Prepping for Nuclear attack

[ChedderGorgeous]

The ultimate preparation question. But is there any point? I would suggest no.

Hiroshima was approx 180,,000 tonnes of TNT equivalent. Krakatoa is estimated to be around 200,000,000 tonnes of TNT equivalent.

(Source: nuclear scientist DH)

Nuclear weapons might be catching up, though? I know it is Wikipedia, but I don't have a nuclear scientist handy!

With an estimated Volcanic Explosivity Index (VEI) of 6,[2] the eruption was equivalent to 200 megatons of TNT (840 PJ)—about 13,000 times the nuclear yield of the Little Boy bomb (13 to 16 kt) that devastated Hiroshima, Japan, during World War II, and four times the yield of Tsar Bomba, the most powerful nuclear device ever detonated at 50 Mt.

ETA and obviously in a full scale nuclear war, there would be more than one or two bombs going off? So the effect would possibly be like many volcanic eruptions all happening in a short space of time?

Could someone say why these events with high TNT equivalence are happening and we lead normal lives and NW would be so catastrophic and life limiting

It would be catastrophic for people in the red zone and people down wind of the fallout. For others life would go on. All out nuclear war would result in horrendous loss of life and loss of technology and infrastructor which would take a life time to rebuild but life would go on. Hiroshima is today a thriving city of over a million people.

Most nuclear weapons would be airbursts but there would be s number of ground bursts which are in some ways worse as they throw up large amounts of contaminated dirt which would pollute the ground for ages. In the UK most of us are near a major target.

We might not be the target though. A nuclear attack between India and Pakistan for example or a nuclear accident by the Americans at Lakenheath (is that the right place name?) and we may still get the fallout and have to stay inside. Two weeks food and water might be sensible. I only realised the other day how much where I live was contaminated by Chernobyl.

So assuming you’re not near ground zero, and you survive the first few weeks without getting radiation sickness, why wouldn’t you want to live? It’s not like you can’t kill yourself later on if it’s hopeless?

Although they’re stronger now?

‘Today, these kinds of weapons still exist in modern arsenals that include nuclear weapons 80 times more powerful compared with the bomb detonated over Hiroshima’

But also I read Rhodes book and recall being struck by this

‘For example, one study assessed the global effects of a “limited” nuclear war between India and Pakistan, revealing that the fires produced in the conflict would send so much soot into the atmosphere that the sun’s rays would be diminished for years. This would result in reduced global temperatures, which in turn would cause widespread crop failures and worldwide famine, potentially affecting billions of people.

For many decades, scientists have been warning about this phenomenon, often referred to as “nuclear autumn” or “nuclear winter.”

Dear @ChedderGorgeous - I won't be prepping. I hope that where I live and my parents we will just be vaporised and so won't know anything about it.

Not sure if you have read this - quite old but worth a read and the films https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Beach_(novel)

Lucky them I'd say, would much prefer to be in direct line for the first hit please

@IClaudine

re comparisons with Krakatoa, at about 200 Mt, and "Nuclear weapons might be catching up, though?"

Seeing as we're into discussing the effects of these things....@BringBackCoffeeCreams partner will be probably have chapter and verse on this but there's little point in going bigger with nukes.

As I understand it you can to some extent keep fueling up fusion weapons and make them as big as you want but you've got to deliver them (Tsar Bomba was massive and pretty much a PR stunt).

Also what I guess what I'll have to call efficiency, in terms of damage caused on the ground, doesn't increase in direct proportion to increase in yield.

That's one of several reasons why there has been a tendency on some systems to use smaller, not larger, separately targeted multiple warheads.

.and on that happy thought......
...

@ MrsTerryPratchett

Exactly, very small bombs with no hope of retaliation.

Which was the reason that they were used, no retaliation.

As a biologist I have zero interest in surviving that. Not just for health reasons. When we push that button it's time for this species to disappear.

The world is on the brink of us raping it to death,add purpose nuclear attack? No fuck that. Its not really justifiable to fight to survive that

Isn’t it a suicide mission for any country to even consider dropping a bomb?

Surely prevailing airmass is also taken in to account

People vastly over-egg nuclear weapon blasts.
Iodine tablets are snake oil apart from in a very limited application.

The vast majority of peoples problems would come from food and medical shortages and the civil unrest that would ensue.

Create a cache and be prepared to defend it learn about weather and where prospective targets might be, learn first aid and get books on important topics like medicine and stay at home.

i currently live about 3 hours from the iranian border and 1 mile from the american consulate. the consulate is frequently attacked by rockets and drones from iran. The boom and shudder doesn't really bother me now as these bombs operate on gps and have precise targets....so if they decide to drop a nuke on us i'll just be none the wiser and all of us will go together

Suggested reading

On the Beach by Nevil Shute

Yes, of course. That’s why deterrence has successfully kept the peace between nuclear armed countries for almost 70 years.

Putin knows that if he attacks us, NATO will hit back with such overwhelming force that his country, its people, its culture, his own family & himself will be obliterated. So he doesn’t attack us.

That is really interesting @notimagain (in a slightly morbid sort of way). Thanks.

If hypothetically (although this was reported on at the start of Russian war , less so now), Putin had a terminal diagnosis and knew he had limited time left to live, one could see the concept of "mutually assured destruction " being less of an incentive for him.

But he still has people that he cares about, as do others in the chain of command.

@EasternStandard that's fascinating - am off down a rabbit hole of reading now, so thank you and the PP for it!

Am curious on how huge the accumulated explosions of plural bombs will be, given the impact Krakatoa seemingly had on climate, and scale of deaths - and with the world population so much tinier. But what a fascinating (150 years on - be pretty brutal to look on it in that light were it more recent) question.

people (the very wealthy) are preparing bunkers to escape to, but if the UK is nuked, people won’t be able to go outside the bunker for many many years after the bomb anyway. Who would want to be holed up for the rest of their lives in a dark windowless cave. I would just take what was coming. Depressing thread, and I hope it’s all hypothetical, because there won’t be one.

The world would recover over time, no matter what, though, @EasternStandard - Krakatoa was 150 years ago, and it did have huge impact. BUT.... the impact was nowhere near what we're told a nuclear Holocaust would be today, and that's the point, isn't it?

Genuinely really interesting, in the abstract. It's not great to think about in the reality obviously, but it's fascinating in the abstract. Bit like the wildly varying approaches to how severe the impact of climate change will be.

Also the increase isn't linear. I forget the term now but as the size of the bomb increases, the amount of destruction increase gets less and less. Plus there's less and less fallout and debris in the atmosphere.