Nuclear War: How Bad Would It Be?

[Swammerdami]

ICBMs carry much lower yield warheads than the H-bomb tests carried out by the U.S. in the Pacific. Typical ICBM warhead is generally a few hundred kilotons (tactical nuclear weapons have much lower yield) while the Castle Bravo test yield was 15 Megatons. The reason they moved away from the higher yield weapons is that the missile accuracy was greatly improved so they didn't need as much power to assure a "kill".

But a single Ohio-class submarine carries 192 of those "smallish" thermonuclear warheads. A single missile with eight MIRV'ed warheads aimed at Moscow could kill or maim several millions of people.

What would the actual targeting be? (The U.S. might focus strictly on military targets, but what about Czar Vladimir?) Does Russia, like the U.S., mostly rely on "smallish" MIRV'ed warheads, or does it have super-bombs targeting U.S. cities?

 

[bilby]

ICBMs carry much lower yield warheads than the H-bomb tests carried out by the U.S. in the Pacific. Typical ICBM warhead is generally a few hundred kilotons (tactical nuclear weapons have much lower yield) while the Castle Bravo test yield was 15 Megatons. The reason they moved away from the higher yield weapons is that the missile accuracy was greatly improved so they didn't need as much power to assure a "kill".

But a single Ohio-class submarine carries 192 of those "smallish" thermonuclear warheads. A single missile with eight MIRV'ed warheads aimed at Moscow could kill or maim several millions of people.

What would the actual targeting be? (The U.S. might focus strictly on military targets, but what about Czar Vladimir?) Does Russia, like the U.S., mostly rely on "smallish" MIRV'ed warheads, or does it have super-bombs targeting U.S. cities?

If Putin was to be the first to launch a nuclear weapon, it would probably be against Ukraine, not the US or any other NATO nation.

Targeting NATO would force a massive retaliatory response.

Targeting US cities would be beyond stupid. Russia would cease to exist within hours.

In the unlikely event of a strike against the US, the only not certain to be instant suicide option would be a strike against US nuclear weapons sites; But even a massive and successful surprise strike of this kind would leave a very large US submarine arsenal ready, willing and able to glass large parts of the Russian Federation.

A nuclear war between Russia and Ukraine is, remotely, possible (and would be very one-sided, assuming NATO didn't decide to escalate).

In the absence of a Russian nuclear attack on Ukraine, nuclear war between Russia and any NATO power is hugely unlikely. Unless Putin is completely insane, in which case all bets are off.

 

[fromderinside]

No more bets.

 

[Hermit]

Pacific islands are still uninhabitable from nuclear tests.

That depends on your definition of 'uninhabitable'.

In the sense of 'if you tried to live there you would quickly sicken and die', it's simply false.

It's true in the sense of 'if you tried to live there, the US military would refuse to allow it for fear that you might sue them if you eventually developed a cancer'.

Bullshit. The US actually left entire populations near the Bikini Atoll while tests were taking place. They served as lab rats. Not only the, 15 years later the US resettled populations on islands it knew to be contaminated. They still served as lab rats.

The vast majority of the radiation at those sites has gone away. The remaining stuff is easy to detect, but not dangerous to live with.

That is factually untrue. Lethal amounts of radiation remained on atolls 100 and 150 miles distant from the test site on Bikini Atoll for decades. In March 1954 the US detonated a 15-megaton hydrogen bomb (Castle Bravo test), allegedly unaware that fallout will reach Rongelap Atoll and Rongerik Atoll. Their respective populations were not evacuated until after the test. A large percentage developed Leukemia, Thyroiod and other cancers. No surprises there, of course. 15 years later those who survived until then were told that it is safe to return, and they were resettled. Unfortunately, it was not safe to return at all. The rate of children born after their return also developed cancers at an extraordinary rate. Also, look up "jelly babies". No, not the one's you buy at the local grocer. I mean the children born after 1969 on those atolls 100 and 150 miles from the Bikini Atoll.

It's a circular argument: You're not allowed to live there, therefore nobody can live there, therefore it must be dangerous to live there, therefore we won't allow you to live there.

