Only 11 nuclear bombs to 'take out' Canada

The Ottawa Citizen ^ | 7 January 2002 | David Pugliese

[RicocheT]

Computer simulation aims to raise questions about huge stockpiles of nuclear warheads.

A new computer program developed for nuclear weapons researchers in the U.S. probably won't give Canadians much of a sense of security in these days of global tension and uncertainty. The software simulated the destruction of Canada with as few as 11 nuclear warheads.

Read the rest of the article here: Click Here

[crystalk]

Ill gives ya a hint--it has lotsa polar bears, and its between here and Greenland. Closer to Greenland, I think.

[LibKill]

I think the nukes would only temporarily affect the weather. Cold air fronts are assured.

Any other reasons not to do this?

[Snowyman]

How be we sell our beer, bacon and maple surple some were else along with our lumber,oil,gas,diamonds,and the rest that make up a billion dollars of trade a DAY. We're your largest trading partner and if the idea of 30 million people trading on that scale with 281 million doesn't give you pause for thought then try this.You have nothing we want so we can't possibly take you over. Your debt is too great and the idea that all your politicians could learn French before retirement is not realistic. We have enough trouble as it is trying to get our Prime Minister to speak understandable English, even when he forgets to speak out of the side of his mouth.

[Jack Barbara]

According to the MAD theory, no nation would resort to using nuclear weapons since its own destruction by the country it was attacking would also be assured.

And what about suicide bombers?

[Arleigh]

The answer is very obvious. First, require that all owners of nuclear weapons register them with the Canadian police. Then confiscate as many as you can. Anyone who still wants to own a nuclear weapon must get a license, and safely store it under lock and key with the triggers removed. When only the authorities have nuclear weapons, then all Canadians will be safe.

[RadioAstronomer]

I completely agree! Sagan was very good in his field of astrophysics, but he fell down badly with the nuclear winter scenario. After factoring in the ocean effects, the nuclear winter kinda dropped into obscurity.

[RadioAstronomer]

Don't get me wrong though. I appeared on a TLC program that also featured Carl Sagan. I had a great respect for him personally, especially his ability to get difficult concepts across to the layman.

[archy]

You have freep mail

Got it; replied!

Cheers!

-archy-/-

[willyone]

Considering the economic effects on the US from a relatively minor attack I don't see what all the joking about nuking Canada is about. I would guess that only eleven bombs would also pretty much eliminate the US as any kind of functional country. As for the French giving up so easily had the US lost over a million men in WW1 I doubt if we would have been real eager to fight either. All the same the French are jerks.

[Scully]

I’m sure there are many more authoritative works available, but it is interesting to note that Frank Von Hippel in his book “Citizen Scientist” published in 1991 suggested the following death tolls concentrated near or in highly urbanized and militarized areas from a potential nuclear confrontation between the USSR and the US: US = 12-27 million, USSR = 15-32 million, plus an additional 1-8 million deaths for each nation from exposure to radioactive fallout. Death rate from blast and subsequent firestorms were anticipated to match the rates from fallout. Thus, according to Von Hippel’s model, the US could expect total death toll to be between 25-62 million while the USSR could have faced between 31-72 million casualties.

For their model, Von Hippel et al based these figures on FEMA standards (extrapolated using 0.015 megaton blast over Hiroshima), and a 1982 study at Lawrence Livermore. The lower limit of anticipated deaths is based on FEMA’s assumption of an LD50 at 4.5 grays (1 gray=100 rads)/ 2 weeks exposure. The upper limit reflects the recalculations done at Lawrence Livermore that suggest that only 2.5 grays/ 2 weeks exposure would result in an LD50. Strenuously cautioned in this work is the notion that these numbers of casualties are only from the direct effects of the blast itself, fires and fallout. No predictions were made based on other effects such as lack of sanitation, food and drinking water or the availability of medicines and medical care.

While these numbers are staggering, most deaths would occur in highly localized areas. I agree with RadioAstronomer’s assertion that after a brief period of time survivors would be able to move about in less urbanized areas without much chance of further gross exposure. Many people would survive, although most likely not as anything even remotely resembling a political power.

[Great Dane]

Only 11?....wow that still leaves us with 6000 to use on Mexico, Ma-RI-CT-NH-VT and California....I say lets leave New York to the New Yorkers!

LOL,Don't forget you need some for Somalia, Indonesia, Burma, Zimbabwa, Sudan........... did I forget anyone. ??

[Great Dane]

Oh gee, I thought we had you fooled.

How are you, haven't seen you for a while.

[LibKill]

I don't see what all the joking about nuking Canada is about.

We're just kidding, eh! It's a slow night and there are no France-bashing threads. :)

[Brian Kopp DPM]

I thought Canada was a northern suburb of the USA. Wouldn't this then be like NYC taking out Long Island?

[Cleburne]

Waste eleven expensive missles on Canada? Besides, if we wiped out all two thousand something people and their moose, where would we get players for American hockey teams?

[Down South]

Ok, we agree to leave Canada alone, on the condition that they take Mass and NJ, and send us some beer.

[habs4ever]

The US does like Canadian water, plus hydroelectricity, and oil and natural gas, too.And, beer.Comedians, lumber, Zamboni machines..lots and lots of stuff ;-)

[Lessismore]

Wouldn't that be "take ooot" Canada?

[Loyalist]

I am not qualified to comment on the economic viability after such an attack, however the landmass would still be there and usable.

60% of Canada's population lives in the corridor between Quebec City and Windsor. 80% of the population lives within 2 hours drive of the US border. And 90% of the GDP gets produced in that strip along the border.

The NRDC report named Halifax, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Calgary and Vancouver as the target cities, and with good reason.

Halifax has the world's second-largest natural harbour and is the country's principal Atlantic port. Montreal is the economic heart of Quebec, and biggest port on the St. Lawrence Seaway. Ottawa--the capital and high-tech. Toronto--the HQ of almost everything in Canada. Calgary--oil city. Vancouver--gateway to the Pacific.

Throw in some important secondary targets like Moncton, Quebec City, Hamilton, London, Windsor, Thunder Bay, Winnipeg, Regina, and Edmonton, plus a few more cities that don't immediately spring to mind, and Canada is toast.