Need Advice for Nuclear Strike

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6456
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Need Advice for Nuclear Strike

Postby sardia » Thu Dec 16, 2010 3:15 am UTC

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/16/scien ... d=1&ref=us
The Obama administration is trying to educate people on what to do during a nuclear attack but they do not want to panick the masses. Optimists argue that it's very unlikely and we are wasting our time, and Pessimists argue that it's too dangerous not to prepare the citizens. The initial fears from al qaeda during the Bush years directed funding into prevention and intelligence, and only now is the government trying to educate others about the aftermath of nuclear radiation.
The study mainly advocates a few things:
The flight instinct will get you killed, instead hide inside a shelter of some sort. It ranges from best to worse, but even staying inside your car will protect you from radiation. The idea is to reduce overall casualties from the first few hours of radiation poisoning. The amount of radiation you receive is based on a declining exponential curve as figure 2 notes. You are suppose to stay inside until a governmental official declares it's safe to come out.
Trying to evacuate is a bad idea because the explosion causes a blinding light which blinds drivers. The resulting collisions and traffic jams will snarl traffic and complicate any evacuation.
Image

While I think the possibility of a nuclear bomb going off is low, the prevention methods they are suggesting are easy to remember, and pretty simple, even if it's counter-intuitive. Who cares if some people say it's fear mongering, everyone should know this.
Attachments
2.png
Untitled.png
Last edited by sardia on Thu Dec 16, 2010 4:42 am UTC, edited 2 times in total.

nowfocus
Posts: 948
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:34 am UTC

Re: Need Advice for Nuclear Strike

Postby nowfocus » Thu Dec 16, 2010 3:42 am UTC

Say I'm planning on how to defend my city from a shark attack, how crazy am I? Right now the government is torn between educating people on what to do during a shark attack versus not panicking the masses. Some argue that it's very unlikely and we are wasting our time, and others argue that it's too dangerous not to prepare the citizens.
Some interesting notes:
The flight instinct will get you killed. Instead turn and fight. It ranges from best to worse, but even staying still can be a viable strategy. The idea is to reduce overall casualties from the first few hours of a shark attack. You are supposed to stay calm until you can get out of the water.
Trying to swim away is a bad idea because you can't outswim a shark. Panic will complicate any rescue.

Image
Image

sardia wrote:Some argue that it's very unlikely and we are wasting our time, and others argue that it's too dangerous not to prepare the citizens.

That would be me.
Jahoclave wrote:Besides if you observe romance, you change the outcome. Especially if you put his/her friend Catherine in a box.

Menacing Spike wrote:Was it the copper hammer or the children part that caused censoring?

Glmclain
Posts: 442
Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 12:51 pm UTC

Re: Need Advice for Nuclear Strike

Postby Glmclain » Thu Dec 16, 2010 3:49 am UTC

Say I'm planning on how to defend my city from a Dalek invasion, how crazy am I? Right now the government is torn between educating people on what to do during a Dalek attack versus not panicking the masses. Some argue that it's very unlikely and we are wasting our time, and others argue that it's too dangerous not to prepare the citizens.
Some interesting notes:
The flight instinct will get you killed, instead hide inside a shelter of some sort. It ranges from best to worse, but even staying inside your car can hide you from the supreme species of the universe. The idea is to reduce overall casualties from the first few hours of Dalek beams. You are suppose to stay inside until a governmental official declares it's safe to come out.
Trying to evacuate is a bad idea because the beams causes a blinding light which blinds drivers. The resulting collisions and traffic jams will snarl traffic and complicate any evacuation.

Image
Image
You Samoans are all the same! You have no faith in the essential decency of the white man's culture!

User avatar
Rinsaikeru
Pawn, soon to be a Queen
Posts: 2166
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 5:26 am UTC
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: Need Advice for Nuclear Strike

Postby Rinsaikeru » Thu Dec 16, 2010 3:59 am UTC

There is an article, discuss it or expect this thread to be locked. -Rin
Rice Puddin.

