocked over, and assuming the roof doesn't get torn off, assuming no fires start or spread, that you manage to survive in your Inner Core or Refuge throughout the explosion intact, etc there are still numerous problems.
The survivors will have to stay indoors on limited food, water, and medical supplies for a minimum of a week with virtually zero contact with the outside world. The mains electricity, water, and gas will be cut off. Consider how many elderly people, children, sick/injured people, etc there are. At minimum will almost certainly receive some form of radiation poisoning, some form of psychological damage, and quite possibly some mechanical injuries.
This also assumes that everybody had the time and ability to construct essentially what amounts to a table fort to protect yourself from the effects of ionizing radiation. In the weeks after the distribution of such advice and before the bombs hit there would be widespread panic buying, rioting, protesting, assaults on government officials, desertions among members of the armed forces, etc. The leaflets assumes that the reader can do things well beyond the capabilities of the average Briton, many people would die from misinterpreting the leaflets, ignoring them, or simply from bad luck.[/quote]
The whole point of stripping the hardwood door out of your house was so that if house did fall over you survived.
As for staying indoors, you would only do that if you didn't get any information from the radio you should have. Otherwise you will get fallout information and will be told where you need to move.
[quote]
[img]http://robedwards.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c091653ef01a3fd184b85970b-500wi[/img]
Notice some targets. Birmingham, Glasgow, Leeds, Sheffield, Teeside, Newcastle, Bristol, Cardiff, Belfast, Liverpool, Manchester. What do many of them have in common?
Many of them are populated cities which developed or rapidly expanded during the industrial revolution, and for a long time (and to a degree today) many of these places retain some atrophied form of heavy industrial facilities, the infrastructure developed for them (rail, road, power, telecoms), and the educational facilities along with many of the people who used to work or continue to work in these fields. Other targets on the map include major ports.[/quote]
While those are probably nuclear targets, very few of them are hardened targets requiring a high yield surface burst (as claimed in the news article that is the source of that picture). There is no way the Russians would waste a 5Mt warhead on such a target - assuming they still even have 5Mt weapons in service anymore. Every single high-yield weapon the Russians have will be reserved for busting US nuclear silos. Many of those targets might receive multiple warhead but the warheads will be hitting in the same spot to guarantee a target kill. And despite your claims earlier that "most" of the targets are in urban areas I did some fiddling around in nukemap and found that nearby population centres usually survived strikes to things like airbases.
It's also questionable why some of those cities get attacked (it's brought up in the news article). The only reason a city would get attacked here is if something valuable is in the centre of it. London will definitely get hit because that's where the Government and military command are but it's unlikely any other cities will be targeted unless backup command bunkers and the like are hidden underneath them. It could be argued in the 70s where the Soviets didn't have the accuracy edge needed that that may have gone counter-value on the US but it begs the question as to how that stops bomb landing on the USSR.
[quote]Another important mention is the direction of the highways. Only one major highway connects Scotland and England (The M74), which is effectively a continuation of the M6, a major highway connecting much of the industrial cities up to one another and forming a backbone to the country. Considering that multiple bombs fall on it at various points and the fact it crosses multiple large rivers would make repairing exceptionally difficult. It would be virtually impossible to travel on a north-south axis. Many alternate routes are effectively narrow medieval roads that happen to have tarmac on the top of them.[/quote]
Why would the bridges vanish? They're not valuable enough to be targets. You also have plenty of other sealed roads that criss-cross the country to use - They may only be double lane but they're hardly "medieval". The military also has plenty of heavy engineering and will take any more they need from the public if they have too.
[quote]Saying that losing up to half of your electrical generation potential doesn't matter anyways because the people who would be using it are dead isn't exactly the best argument to convince somebody that nuclear war is somehow survivable.[/quote]
No, I said the population will be reduced. I've never denied that. I am not however agreeing with you (and I will thank you for putting words in my mouth here) that there won't still be a substantial population left. Furthermore, the largest electricity hogs sch as heavy industry won't be back up and running for a while.
[quote]What about the injured, the old, the sick, the young, pregnant women, people with mental disorders, etc? I mean this also assumes that people would have two weeks of food and water that's safe for consumption throughout it all, which in itself is absurd. [/quote]
I'm not assuming that at all. They'll probably die. I thought i made that clear.