If the same standards were applied to natural radiation as are applied to man made sources, the city of Denver, CO would be evacuated immediately, as it is more radioactive than Pripyat, Ukraine, or Fukushima, Japan.

Your entire posts reeks of motivated reasoning on a scale resembling that of barbos. My guess is that you go to extremes downplaying the effects of radiation caused by nuclear explosions lest some of the negativity generated by the real picture of what radiation caused by them leaks across to peaceful uses of atomic fission. The extent to which you do that makes your advocacy of electricity generation by nuclear power less credible. That's a pity because nuclear energy is a cheap, environmentally desirable and reliable alternative to fossil based electricity production.

 

[bilby]

Pacific islands are still uninhabitable from nuclear tests.

That depends on your definition of 'uninhabitable'.

In the sense of 'if you tried to live there you would quickly sicken and die', it's simply false.

It's true in the sense of 'if you tried to live there, the US military would refuse to allow it for fear that you might sue them if you eventually developed a cancer'.

Bullshit. The US actually left entire populations near the Bikini Atoll while tests were taking place. They served as lab rats.

That has nothing to do with my claim whatsoever.

Not only the, 15 years later the US resettled populations on islands it knew to be contaminated.

Again, that's both terrible and completely irrelevant to what I just said. It doesn't refute, or even address what I said in any way.

They still served as lab rats.

The vast majority of the radiation at those sites has gone away. The remaining stuff is easy to detect, but not dangerous to live with.

That is factually untrue. Lethal amounts of radiation remained on atolls 100 and 150 miles distant from the test site on Bikini Atoll for decades.

Sure, if you say so. It's BEEN decades. What I said remains true.

In March 1954 the US detonated a 15-megaton hydrogen bomb (Castle Bravo test), allegedly unaware that fallout will reach Rongelap Atoll and Rongerik Atoll. Their respective populations were not evacuated until after the test. A large percentage developed Leukemia, Thyroiod and other cancers. No surprises there, of course. 15 years later those who survived until then were told that it is safe to return, and they were resettled. Unfortunately, it was not safe to return at all. The rate of children born after their return also developed cancers at an extraordinary rate. Also, look up "jelly babies". No, not the one's you buy at the local grocer. I mean the children born after 1969 on those atolls 100 and 150 miles from the Bikini Atoll.

Again, that's horrible. And again, completely fails to address anything I actually said.

It's a circular argument: You're not allowed to live there, therefore nobody can live there, therefore it must be dangerous to live there, therefore we won't allow you to live there.

If the same standards were applied to natural radiation as are applied to man made sources, the city of Denver, CO would be evacuated immediately, as it is more radioactive than Pripyat, Ukraine, or Fukushima, Japan.

Your entire posts reeks of motivated reasoning on a scale resembling that of barbos. My guess is that you go to extremes downplaying the effects of radiation caused by nuclear explosions lest some of the negativity generated by the real picture of what radiation caused by them leaks across to peaceful uses of atomic fission. The extent to which you do that makes your advocacy of electricity generation by nuclear power less credible. That's a pity because nuclear energy is a cheap, environmentally desirable and reliable alternative to fossil based electricity production.

You appear to be highly emotional about this, to the point of completely blanking out what I say, as soon as it becomes apparent that I am not screaming and tearing my hair out at the very mention of ionising radiation.

Ionising radiation is dangerous. Water is also dangerous.

There's a big difference between being pushed out of a boat wearing concrete overshoes, and being pushed out of a building during a rain shower.

Radiation goes away over time. The test sites were lethally dangerous for decades; But they aren't today.

Motivated reasoning? Maybe. That's probably better than motivated unreasonable emoting.

Of course, it's also possible that I just know what I am on about, having studied it. I find study is generally better than foaming at the mouth about irrelevant emotional claims.

 

[Hermit]

Pacific islands are still uninhabitable from nuclear tests.

That depends on your definition of 'uninhabitable'.

In the sense of 'if you tried to live there you would quickly sicken and die', it's simply false.