Sero
Posts: 321
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 2:31 am UTC

Re: Need Advice for Nuclear Strike

Postby Sero » Thu Dec 16, 2010 4:10 am UTC

It's an interesting question, the balance between the need to educate and the need to avoid unnecessary fear mongering.

Of course, it'd possess greater credibility if DHS and TSA and so on weren't constantly beating the 'fear' drum.

But ultimately, yeah, this is a problem borne of sticking our heads in the sand about this in the recent past. A continual, low level sending of the message is probably the best way. The real issue isn't so much that teaching people nuclear preparedness will panic them, as STARTING teaching them it out of the blue will cause panic.
Princess Marzipan wrote:Dear God, we seriously just went and dug up CITATIONS for TORTURE being a WAR CRIME.

We have been fucking TROLLED, dear readers.

Glass Fractal
Posts: 497
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 2:53 am UTC

Re: Need Advice for Nuclear Strike

Postby Glass Fractal » Thu Dec 16, 2010 4:28 am UTC

What do their protection numbers mean?

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6456
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Need Advice for Nuclear Strike

Postby sardia » Thu Dec 16, 2010 4:41 am UTC

Glass Fractal wrote:What do their protection numbers mean?

http://www.citizencorps.gov/downloads/p ... _FINAL.pdf
I'm not exactly sure, but this is the pdf that the images came from.
"In the figure above, areas with a protection factor of 10 or higher are considered adequate,
though even an inadequate shelter (such as one-story homes and cars) can significantly reduce
exposure to fallout."
Any room with a number higher than 10 should adequately protect you from suffering lethal levels of radiation, is my reading of it.

nowfocus
Posts: 948
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:34 am UTC

Re: Need Advice for Nuclear Strike

Postby nowfocus » Thu Dec 16, 2010 4:45 am UTC

Is this actually a change to the conventional wisdom? I thought conventional wisdom was to go to a basement (as they do in every movie), rather than running around outside directly after a nuclear strike.
Jahoclave wrote:Besides if you observe romance, you change the outcome. Especially if you put his/her friend Catherine in a box.

Menacing Spike wrote:Was it the copper hammer or the children part that caused censoring?

User avatar
davidstarlingm
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:33 am UTC

Re: Need Advice for Nuclear Strike

Postby davidstarlingm » Thu Dec 16, 2010 4:48 am UTC

Glass Fractal wrote:What do their protection numbers mean?

Arbitrary Protection Units (APU). Duh. //sarcasm; I have no idea what they mean.

I wouldn't say that we are smarter as a country than we were during the Cold War, but we are fighting a different enemy. Much of the nuclear alarmism of the era was rooted in the presumption that any nuclear strike meant Global Thermonuclear War. It is quite possible, now, for ideological terrorists to sneak a nuke into our country. IMO, one of the only things that has prevented it from happening already is the (relative) lack of nuclear proliferation and the high difficulty of constructing a viable nuclear device in a Middle Eastern cave (this is Bin Laden we're dealing with, not Tony Stark).

I think that people understand, now, that a nuclear attack would most likely be an isolated incident. Knowing how to protect yourself in case some idiot gets his hands on a nuke and decides to blow it up just outside DC....well, that's a pretty good idea. As long as citizens know that all-out nuclear war simply isn't going to happen, I don't think they'll panic.

Sero
Posts: 321
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 2:31 am UTC

Re: Need Advice for Nuclear Strike

Postby Sero » Thu Dec 16, 2010 4:58 am UTC

Depends on how you define panic. Plenty of people will still react to international fear at the suggestion it is possible a terrorist might manage to detonate a single nuclear device in a US city. People are terrible at accurately evaluating the likelihood of major but rare events. See fear of flying after 9/11, see fear of child-snatching in general, etc.
Princess Marzipan wrote:Dear God, we seriously just went and dug up CITATIONS for TORTURE being a WAR CRIME.