[quote]Your own source mentions the following, which doesn't bode well for survival of the state:
Also remember that the Soviet Union is much much bigger, with a population dispersed very widely. The study mentions that between 35-77% of the US population could die, and in the case of Britain (which is a small and densely populated island which is heavily reliant on external trade) the death and destruction would be likely larger. In fact much of the source you cited there pretty much agrees with my position, and it seems cautious to even suggest that complex society as we presently know it would survive such a conflict.[/quote]
For starters I can't find those quotes in the document. It might just be search fucking up.
[url]http://popdensitymap.ucoz.ru/69.Population_density-administrative_boundaries-ma.png[/url]
As for populations, Russia isn't anywhere near dispersed as you make it out to be and this was using nearly 10,000 strategic weapons. This was also a [I]counter-value[/I] which means populations are deliberately targeted. There is no way in Hell that either side would go for a counter-value attack as that means leaving enemy nuclear weapons in tact and available to retaliate.
A counter-force attack puts the casualties on the US in the range or 2 to 20 million. A counterforce on the USSR (as opposed to Russia) is in the range of 6 to 27 million. Given a lack of silos in the UK in a counterforce attack nearly all of the warheads will be aimed at radar, command and control and airbases. Most of those will be airburst producing negligible radiation casualties.
At no point have I ever pretended that the after effects of a nuclear war would be nice. What I am disagreeing with you on is the proportion of the population killed (10 to 20% as opposed to your claim of 90%+) and the idea that we'll go back to medieval levels of technology after an attack.
[quote][url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming[/url][/quote]
Nice source smartass.
[quote]They assumed so because while the houses themselves are not made of paper, the contents are filled with much more paper, plastics, and other combustible compounds than in 1940s Japan.[/quote]
They're not at all comparable. We have completely different fire codes which I've already explained.
[quote]The source I used earlier estimates that the emission of the soot would still cause major problems with the ozone layer that would result in substantial ozone loss as a likely outcome. That alone would cause significant problems for a population already struggling to rebuild.[/QUOTE]
Which means jack shit because the soot levels from every city going up in a firestorm (which in itself is ridiculous) is still far less than the amount of soot released from wildfires each year. The author of the study took zero effort to compare the soot levels to those regularly found n nature and instead based their model on conjecture.
[QUOTE=download;48876639]As for staying indoors, you would only do that if you didn't get any information from the radio you should have. Otherwise you will get fallout information and will be told where you need to move.[/quote]
The official leaflets stated that you had to stay inside your fallout shelter for several days at a minimum, and that it was inadvisable to leave until two weeks had passed. About 2/3rds of housing in Britain would be close enough to the bombs that their windows would be shattered, and consequently open to radioactive particles getting inside. Assuming you didn't die from radioactive exposure, you still are exposed to the elements without gas or electricity and water supplies likely cut off. If it happened in winter it is likely a lot of people would likely die from a combination of exposure, shock, injury, etc. The wet climate would contribute significantly.
[quote]There is no way the Russians would waste a 5Mt warhead on such a target - assuming they still even have 5Mt weapons in service anymore. And despite your claims earlier that "most" of the targets are in urban areas I did some fiddling around in nukemap and found that nearby population centres usually survived strikes to things like airbases.[/quote]
24 of the targets are city centers where other centers of government are. A single 50kt nuke is enough to flatten most of the smaller cities of Britain. In the study on the climate and how it would be affected by nuclear war, they used 15kt bombs in their study.
[quote]The only reason a city would get attacked here is if something valuable is in the centre of it. London will definitely get hit because that's where the Government and military command are but it's unlikely any other cities will be targeted unless backup command bunkers and the like are hidden underneath them.[/quote]
Many other cities in the country have facilities or separate seats of government. Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland all have their own regional governments.
The nukemap also targets various important locations. Felixstowe (the largest and busiest port in Britain) handles nearly half of Britains containerized trade: [url]https://www.portoffelixstowe.co.uk/[/url]
On that map it is in the middle of an area targeted by 4 nuclear bombs (which isn't surprising because there are also military facilities in the nearby area). These bombs would almost certainly destroy the port facilities and make them inoperable for months, effectively cutting off half of the nations containerised trade (and ships won't be able to go elsewhere because many of the other ports are far too small to handle modern shipping).
In case it's argued that it's not a target, there are military installations literally next door to it.
