Posted on 02/14/2005 1:42:47 PM PST by shanec
Edited on 02/14/2005 3:41:49 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
You are still thinking megatons when it is kilotons. 25 megatons is still a whopping huge device. About as big as the U.S. ever built and tested, IIRC, but not weaponized. Multi-megaton thermonuclear weapons are not a big part of anyone's arsenal, and are not very portable. 10 kilotons is about what Pakistan was able to cobble together and realistically what a terrorist could hope to acquire, if that.
It would make a hell of a disaster, but the reality is that there would be a city left standing around such a blast - with tens of thousands dead and a huge number of critically injured survivors. They better have a response plan that doesn't end up doubling the fatalities because it was not competent.
Actually your chances of dying at 3 miles out are fairly close to zero, with shards of glass from a blown out window the biggest hazard.
Ping for later.
On the contrary, they will be very busy because they will have so much to do and so little training, preparation, equipment, or personnel to do it with. Can they make it all better? No of course not. But they will be swamped for weeks. The more we prepare, the more we can avoid the truly avoidable follow on consequences, that would stem from services collapse rather than direct effects.
Those include medical response, evacuation, immediate relief supplies, substitutes for essentials (water e.g.) clearing and cleaning the impact area. Not enjoying thinking about it, or setting a standard at "if it doesn't bring everyone back, what's the point?" is unrealistic, shortsighted, and stupid.
There might have been some reason to be cavalier about such things when the threat was 10,000 nukes within a matter of days or hours from the Soviet Union, at the height of the cold war. But when the threat is a terrorist nuke, pretending it will be the end of the world is simply irresponsible. Men will have to clean up and carry on. And we'd better be ready, because with the state of our policies toward NK and Iran etc, and the indifference of the rest of the world, it is mostly a matter of when not if, at this point.
"What to cut in order to fund Civil Defense. Let me start the list, others welcome to add on:
1. UN dues
2. Foreign aid to backstabbing anti US countries
3. All funding of abortion
4. Most non business related grants
5. Agricultural subsidies "
bttt this comment
Here's a couple of questions that put our ability to respond into sharp relief:
How many burn victims would there be if a 1kt were to be deployed at 5:00 pm in Manhatten?
Now....
How many burn beds are there en toto in the entire country?
There arent a lot of burn beds in this country. Last I knew, it was hovering about 3,000. This is fairly old information however.
I cant go into too much detail, but there is a lot more out there than most people know about.
First responders may not have a lot of in depth survey equipment, but there are significant follow on assets that can be mobilized for any type of radiologcal response, and within a few hours of an event.
There are state radiation teams, and they have the right survey equipment to deal with the initial emergency. Survey meters, protective equipment, decontamination equipment, and a full suite of response capabilities. There are also state radiation laboratories, and mobile response assets. Depends on the state and how much money they have invested in response. They hold the fort until the feds arrive.
The Federal Government has FRMAC teams, and RAP teams out there, and they can be on scene in hours. They have pre-positioned equipment that can be loaded on an aircraft and flown there immediately.
Its not as bad as the writer makes it out, but there are some areas that can be doing better.
That sounds more like it. A MIRV warhead must be pretty compact, so 100s of kilotons sounds about right for modern ICBMs. THAT would leave a mark.
No one said not to care for the injured but be remained that after nuclear bombs start falling (if they do) there will be more than a 100 or 200. After the initial supplies run out for caring for the injured, where is one going to get more? Where is the food and clean water going to come from? Just look at what one hurricane can do to a city and then think about a bombs going off and radiation fallout. Look what happened when St. Mt.Hellen went off a few years ago and then think about what a hundred of them at the same time can do. These are not commonplace misconceptions, it's just a real hard look at the facts.
I agree with you. I was only trying to point out that fact to those that get scared and worried about the end of the world and wanting shelters all over the place and in the back yard.
I find these numbers facinating. Did you know that the Tsar Bomba was designed to be a 100 megaton weapon but was de-tuned for testing. 100 megatons is 10,000 times the size of the Hiroshima bomb! All in one huge explosion. Wow! That is as qualitatively different weapon as a 10KT nuke is compared to a 20 ton conventional MOAB. One bomb that big could actually lay waste to the entire LA basin.
So, on the one hand, yes, man can create bombs that really actually could destroy all life on this planet. On the other hand, despite all the real terribleness of nuclear weapons, it isn't true that any nation is actually capable of destroying the world - not even close.
Natural forces of the Earth dwarf our weapons. And cosmic forces dwarf the Earth itself.
I think that to answer your questions is in the form of a matter of trust. I don't think the government trust us.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.