We have been fucking TROLLED, dear readers.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6456
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Need Advice for Nuclear Strike

Postby sardia » Thu Dec 16, 2010 5:14 am UTC

I don't think it's so much panicking people as it's that politicians are don't want to talk about nuclear terrorism.
Sero wrote:Depends on how you define panic. Plenty of people will still react to international fear at the suggestion it is possible a terrorist might manage to detonate a single nuclear device in a US city. People are terrible at accurately evaluating the likelihood of major but rare events. See fear of flying after 9/11, see fear of child-snatching in general, etc.

The thing about this one is that it requires no changes to our current behavior, nor any real money needs to be spent(e.g. Building all those bomb shelters during the cold war). You only need to inform people that they should move into the closest best shelters as quick as possible during/after the initial explosion and stay there for the day. Maybe spring for a mass communication system if you can scrounge up some money(maybe by throwing a little fear into the House appropriations committee).

Glass Fractal
Posts: 497
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 2:53 am UTC

Re: Need Advice for Nuclear Strike

Postby Glass Fractal » Thu Dec 16, 2010 5:20 am UTC

sardia wrote:
Glass Fractal wrote:What do their protection numbers mean?

http://www.citizencorps.gov/downloads/p ... _FINAL.pdf
I'm not exactly sure, but this is the pdf that the images came from.
"In the figure above, areas with a protection factor of 10 or higher are considered adequate,
though even an inadequate shelter (such as one-story homes and cars) can significantly reduce
exposure to fallout."
Any room with a number higher than 10 should adequately protect you from suffering lethal levels of radiation, is my reading of it.


Hmm. Did some more research on it. Protection factor seems to be the fraction of a dose that you end up getting. So deep inside an office building you're just taking 1/200th of what you would outside.
http://www.derose.net/steve/guides/emer ... dened.html

User avatar
CivilDefense700
Posts: 187
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 3:54 am UTC
Location: In ur nucular reactor, stealin ur Uraniums

Re: Need Advice for Nuclear Strike

Postby CivilDefense700 » Thu Dec 16, 2010 5:21 am UTC

As a member of your local Civil Defense I advise you all to heed these warnings and prepare in case of Soviet attack!

No but seriously, the only sort of nuclear attack we have to worry about in this age, however unlikely, is a terrorist organization smuggling in a small nuke, say 20-40 kilotons and detonating it in a city center somewhere. Very little you can do to protect yourself in that event, but the damage will not be as bad as a conventional missile or dropped bomb attack. Detonating a device at ground level causes a smaller damage radius then air bust.
Damage and casualties would be less then a lot of predictions because in calculating everything experts are probably going to assume an air bust, unless they realize no county is ever going to nuke use directly with a method that can be easily backtracked. From reading a publication called "The effect of Nuclear Weapons" from 1964, fallout would be greater, from irradiation of vaporized material at ground level, and a simpler weapon would not be as highly refined to be "clean".
I think some of the old Civil Defense education should be revived, less "duck and cover", more genuinely helpful information. The more you understand something, the less you irrationally fear it.
"I happen to have access to one of the sexiest lasers on the eastern seaboard."

Image

JLauer
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 2:39 am UTC
Location: MA

Re: Need Advice for Nuclear Strike

Postby JLauer » Thu Dec 16, 2010 6:19 am UTC

Fractal is right about the protection factor a PF of N means you'd reiceve 1/n the radiation you otherwise would.
sardia wrote:Any room with a number higher than 10 should adequately protect you from suffering lethal levels of radiation, is my reading of it.