[quote]Why would the bridges vanish? They're not valuable enough to be targets. You also have plenty of other sealed roads that criss-cross the country to use - They may only be double lane but they're hardly "medieval". The military also has plenty of heavy engineering and will take any more they need from the public if they have too.[/quote]
The A1 road from Scotland to England (virtually the only major road on the east coast) is a single lane road for much of its length. With the exception of the major highways, many of Britains roads are laid on medieval foundations. They are often unable to handle heavy traffic (there are loads of stone bridges from the pre-modern period which will collapse if anything weighing 2 tonnes comes over it).
Many of the main and most important bridges are in the range of nuclear bombs. The creation of debris and the need to clear debris from the roads will eat up limited stocks of fuel and man-hours.
[quote]No, I said the population will be reduced. I've never denied that. I am not however agreeing with you (and I will thank you for putting words in my mouth here) that there won't still be a substantial population left. Furthermore, the largest electricity hogs sch as heavy industry won't be back up and running for a while.[/quote]
A reduction of 20% is laughably small for a nuclear war. It's more likely and realistic that the population would be reduced down to about 6 million, which is comparable to the early 18th century.
The major industry you speak of is required for reconstruction efforts. Concrete, steel, chemicals, electricity will all be essential to repairing and rebuilding national infrastructure. Without the energy, manpower, imported chemicals, or infrastructure to produce and transport these things, you will be in a very difficult position.
[quote][url]http://popdensitymap.ucoz.ru/69.Population_density-administrative_boundaries-ma.png[/url]
As for populations, Russia isn't anywhere near dispersed as you make it out to be and this was using nearly 10,000 strategic weapons. This was also a [I]counter-value[/I] which means populations are deliberately targeted. There is no way in Hell that either side would go for a counter-value attack as that means leaving enemy nuclear weapons in tact and available to retaliate.[/quote]
Except the population is still much more dispersed than in Britain. The British isles are comparable in size to Belarus, except while Belarus has about 10 million people, the British isles possess over 60 million.
Britain is much much more densely populated than Russia. You still have a vast area of Eurasia (most of the western half of the country) which is full of people. London has a greater population density than Moscow.
[quote]At no point have I ever pretended that the after effects of a nuclear war would be nice. What I am disagreeing with you on is the proportion of the population killed (10 to 20% as opposed to your claim of 90%+) and the idea that we'll go back to medieval levels of technology after an attack.[/quote]
We certainly won't be reduced to medieval technology, (steam powered railways and tractors, small electrical power generators, bicycles, etc will probably become commonplace after the population bottomed out and whatever political systems there were had stabilized in the aftermath) but the impact would reduce the population to standards of living comparable to the 18th century. The resumption of life prior to the attack would be nearly impossible, and a return to living standards enjoyed by pre-war inhabitants would not be possible for at least 200 or so years.
[quote]They're not at all comparable. We have completely different fire codes which I've already explained.[/quote]
But you're assuming these materials which use fire retardant materials would somehow prevent fires breaking out is nonsense. Fires still break out in cities all the time from something as trivial as a fag being left on a sofa. Considering that fire services would be inoperable, water would be shut down/cut (either due to damage or to conserve water), and that most people wouldn't be in a state to put out fires in the first day or two, the damage caused by the outbreak of widespread fires would be enough to cause widespread material loss and physical harm.
[quote]Which means jack shit because the soot levels from every city going up in a firestorm (which in itself is ridiculous) is still far less than the amount of soot released from wildfires each year. The author of the study took zero effort to compare the soot levels to those regularly found n nature and instead based their model on conjecture.[/QUOTE]
I'm pretty sure that considering they are a department researching the atmosphere they would account for this.
In the study they actually did. The reason they say it's different is because the soot produced by urban fires in a nuclear war isn't as efficiently removed as in natural fires. While rain normally removes thick concentrations of smoke quickly, most smoke produced by nuclear bombs would be sent far into the stratosphere where little precipitation takes place. The heat from the nuclear bomb contributes significant additional energy to the urban fires that have been set off, allowing for the smoke to be injected high into the atmosphere where it will take a considerable long time for it to disperse.
Kinda silly that they would authorize new Trident boats seeing as we're talking about replacing the Trident platform. It's old.