It's true in the sense of 'if you tried to live there, the US military would refuse to allow it for fear that you might sue them if you eventually developed a cancer'.

Bullshit. The US actually left entire populations near the Bikini Atoll while tests were taking place. They served as lab rats.

That has nothing to do with my claim whatsoever.

Not only the, 15 years later the US resettled populations on islands it knew to be contaminated.

Again, that's both terrible and completely irrelevant to what I just said. It doesn't refute, or even address what I said in any way.

They still served as lab rats.

The vast majority of the radiation at those sites has gone away. The remaining stuff is easy to detect, but not dangerous to live with.

That is factually untrue. Lethal amounts of radiation remained on atolls 100 and 150 miles distant from the test site on Bikini Atoll for decades.

Sure, if you say so. It's BEEN decades. What I said remains true.

In March 1954 the US detonated a 15-megaton hydrogen bomb (Castle Bravo test), allegedly unaware that fallout will reach Rongelap Atoll and Rongerik Atoll. Their respective populations were not evacuated until after the test. A large percentage developed Leukemia, Thyroiod and other cancers. No surprises there, of course. 15 years later those who survived until then were told that it is safe to return, and they were resettled. Unfortunately, it was not safe to return at all. The rate of children born after their return also developed cancers at an extraordinary rate. Also, look up "jelly babies". No, not the one's you buy at the local grocer. I mean the children born after 1969 on those atolls 100 and 150 miles from the Bikini Atoll.

Again, that's horrible. And again, completely fails to address anything I actually said.

It's a circular argument: You're not allowed to live there, therefore nobody can live there, therefore it must be dangerous to live there, therefore we won't allow you to live there.

If the same standards were applied to natural radiation as are applied to man made sources, the city of Denver, CO would be evacuated immediately, as it is more radioactive than Pripyat, Ukraine, or Fukushima, Japan.

Your entire posts reeks of motivated reasoning on a scale resembling that of barbos. My guess is that you go to extremes downplaying the effects of radiation caused by nuclear explosions lest some of the negativity generated by the real picture of what radiation caused by them leaks across to peaceful uses of atomic fission. The extent to which you do that makes your advocacy of electricity generation by nuclear power less credible. That's a pity because nuclear energy is a cheap, environmentally desirable and reliable alternative to fossil based electricity production.

You appear to be highly emotional about this, to the point of completely blanking out what I say, as soon as it becomes apparent that I am not screaming and tearing my hair out at the very mention of ionising radiation.

Ionising radiation is dangerous. Water is also dangerous.

There's a big difference between being pushed out of a boat wearing concrete overshoes, and being pushed out of a building during a rain shower.

Radiation goes away over time. The test sites were lethally dangerous for decades; But they aren't today.

Motivated reasoning? Maybe. That's probably better than motivated unreasonable emoting.

OK. I'll just leave you to splash about to your heart's content in some Egyptian river for the night.

 

[steve_bank]

Major cities are centers for military technology, financial institutions, government, and technology.

MAD means mutually assured destruction. It would be the WWII bombing campaigns with nukes. Destruction of infrastructure. The idea that a nuclear war would be waged to a set of rules of war is ridiculous.

One side lain hes. The other side detects and launches. End of story. That is the MAD principle.

Post war the USA did long term generational study oft he generational health effects of radiation in Japanese cities that were hit.

Google Scholar

scholar.google.com

 

[skepticalbip]

ICBMs carry much lower yield warheads than the H-bomb tests carried out by the U.S. in the Pacific. Typical ICBM warhead is generally a few hundred kilotons (tactical nuclear weapons have much lower yield) while the Castle Bravo test yield was 15 Megatons. The reason they moved away from the higher yield weapons is that the missile accuracy was greatly improved so they didn't need as much power to assure a "kill".

But a single Ohio-class submarine carries 192 of those "smallish" thermonuclear warheads. A single missile with eight MIRV'ed warheads aimed at Moscow could kill or maim several millions of people.