I find this really interesting. In Nuclear War Survival Skills the minimum suggested PF is like 300-350. Hopefully this means the plan is more short term and involves someone getting you out of there before you die of radiation poisoning.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6456
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Need Advice for Nuclear Strike

Postby sardia » Thu Dec 16, 2010 7:01 am UTC

CivilDefense700 wrote:No but seriously, the only sort of nuclear attack we have to worry about in this age, however unlikely, is a terrorist organization smuggling in a small nuke, say 20-40 kilotons and detonating it in a city center somewhere. Very little you can do to protect yourself in that event, but the damage will not be as bad as a conventional missile or dropped bomb attack. Detonating a device at ground level causes a smaller damage radius then air bust.
Damage and casualties would be less then a lot of predictions because in calculating everything experts are probably going to assume an air bust, unless they realize no county is ever going to nuke use directly with a method that can be easily backtracked. From reading a publication called "The effect of Nuclear Weapons" from 1964, fallout would be greater, from irradiation of vaporized material at ground level, and a simpler weapon would not be as highly refined to be "clean".
I think some of the old Civil Defense education should be revived, less "duck and cover", more genuinely helpful information. The more you understand something, the less you irrationally fear it.
That is exactly the attack this plan is defending against. Does that mean you agree or disagree with the current approach to protect yourself from radiation? The current plan is to run into the nearest building, whichever one is biggest and stay there.

Electromechanical Magpie
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:38 pm UTC

Re: Need Advice for Nuclear Strike

Postby Electromechanical Magpie » Thu Dec 16, 2010 9:14 am UTC

This reminds me of the alert mechanic of the Evil Genius game where you could set your Evil Underground Lair to green, yellow and red alert, which affected which of your Evil minions would be carrying arms but had to be balanced against the risk of causing some of the less stable Evil minions to panic and run around in circles. I really need to beat that game someday :?

User avatar
Gellert1984
Posts: 588
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 10:07 pm UTC
Location: South Wales UK

Re: Need Advice for Nuclear Strike

Postby Gellert1984 » Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:14 pm UTC

sardia wrote:The Obama administration is trying to educate people on what to do during a nuclear attack but they do not want to panick the masses. Optimists argue that it's very unlikely and we are wasting our time, and Realists argue that it's too dangerous not to prepare the citizens. Pessimists argue that Optimists are conniving little so-and-so's saving the fear of a nuclear terrorist attack to use as a control against the ignorant voting masses.


Fixed!

Its not like it takes a lot to educate people as to where to hide during a nuclear strike, just print a load of leaflets in every state owned public building, ask every newspaper to print a page with the info on (and if they don't have fox news call them dirty commie sympathizers) and have schools teach for a few hours a year. It might never happen, the chances of an earthquake happening in the UK is unlikely, but I still know to get under something large and solid if it does happen.

I am curious as to why the inner rooms on the ground floor of the office building are rated so poorly though.
The only time I question the right to Free Speech is when I watch Fox News, probably due to the fact that I don't think they really believe in it. -Elisa Scaldaferri

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7481
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Need Advice for Nuclear Strike

Postby Zamfir » Thu Dec 16, 2010 2:07 pm UTC

Gellert1984 wrote:I am curious as to why the inner rooms on the ground floor of the office building are rated so poorly though.

I found this:
http://www.fema.gov/areyouready/nuclear_blast.shtm wrote:
A floor near the middle of a high-rise may be better, depending on what is nearby at that level on which significant fallout particles would collect.


So the argument is apparently that the ground outside (and perhaps even inside) of the building will get covered by radioactive dust, making the lower floor more dangerous because it is closer to the dust.

Technical Ben
Posts: 2986
Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 10:42 pm UTC

Re: Need Advice for Nuclear Strike

Postby Technical Ben » Thu Dec 16, 2010 5:18 pm UTC

Who would try to outrun a nuclear bomb?
I mean. OUT RUN A BOMB?
Most people when they hear of some type of air raid, think of the usual response to find shelter.
Last edited by Technical Ben on Thu Dec 16, 2010 5:28 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
It's all physics and stamp collecting.
It's not a particle or a wave. It's just an exchange.

User avatar
Endless Mike
Posts: 3204
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 3:04 pm UTC

Re: Need Advice for Nuclear Strike

Postby Endless Mike » Thu Dec 16, 2010 5:27 pm UTC

Some days you just can't get rid of a nuclear bomb.