The SSBN(X) program is being designed with upgrade capabilities for the new SLBM. I would hope the Brits would be doing the same. That being said, the Vanguards are old too. They were commissioned around the same time that yhe Ohios were, and we're getting ready to retire them all. Four have already been converted to SSGNs instead of scrapping because of START.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48882350]The official leaflets stated that you had to stay inside your fallout shelter for several days at a minimum, and that it was inadvisable to leave until two weeks had passed. About 2/3rds of housing in Britain would be close enough to the bombs that their windows would be shattered, and consequently open to radioactive particles getting inside. Assuming you didn't die from radioactive exposure, you still are exposed to the elements without gas or electricity and water supplies likely cut off. If it happened in winter it is likely a lot of people would likely die from a combination of exposure, shock, injury, etc. The wet climate would contribute significantly.[/quote]
The leaflets were for if radio communications couldn't be brought back up. If they could (and they most likely could given the amount of radio transmitters in the UK) obviously they would issue far more specific direction.
The UK might be cold but it's not that cold. Loss of heating won't mean everyone in the UK dies. Yes, the winter death rate will probably be the highest on record. But most people own plenty of warm clothing. It will be an uncomfortable winter sure, but it will be the least of your problem.
[quote]24 of the targets are city centers where other centers of government are. A single 50kt nuke is enough to flatten most of the smaller cities of Britain. In the study on the climate and how it would be affected by nuclear war, they used 15kt bombs in their study.[/quote]
Few "small towns" are targets. In fact, no towns or cities themselves would be targets. Some places will be incidental targets due to them hosting things like the national government and major MoD facilities. Locations that do (like London) won't be blanketed in nukes, every nuke will hit the same location repeatedly to guarantee a kill in any bunkers underneath it.
And I already explained that study (and many others that are nearly the same) are completely shit on so many levels.
[quote]Many other cities in the country have facilities or separate seats of government. Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland all have their own regional governments.
The nukemap also targets various important locations. Felixstowe (the largest and busiest port in Britain) handles nearly half of Britains containerized trade: [url]https://www.portoffelixstowe.co.uk/[/url]
On that map it is in the middle of an area targeted by 4 nuclear bombs (which isn't surprising because there are also military facilities in the nearby area). These bombs would almost certainly destroy the port facilities and make them inoperable for months, effectively cutting off half of the nations containerised trade (and ships won't be able to go elsewhere because many of the other ports are far too small to handle modern shipping).
In case it's argued that it's not a target, there are military installations literally next door to it.[/quote]
Unless they have the power to launch nuclear weapons they're not targets. They might be targets in a followup strike, but that assumes the Russians win and neutralize all of NATO's nuclear arsenal - difficult given 75% of it is on SSBNs. On the other hand, they might keep the port intact and use it to strip the UK bare of any and all industrial equipment.
As for Port Felixstowe, I'm not going to claim I know the area, but I'm struggling to find 4 targets in the area. The closest I can find is RAF Woodbridge but it's so far away that a 100kt burst will struggle to break the windows in its namesake town let alone Felixstowe. There's an old radar station but that shut down in the 1960s.
A 100kt burst on the radar station despite being far closer also doesn't break windows in the Port.
[quote]The A1 road from Scotland to England (virtually the only major road on the east coast) is a single lane road for much of its length. With the exception of the major highways, many of Britains roads are laid on medieval foundations. They are often unable to handle heavy traffic (there are loads of stone bridges from the pre-modern period which will collapse if anything weighing 2 tonnes comes over it).
Many of the main and most important bridges are in the range of nuclear bombs. The creation of debris and the need to clear debris from the roads will eat up limited stocks of fuel and man-hours.[/quote]
I'm struggling to believe that the UK only has one road road going north to south that can handle heavy vehicles. It's preposterous in a first world nation to think that except in remote communities.
I would also like to know what major bridge you know of that are "in range" of nuclear strike that will be destroyed.
[quote]A reduction of 20% is laughably small for a nuclear war. It's more likely and realistic that the population would be reduced down to about 6 million, which is comparable to the early 18th century.[/quote]
Mind citing something for that claim?
You've pulled 6 million (a 90% or so reduction in population) claim out of your ass while I've cited an all out counter-value strike (which is the least likely to happen) struggling to make it past the 50% casualty mark.
[quote]The major industry you speak of is required for reconstruction efforts. Concrete, steel, chemicals, electricity will all be essential to repairing and rebuilding national infrastructure. Without the energy, manpower, imported chemicals, or infrastructure to produce and transport these things, you will be in a very difficult position.[/quote]
They're not staying off forever. They're staying off until you have gas flowing again and power to people's homes. Rebuilding will be a long slow slog, I'm not arguing against that, but again, this isn't "we end up back in the middle ages".
[quote]Except the population is still much more dispersed than in Britain. The British isles are comparable in size to Belarus, except while Belarus has about 10 million people, the British isles possess over 60 million.