That is true but unless there is a concentration of military assets in Moscow there would be little reason to do so. The primary military bases in the U.S. are in less populated areas except for a few Navy bases. The Navy needs deep water ports and so did early settlements that grew into cities. These would primarily be Norfolk, Pearl Harbor, and San Diego. But I would think that higher on the priority list of Naval targets would be Naval Base Kings Bay in Georgia and Naval Base Kitsap in Washington state.

What would the actual targeting be? (The U.S. might focus strictly on military targets, but what about Czar Vladimir?) Does Russia, like the U.S., mostly rely on "smallish" MIRV'ed warheads, or does it have super-bombs targeting U.S. cities?

I think you underestimate Putin. He may well be a cold hearted bastard but that doesn't mean that he isn't also capable of strategic reasoning and planning. And yes, I would think that Russia mostly relies on "smallish" nuclear weapons. They are more than sufficient to accomplish the job and they are much, much easier to deliver. The big thermonuclear weapons tests of the cold war were more for "dick waving" propaganda. The Tsar Bomba scared the U.S. military strategists because it was delivered by aircraft, not so much because it delivered such a big blast... pretty much like Sputnik demonstrated lift capability not the capabilities of the satellite itself.

The more 'important' nuclear developments of the cold war era was in developing smaller tactical nuclear weapons. The Davy Crockett system fired a 20 ton (about the same yield as "block-buster" bombs of WWII) nuclear warhead a couple miles. This was replaced in the early 1970s by nuclear warhead artillery shells.

 

[skepticalbip]

You appear to be highly emotional about this, to the point of completely blanking out what I say, as soon as it becomes apparent that I am not screaming and tearing my hair out at the very mention of ionising radiation.

Ionising radiation is dangerous. Water is also dangerous.

There's a big difference between being pushed out of a boat wearing concrete overshoes, and being pushed out of a building during a rain shower.

Radiation goes away over time. The test sites were lethally dangerous for decades; But they aren't today.

Motivated reasoning? Maybe. That's probably better than motivated unreasonable emoting.

Of course, it's also possible that I just know what I am on about, having studied it. I find study is generally better than foaming at the mouth about irrelevant emotional claims.

People have been conditioned to have a hyper negative reaction to the word "radiation" so they do without thinking about it.

I did hear about a guy who had a corner lot and foot traffic would take a short cut across his lot rather than walk to the corner on the sidewalk. This caused paths to be worn through his lawn. He put up a sign asking people to please stay on the sidewalk but it did not discourage people from creating paths across his lawn. He then put up a sign "WARNING... unprotected skin may experience severe radiation burns." This stopped foot traffic across his lawn but did result in a visit by the police. He explained to them that the sign was to make people stop walking across his lawn and only meant that someone could get a bad sunburn if they didn't wear clothes. Of course this was in the 1980s so the police just laughed and left. Today, he would likely be cited for creating public panic.

Yeah, I understand that this could just be an urban legend (or maybe not) but I did hear it in the 1980s and it does accurately depict people's reaction to the word, "radiation".

 

[bilby]

The idea that a nuclear war would be waged to a set of rules of war is ridiculous.

Why? The Western Front in WWII was waged to a set of rules of war; Neither side employed chemical weapons against the other (the big bugbear from the earlier Great War). Despite the doctrine of 'total war', and despite one side being led by a mad dictator who had no qualms about trying to destroy his own country when it became clear that he would lose, and who was already using chemical weapons against the "undesirable" portion of his own civilian population.

Even in the trench warfare of the Western Front in the Great War, there were rules adhered to by both sides.

The idea that a modern war in Europe might be fought without adherence to a set of rules seems more ridiculous to me.

 

[steve_bank]

I remember a cartoon from the 70s.

There is a picture of a Russian speaking at the UN. A bubble from his mouth has the words 'Russian scientists have proven radiation is good for you!'.

 

[skepticalbip]

I remember a cartoon from the 70s.

There is a picture of a Russian speaking at the UN. A bubble from his mouth has the words 'Russian scientists have proven radiation is good for you!'.