User avatar
davidstarlingm
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:33 am UTC

Re: Need Advice for Nuclear Strike

Postby davidstarlingm » Thu Dec 16, 2010 6:23 pm UTC

Technical Ben wrote:Who would try to outrun a nuclear bomb?
I mean. OUT RUN A BOMB?
Most people when they hear of some type of air raid, think of the usual response to find shelter.

People wouldn't try to outrun a bomb, but they would probably think it's possible to outrun the fallout.

A terrorist nuke would be low-yield and detonated on the ground, causing significantly more fallout than the Soviet missiles would have. Lots of people, if left uninformed, would see the mushroom cloud and flee, thinking to protect themselves from the radioactive fallout. Then you've got gridlocks of people sitting helplessly as radioactive dust sifts down onto their cars....

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6456
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Need Advice for Nuclear Strike

Postby sardia » Thu Dec 16, 2010 11:35 pm UTC

davidstarlingm wrote:
Technical Ben wrote:Who would try to outrun a nuclear bomb?
I mean. OUT RUN A BOMB?
Most people when they hear of some type of air raid, think of the usual response to find shelter.

People wouldn't try to outrun a bomb, but they would probably think it's possible to outrun the fallout.

A terrorist nuke would be low-yield and detonated on the ground, causing significantly more fallout than the Soviet missiles would have. Lots of people, if left uninformed, would see the mushroom cloud and flee, thinking to protect themselves from the radioactive fallout. Then you've got gridlocks of people sitting helplessly as radioactive dust sifts down onto their cars....

Funny thing is, if you stay in the car as oppose to running outside, you can reduce casualties by 50%. No promises on not having mutant children though.

DrSir
Posts: 59
Joined: Sat Oct 03, 2009 3:35 am UTC

Re: Need Advice for Nuclear Strike

Postby DrSir » Fri Dec 17, 2010 12:25 am UTC

sardia wrote:
davidstarlingm wrote:
Technical Ben wrote:Who would try to outrun a nuclear bomb?
I mean. OUT RUN A BOMB?
Most people when they hear of some type of air raid, think of the usual response to find shelter.

People wouldn't try to outrun a bomb, but they would probably think it's possible to outrun the fallout.

A terrorist nuke would be low-yield and detonated on the ground, causing significantly more fallout than the Soviet missiles would have. Lots of people, if left uninformed, would see the mushroom cloud and flee, thinking to protect themselves from the radioactive fallout. Then you've got gridlocks of people sitting helplessly as radioactive dust sifts down onto their cars....

Funny thing is, if you stay in the car as oppose to running outside, you can reduce casualties by 50%. No promises on not having mutant children though.


Til you hit gridlock and think you can make more progress getting out the car and running :cry:

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6456
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Need Advice for Nuclear Strike

Postby sardia » Fri Dec 17, 2010 7:54 am UTC

Well, I think the advice is the moment you hear it, run into the nearest building. If you are stuck on the highway or something, stay in the car.

User avatar
Plasma Man
Posts: 2035
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:27 am UTC
Location: Northampton, Northampton, Northampton middle England.

Re: Need Advice for Nuclear Strike

Postby Plasma Man » Fri Dec 17, 2010 5:22 pm UTC

I think a dirty bomb is a lot more likely than a proper nuke, but instructions for what to do should be fairly similar for both, as regards avoiding radioactive contamination. On a purely selfish level, it really doesn't worry me, because a) it's very unlikely to happen, and b) even if it does, I'm about as well off as it is possible to be.
Please note that despite the lovely avatar Sungura gave me, I am not a medical doctor.

Possibly my proudest moment on the fora.

User avatar
Me321
Posts: 164
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2009 4:03 am UTC

Re: Need Advice for Nuclear Strike

Postby Me321 » Fri Dec 17, 2010 11:39 pm UTC

Duck and cover:

Either you die immediately no matter what you do, or diving into the nearest shelter will provide enough cover to save you from falling debris and the shockwave.