Britain is much much more densely populated than Russia. You still have a vast area of Eurasia (most of the western half of the country) which is full of people. London has a greater population density than Moscow.[/quote]
[url]http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.URB.TOTL.IN.ZS?order=wbapi_data_value_2014+wbapi_data_value+wbapi_data_value-last&sort=desc[/url]
UK - 82% of the population in urban areas
Russia - 74% of population in urban areas.
It's pretty comparable when you consider the number of weapons used (in the high thousands), compared to the number of weapons they could spare against the UK (300 in your scenario, less now that Russia and the US are limited to 1550 strategic weapons each). You'd be unlucky to break 20%.
[quote]We certainly won't be reduced to medieval technology, (steam powered railways and tractors, small electrical power generators, bicycles, etc will probably become commonplace after the population bottomed out and whatever political systems there were had stabilized in the aftermath) but the impact would reduce the population to standards of living comparable to the 18th century. The resumption of life prior to the attack would be nearly impossible, and a return to living standards enjoyed by pre-war inhabitants would not be possible for at least 200 or so years.[/quote]
1940s and 50s maybe, but unless we're using your ridiculous 90% casualty figure, there is no way the UK will fall back to 1800s levels of living and be stuck there for 200 years. It would be more comparable to Germany after WW2 several times worse. Though there might not be a Marshal Plant afterwards to help rebuild.
[quote]But you're assuming these materials which use fire retardant materials would somehow prevent fires breaking out is nonsense. Fires still break out in cities all the time from something as trivial as a fag being left on a sofa. Considering that fire services would be inoperable, water would be shut down/cut (either due to damage or to conserve water), and that most people wouldn't be in a state to put out fires in the first day or two, the damage caused by the outbreak of widespread fires would be enough to cause widespread material loss and physical harm.[/quote]
They're not [I]fire proof[/I], they are far more [I]resistant[/I] to bringing. There are the things that stop a single home fire from from taking out entire blocks. Many of these things are designed to stop smouldering materials from lighting up.
If you're going to stand there and say that modern homes are any-way comparable to paper and wood huts, packed together with no fire standards then you're being deliberately asinine.
[quote]I'm pretty sure that considering they are a department researching the atmosphere they would account for this.[/quote]
Well if you bothered to read it you'd find they didn't. Humans aren't perfect, even more so when they're running agenda driven science.
[quote]In the study they actually did. The reason they say it's different is because the soot produced by urban fires in a nuclear war isn't as efficiently removed as in natural fires. While rain normally removes thick concentrations of smoke quickly, most smoke produced by nuclear bombs would be sent far into the stratosphere where little precipitation takes place. The heat from the nuclear bomb contributes significant additional energy to the urban fires that have been set off, allowing for the smoke to be injected high into the atmosphere where it will take a considerable long time for it to disperse.[/QUOTE]
A nuclear fireball is so hot it very rapidly rises, long before the buildings have really started to burn (assuming they go up like paper and wood shacks, which they won't). Once the fireball is gone it's just a normal fire, with a size comparable to wildfires found all over the world.
To get anything like you've described then everything needs to burn up completely at the same instant the nukes goes up.
[editline]12th October 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=dbk21894;48883475]Kinda silly that they would authorize new Trident boats seeing as we're talking about replacing the Trident platform. It's old.
The SSBN(X) program is being designed with upgrade capabilities for the new SLBM. I would hope the Brits would be doing the same. That being said, the Vanguards are old too. They were commissioned around the same time that yhe Ohios were, and we're getting ready to retire them all. Four have already been converted to SSGNs instead of scrapping because of START.[/QUOTE]
While a newer missile might be a good idea considering rising tensions with Russia, there simply isn't one and the UK can't afford to go it alone and develop a new on themselves. If they can get the US on board it might be a good idea however if they want to spend the money.
[QUOTE=dbk21894;48883475]Kinda silly that they would authorize new Trident boats seeing as we're talking about replacing the Trident platform. It's old.
The SSBN(X) program is being designed with upgrade capabilities for the new SLBM. I would hope the Brits would be doing the same. That being said, the Vanguards are old too. They were commissioned around the same time that yhe Ohios were, and we're getting ready to retire them all. Four have already been converted to SSGNs instead of scrapping because of START.[/QUOTE]
I believe the Vanguard successor-class is going to use a common missile-module with the SSBN(X), so compatibility shouldn't be too big an issue.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.