Yes, that was a political cartoon both saying that Russia is evil and equating all and any radiation as deadly... as many people do. Saying Russia is evil and saying any radiation is deadly are two very different ideas. Some radiation, at significantly high levels, is dangerous or even deadly. Some radiation is necessary for our health and survival... for one example vitamin D deficiency ain't pretty.

To claim that "radiation" is deadly, the type and level of the radiation must be stated for the claim to make any sense.

 

[steve_bank]

I remember a cartoon from the 70s.

There is a picture of a Russian speaking at the UN. A bubble from his mouth has the words 'Russian scientists have proven radiation is good for you!'.

Yes, that was a political cartoon equating all and any radiation as deadly... as many people do. Some radiation, at significantly high levels, is dangerous or even deadly. Some radiation is necessary for our health and survival... for one example vitamin D deficiency ain't pretty.

To claim that "radiation" is deadly, the type and level of the radiation must be stated for the claim to make any sense.

Not really. It was a spoof of the absurdity of Russian claims.

I worked on RF systems. When one says radiation it usually means ionizing radiation.

Ionizing radiation is particle radiation that directly dnages cells and DNA.

Non ionizing radiation generally refers to electromagnetic radiation. The effects depend on wavelength relative to body structures. At high enough frequencies EMR can be ionizing. Ionizing meaning breaking atomic bonds.

Long term exposure to low level radiation of both kinds can be harmful.

The Soviets did an study on prisoners exposing then to long term ;evels of EMR. The conclusion was long term exposure at low levelissi harmful.

In the 70s and 80s there was a machine to seal plastic bags using RF heating. Operators developed cataracts due to heating of the eyes.

The first color TVs had an xray issue if you sat close to the screen.

For general products safe genearly means undetectable above background raiation.

A system made at a company I worked at went on a military aircraft and it had to withstand nuclear radiation. The running joke was 'The pilott dies but the plane keeps on flying'.

There is long term health issues with exposure to radon gas in homes.

Inelectronicss manufacturing in the 80s there radioactive devices to reduce ESD. They used air blowing over aloha sources and were consderd safe.

I could go on with examples.

Feel free to lecture me on radiation safety.

 

[skepticalbip]

So that was just a long extended way of agreeing with what I wrote?
"To claim that "radiation" is deadly, the type and level of the radiation must be stated for the claim to make any sense."

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The situation is not comparable, the theoretical danger is the mushroom cloud carries the soot into the stratosphere. There is no rain in the stratosphere and thus it can't rain out. Hiroshima and Nagasaki aren't relevant, the bombs were small enough that the mushroom clouds didn't reach the stratosphere in the first place.

I am highly skeptical of all this. Smoke from a firestorm like Hamburg or Tokyo would certainly reach the stratosphere. As does volcanic ash, and even industrial pollution.

Nuclear weapons don't create a significantly different situation, after the first few seconds it's basically just a big, hot, fire.

I would be interested to know why you imagine that non-nuclear fires don't put smoke into the stratosphere.

No. Ordinary fires don't put smoke in the stratosphere. It stays low enough that it rains out.

What happens with h-bombs (not merely nuclear, it needs to be a big one) is that the mushroom cloud itself rises above the rain and sets up the circulation pattern carrying the smoke and soot up there. The bomb opens the path, the fire uses it.

Volcanoes don't put a lot of crap up there but we do have the year without a summer because a big enough volcanic boom put some crap up there. The particles were bigger so they didn't stay up as long.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Tsar Bomba has been presented as nothing but chest thumping as the USSR has no aircraft that could hope to deliver it--but what about

What about it's vastly cheaper and more damaging to use a number of smaller bombs than one huge one.

Delivery system notwithstanding, a bomb larger than about 1MT is wasting most of its energy on throwing debris around in an area that's already completely destroyed.

Lots of small warheads pack a far bigger punch than one big one; That's why MIRVing is a thing.

Really huge bombs are only good for bunker busting; And even then, a series of smaller devices arriving sequentially at the same target gets you a cheaper way of achieving the same results.