People always make fun of it, but it’s the only viable option for the first few seconds.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6456
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Need Advice for Nuclear Strike

Postby sardia » Sat Dec 18, 2010 4:40 am UTC

Me321 wrote:Duck and cover:

Either you die immediately no matter what you do, or diving into the nearest shelter will provide enough cover to save you from falling debris and the shockwave.

People always make fun of it, but it’s the only viable option for the first few seconds.

But this is talking about the survivors for the next few days. Everyone knows what happens the first minute. Also what is considered a shelter is surprisingly large amount of buildings and areas.

User avatar
Me321
Posts: 164
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2009 4:03 am UTC

Re: Need Advice for Nuclear Strike

Postby Me321 » Sat Dec 18, 2010 6:50 am UTC

ahh, well after the duck and cover, you follow your evacuation plan (the one everyone should have for their city) and after that FEMA should have shelters and temporary housing ready in a day or two.

Glass Fractal
Posts: 497
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 2:53 am UTC

Re: Need Advice for Nuclear Strike

Postby Glass Fractal » Sat Dec 18, 2010 2:08 pm UTC

Me321 wrote:ahh, well after the duck and cover, you follow your evacuation plan (the one everyone should have for their city) and after that FEMA should have shelters and temporary housing ready in a day or two.


A temporary shelter put up by FEMA won't be nearly as good as an intact office building when it comes to waiting out the fallout.

archeleus
Posts: 240
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 1:49 pm UTC
Location: Valenvaryon
Contact:

Re: Need Advice for Nuclear Strike

Postby archeleus » Sat Dec 18, 2010 2:17 pm UTC

I had a couple of pictures about this. Will post in a while. Here:

http://archeleus.com/images/howtosurviv ... icbomb.jpg

This may help some of you as well.

Edited to add link.
Last edited by archeleus on Sat Dec 18, 2010 2:24 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
I write a blog rant here.

HungryHobo
Posts: 1708
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:01 am UTC

Re: Need Advice for Nuclear Strike

Postby HungryHobo » Sat Dec 18, 2010 2:21 pm UTC

While the first 2 posts were comical they did make a good point.
Terrorism just isn't that big an issue.

Bees kill far more people every year than terrorists yet we have yet to see a war on bees.
(of course the disappearance of the bees may be due to secret black ops teams quietly removing the threat)

You are more likely to be stung to death than die due to a terrorist bomb dirty or otherwise.
Give a man a fish, he owes you one fish. Teach a man to fish, you give up your monopoly on fisheries.

archeleus
Posts: 240
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 1:49 pm UTC
Location: Valenvaryon
Contact:

Re: Need Advice for Nuclear Strike

Postby archeleus » Sat Dec 18, 2010 2:32 pm UTC

HungryHobo wrote:(of course the disappearance of the bees may be due to secret black ops teams quietly removing the threat)


EPA Knowingly Allowed Pesticide That Kills Bees
I write a blog rant here.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6456
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Need Advice for Nuclear Strike

Postby sardia » Sat Dec 18, 2010 8:17 pm UTC

Me321 wrote:ahh, well after the duck and cover, you follow your evacuation plan (the one everyone should have for their city) and after that FEMA should have shelters and temporary housing ready in a day or two.

I think the evacuation plan would involve making sure nobody actually evacuates for the first few days. I mean how would you get millions of people out of the city without exposing them to more radiation?

Yes, I do realize that the chances are terrorism is very low, but it's still fun to talk about.

User avatar
Griffin
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 7:46 am UTC

Re: Need Advice for Nuclear Strike

Postby Griffin » Sun Dec 19, 2010 4:27 am UTC

Me321 wrote:ahh, well after the duck and cover, you follow your evacuation plan (the one everyone should have for their city) and after that FEMA should have shelters and temporary housing ready in a day or two.


This is exactly what you shouldn't do, apparently.
Bdthemag: "I don't always GM, but when I do I prefer to put my player's in situations that include pain and torture. Stay creative my friends."

Bayobeasts - the Pokemon: Orthoclase project.

User avatar
Me321
Posts: 164
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2009 4:03 am UTC

Re: Need Advice for Nuclear Strike

Postby Me321 » Sun Dec 19, 2010 5:25 am UTC

?

If you know the wind patterns you can avoid most radiation, and with a fast responce most people can be evacuated before the fallout gets too dangerous.

User avatar
Okita
Staying Alive
Posts: 3071
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 7:51 pm UTC
Location: Finance land.

Re: Need Advice for Nuclear Strike

Postby Okita » Sun Dec 19, 2010 5:45 am UTC

I think that knowing how to deal with a potential nuclear strike is as valuable as knowing how to deal with biological outbreaks or handle other disasters. In that it's pretty useful.

Anyway, I found the article interesting in it points out how people should definitely not run away. However I was reminded of this TED talk (it's a 30 minute talk) from two years back on how to survive a nuclear attack. That talk specifically brought up running away parallel from the wind direction of the blast.

I honestly haven't spent the time to read through the FEMA instructions but I wonder if it's a boiled down generic version of the science of this talk. Hmm.
"I may or may not be a raptor. There is no way of knowing until entering a box that I happen to be in and then letting me sunder the delicious human flesh from your body in reptile fury."

alphawolf29
Posts: 50
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:05 am UTC

Re: Need Advice for Nuclear Strike

Postby alphawolf29 » Mon Dec 27, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Why does everyone worry about the instantaneous radiation from a nuclear weapon? Modern nuclear weapons (1965++) do not release a lot of radiation. (comparatively) What will kill you, depending on your distance, is almost definitely heat, followed by fire. (an important distinction)

fireball->heatwave ->resultant firestorms. While it may be advantageous to be inside during the fireball and heatwave (Heatwave being you instantly fry, and not much you can do within/near the fireball) you will almost certainly want to evacuate the area immediately afterward to get away from the resultant firestorm. You can worry about the radiation when you're 70 and get Leukemia, the firestorm you have to worry about now.

Glass Fractal
Posts: 497
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 2:53 am UTC

Re: Need Advice for Nuclear Strike

Postby Glass Fractal » Mon Dec 27, 2010 2:41 am UTC

alphawolf29 wrote:Why does everyone worry about the instantaneous radiation from a nuclear weapon? Modern nuclear weapons (1965++) do not release a lot of radiation. (comparatively) What will kill you, depending on your distance, is almost definitely heat, followed by fire. (an important distinction)

fireball->heatwave ->resultant firestorms. While it may be advantageous to be inside during the fireball and heatwave (Heatwave being you instantly fry, and not much you can do within/near the fireball) you will almost certainly want to evacuate the area immediately afterward to get away from the resultant firestorm. You can worry about the radiation when you're 70 and get Leukemia, the firestorm you have to worry about now.


Heat is radiation, just not ionizing radiation. As far as firestoms go, I'm not sure sure that they're likely in a city like New York, Hiroshima's firestorm was caused in part by the city being extremely flammable due to lots of wooden buildings. The worry here is about the long term radiation from fallout that settles around the area of the attack, probably because dirty bombs are considered more probable weapons than actual nukes.

User avatar
Quaternia
Posts: 218
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:18 pm UTC

Re: Need Advice for Nuclear Strike

Postby Quaternia » Mon Dec 27, 2010 7:53 pm UTC

U.S. Army instructions to surviving infantry in the case of a tactical nuclear weapon detonation is to hide, trying to get as much physical ground between them and the explosion site.
Things like hiding in a ditch, cuddling yourself to put as much material between vital organs and outward radiation.

If it goes off, it goes off: evacuation and missile defense are the only protection pre-explosion. Missile defense only works against a single delivery method. If the bomb is hidden in a building or smuggled in a truck, it's not going to help. If a government is tipped off, they can try to defuse it, and several countries have emergency teams to deal with things like that. (ex: NEST teams in the U.S.)
They keep extensive databases of different warhead types to speed things up, but the problem is that it is hard to find a warhead.