It's not MIRVs that brought about smaller bombs, but improved accuracy. Almost nothing needs that kind of boom to destroy, we put on big booms to compensate for poor guidance. As the missiles became more accurate it became possible to throw multiple smaller warheads to get more destruction per pound lofted.

And that doesn't change the basic fact that H-bomb yields can be easily and cheaply increased by using depleted uranium for the required jacket. It's role is to have a lot of inertia, it's properties are otherwise irrelevant to the detonation of the fusion stage. However, there will be a lot of neutrons flying around after the fusion stage goes off, just because U-238 can't sustain a fission reaction doesn't mean it can't undergo fission. Thus the incentive to make dirty h-bombs.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

there is a bunker pretty sure to be safe: a boomer.

It's useless for the hideout of the Great Dictator though. He can't get aboard, out to deep water, and submerged quickly enough, unless he's prepared to go completely incommunicado well in advance of starting his attack - which would require an astonishing level of trust that whomever he ordered to start launching would comply, in the absence of the boss breathing down his neck.

There's no need to be incommunicado, satellite uplink while at periscope depth. The sub only goes deep when the shit starts flying--and note that he commands a bunch of shit in case someone tries to disobey.

 

[skepticalbip]

The situation is not comparable, the theoretical danger is the mushroom cloud carries the soot into the stratosphere. There is no rain in the stratosphere and thus it can't rain out. Hiroshima and Nagasaki aren't relevant, the bombs were small enough that the mushroom clouds didn't reach the stratosphere in the first place.

I am highly skeptical of all this. Smoke from a firestorm like Hamburg or Tokyo would certainly reach the stratosphere. As does volcanic ash, and even industrial pollution.

Nuclear weapons don't create a significantly different situation, after the first few seconds it's basically just a big, hot, fire.

I would be interested to know why you imagine that non-nuclear fires don't put smoke into the stratosphere.

No. Ordinary fires don't put smoke in the stratosphere. It stays low enough that it rains out.

What happens with h-bombs (not merely nuclear, it needs to be a big one) is that the mushroom cloud itself rises above the rain and sets up the circulation pattern carrying the smoke and soot up there. The bomb opens the path, the fire uses it.

Volcanoes don't put a lot of crap up there but we do have the year without a summer because a big enough volcanic boom put some crap up there. The particles were bigger so they didn't stay up as long.

But then are there any H-bombs still in the arsenal? My understanding is that the great majority of nukes in the arsenal are tactical weapons like nuclear artillery rounds (10 to 30 ton yields), torpedos, and such and that the strategic missiles are primarily MIRVs (up to a couple hundred kilotons yield).

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Radiation goes away over time. The test sites were lethally dangerous for decades; But they aren't today.

Motivated reasoning? Maybe. That's probably better than motivated unreasonable emoting.

Of course, it's also possible that I just know what I am on about, having studied it. I find study is generally better than foaming at the mouth about irrelevant emotional claims.

There are two types of radioactivity you need to measure.

First is what you're looking at, the ambient radiation level. By that standard there's almost no place around that's hazardous.

The problem is for people living there the isotopes the body is prone to taking up. That's why potassium iodide pills are used as a precaution after a nuclear event. Is a potassium iodide pill going to stop one speck of radiation from hitting your body or do anything to mitigate the damage of that speck? No. It provides no protection whatsoever against radiation. Rather, the purpose of taking them is to saturate the body with iodine so the body will be actively throwing it away. If some I-131 gets on your food your body will discard it rather than send it to the thyroid--it's avoiding it concentrating in the thyroid that is the reason to take the pills.

Now, nasty as I-131 is its short-lived. Go back next year and the threat is effectively zero. Strontium-90 is another matter, it's half life is nearly 29 years and your body mistakes it for calcium--storing it in the bones. The real threat is not the direct exposure but eating things it contaminated.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I remember a cartoon from the 70s.

There is a picture of a Russian speaking at the UN. A bubble from his mouth has the words 'Russian scientists have proven radiation is good for you!'.

A bit of cherry-picking and the bear is right.

I was knowingly exposed to some radiation earlier today, the net effect being beneficial. Dental x-rays.