Evacuation, given enough time, could work. But can you imagine evacuating a large city? What about other countries like China and Japan, with extremely densely packed cities?
Deep shelters are a possibility. But how do you deal with people who overcrowd them? How do you get food and water into the shelters? How long are they going to have to wait there? People will panic and do irrational things.

Plasma Man wrote:I think a dirty bomb is a lot more likely than a proper nuke, but instructions for what to do should be fairly similar for both, as regards avoiding radioactive contamination. On a purely selfish level, it really doesn't worry me, because a) it's very unlikely to happen, and b) even if it does, I'm about as well off as it is possible to be.

A dirty bomb wouldn't have the kind of range that a military-grade nuclear weapon would, though, although the ionizing radiation problem is the same. Most of the damage from a dirty bomb is psychological: people panic because of radiation, which they can't see and don't understand. Education in this case is very, very important.

I lol'd hard at nowfocus and Glmclain's posts and overall I agree with them.
That said, the literature is divided here as to whether you can actually have a working evacuation/defense plan for a city or not against a nuclear attack.
I feel it's more of a political message: Obama's administration wants to cut down on nuclear weapons, so they need to build up some fear to remind everyone what a nuclear weapon could do. If you make it sound like you can DO SOMETHING against a nuclear weapon, people will think about it and be afraid.

HungryHobo wrote:Terrorism just isn't that big an issue.

I disagree, and I'm pretty sure recent events prove my point. 9/11 cost many lives, millions of dollars in damage/lost jobs and led to a war which is currently still being fought. Terrorist attacks in Japan using chemical weapons wounded many, many people and spread fear throughout an entire city. The Japanese terror/cult cell went completely undetected until that attack. They had recruited a nuclear scientist, had large amounts of funding, and had bought lands in Australia with plans to extract Uranium. And, based on a cult ideology, they were completely irrational, so very hard to deter. They really just wanted to kill people, and it's hard to have something like MAD work when the opposing side wants to die. The technical difficulties in making a nuclear weapon are now gone; advanced physics which, before, were known by only a select few very well trained people is now taught in part in high school. A PhD student in physics wrote a dissertation on how to make a nuclear weapon using only open sources; his advisor had been part of the Manhattan Project, and confirmed the warhead would have worked. It was classified Top Secret as soon as it was finished (they had warned the FBI).
Basically what I'm trying to say: terrorists can operate undetected. They can inflict, and are willing to inflict, serious damage. They are either hard to deter or impossible to deter. And the technology to make a nuclear weapon is out there. The only stopping point, and the only reason why there has not been nuclear terrorism, is getting the fissile material.
That said, putting resources into civil defense against a nuclear warhead explosion seems a bit of a waste, considering you can spend it on actually securing loose fissile material.
Yakk wrote:hey look, the algorithm is a FSM. Thus, by his noodly appendage, QED

User avatar
Wnderer
Posts: 640
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 9:10 pm UTC

Re: Need Advice for Nuclear Strike

Postby Wnderer » Mon Dec 27, 2010 10:08 pm UTC

I don't see any mention of the tent and vacuum cleaner trick.
With a little more work, a few of the Tarp-shelter designs can give limited service as an improvised Bio-Chemical Warfare shelter. In this situation, a normal vacuum cleaner (or a hand pump) creates ‘positive air pressure' inside the enclosure, making air leak out from within the enclosure through any joins, seams, etc. This keeps airborne contaminants outside. An air filter (made from a gas mask canister) over any air intake OUTSIDE the enclosure, removes chemicals from the air before it enters. Sustained release of air from compressed air bottles (SCUBA, etc), will create the same ‘positive pressure' effect. While this method isn't foolproof, it may provide a temporary safe haven until Rescue teams can arrive, or the threat decreases enough to allow leaving the shelter.


http://equipped.org/tarp-shelters.htm


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests