"Not in the US nuclear playbook (hopefully)", heh.

Vietnam:
- USA lost some 58,000 military personnel.
- South Vietnam lost between 200,000 and 250,000 fighters.
- The Viet Cong lost around 1.1 million combatants.
- Around 2 million civilians were killed in the territories of North and South Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia.
USA dropped 7.5 million tons of bombs on Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, the largest aerial bombardment in human history, doubling the drops on Europe and Asia on WW2.
Used Napalm indiscriminately.
Used white phosphorus ordinance with terrible effect.
(Used again in 2004 in Iraq, at the 2nd battle of Fallujah to literally “smoke out” concealed combatants, then finished.)
The military used the Agent Orange herbicide causing cancer, congenital birth disorders and crippling illnesses for decades.

3.8 million casualties in total, nearly half of the deaths were civilians.
It is suspected that over 1.2 million of these deaths were murders so they could not become soldiers for the other side.

In comparison, now and then the "horrible" personal bamboo traps used by the Vietcong are showcased.

Today Vietnam is a unified (the north won and they still have a marxist monoparty government), welcoming and safe country for all travellers including westerners.
Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11, but had lots of oil, isn't.

This comment was edited on Nov 23, 2023, 12:30.

If you want to cripple an enemy's infrastructure, and contaminate their territory for hundreds or thousands of years, and have zero shred of humanity, then yeah, ground strike on a power plant would be a dirty bomb of catastrophic proportions. This is not (hopefully) in the US nuclear playbook, but who knows about China or Russia? And little rocketman? He'd love the idea.

Absolutely. There are many questions as to how severe an effect it would have. Reactor containments are built very sturdy but given the awesome power of today's ordinance it is widely accepted that the danger is real. When I was in the field, the biggest danger was considered damage being severe enough to cause a meltdown due to the destruction of the support systems providing cooling water to a reactor. I think that would be similar to what we saw in Fukushima.

This comment was edited on Nov 23, 2023, 10:45.

VaranDragon wrote on Nov 23, 2023, 07:58:
... ... ...
Would commercial nuclear reactors be considered prime targets in a retaliatory strike by Boomer subs after an initial confrontation? I mean it's probably safe to say any nuclear reactor sitting within the primary blast radius of a high yield thermonuclear device would probably not end up going nuclear, but it might be damaged enough to become a pretty big source of radiation.

Of course.
Any big energy producing facility will be an important target, greatly crippling the attacked country capabilities, (as well as oil distilleries, transport nexus, etc.)

Appart of the enormous collateral damage:
- Destroyed hydroelectric dams floodings with now radiactive water.
- Nuclear power plants radiation water poisoning, as they use up to 1 billion gallons of water a day and so are often built next to rivers, lakes or coastal locations.

Prez wrote on Nov 22, 2023, 10:52:
One last observation to clear something up. There is very little correlation between a nuclear bomb attack and the disaster at Chernobyl. Beyond the fact that nuclear fission is involved in both, almost none. A nuclear reactor almost never can explode. The only reason Chernobyl 4 did is because of extraordinarily dangerous construction and a staggeringly long list of blatant procedural violations. The explosion of Chernobyl 4 was essentially a dirty bomb, thus the radiation fallout and spread is vastly different and cannot be an indication of what you could expect after a nuclear weapon detonation. It is, on the other hand, very informative as to how a dirty bomb attack might work, although any dirty bomb could not possibly match the scale, and wouldn't involve the many extra complications of the vast amount of unspent fuel that is now out of the reactor.

Would commercial nuclear reactors be considered prime targets in a retaliatory strike by Boomer subs after an initial confrontation? I mean it's probably safe to say any nuclear reactor sitting within the primary blast radius of a high yield thermonuclear device would probably not end up going nuclear, but it might be damaged enough to become a pretty big source of radiation.

VaranDragon wrote on Nov 22, 2023, 03:10:
Any kind of nuclear confrontation between states is pure and utter madness.

I agree. And yet, I think it is not outside the realm of the possible. Unlikely? Yes. Impossible? No.

One last observation to clear something up. There is very little correlation between a nuclear bomb attack and the disaster at Chernobyl. Beyond the fact that nuclear fission is involved in both, almost none. A nuclear reactor almost never can explode. The only reason Chernobyl 4 did is because of extraordinarily dangerous construction and a staggeringly long list of blatant procedural violations. The explosion of Chernobyl 4 was essentially a dirty bomb, thus the radiation fallout and spread is vastly different and cannot be an indication of what you could expect after a nuclear weapon detonation. It is, on the other hand, very informative as to how a dirty bomb attack might work, although any dirty bomb could not possibly match the scale, and wouldn't involve the many extra complications of the vast amount of unspent fuel that is now out of the reactor.

The body of Madam Marie Curie is still radioactive and inside a lead-lined coffin so visitors can pay their respects safely, 80 years after her death, and even so lived to be 67 y.o.

I think most of you apply the mediocre paradigm, only based on your situation and limitations of what you know, as naturally most of humanity is clueless and would die as fat pets.

But in a sustained life and death situation the capable survivors will forge ahead and abide all challenges, specially if they get rid of useless family and outdated ethical ties.

Read about those incredible survival stories ?
Some have a level of focus you can't conceive of, and sufficient resourcefulness and adaptability to make it.

This comment was edited on Nov 22, 2023, 10:10.

Prez and TFP, thank you for the education. I sit corrected. Nuclear armaments have never been of interest to me outside of Boomers (the subs, not the generation).

As for "nuclear winter", it's theory without a testable hypothesis. And, as I pointed out, there is no current superpower that is willing to engage in a MAD event. Tactical strikes maybe but that would be an extreme last resort. Tactical strikes would not cause a extinction level human event.

Would people survive a tacnuke strike? Absolutely, especially if you are nowhere near the blast zone.

WannaLogAlready wrote on Nov 22, 2023, 05:47:
Bears, wolves, lynx, bison, deer, moose, beavers, foxes, badgers, wild boar, and raccoon dogs (don't ask them about their family), amphibians, fish, worms, and bacteria are some of the species that make a home in the radioactive area..

Oh that's cute, the animals are back.
Now tell us about all the premature deaths, all the disposable humans they threw at the problem to bury the radiation and the birth defects and Cancers that the humans are getting from the Chernobyl disaster.
You might as well finish that fairy tale with a flourish.

Sorry guys but if you think you're going to survive because of where you live or that you have a stockpiled can of beans and a gallon of water after a nuclear Holocaust.. I don't know what to tell you.
Oh sure you might have weapons but guess what, the next guy that comes along with more weapons is going to own your can of beans and gallon of water.
It's not going to be a world most people won't ever want to live in or visit.

WannaLogAlready wrote on Nov 22, 2023, 05:47:
No doubt about the challenging conditions.
But life is proving to be more adaptable than expected.
Chornobyl, today:
Bears, wolves, lynx, bison, deer, moose, beavers, foxes, badgers, wild boar, and raccoon dogs (don't ask them about their family), amphibians, fish, worms, and bacteria are some of the species that make a home in the radioactive area.

I am well aware of the fact that most of the inclusion zone of Chernobyl is very habitable to most animals that live there, but it took decades for the area surrounding Chernobyl to recover it's wildlife and it is still not habitable for humans. You have to remember that humans reach sexual maturity much later than most animals, and as such they would be much, much more vulnerable to cancer caused by radiation poisoning, even if they did survive the intervening decades somehow. It's extremely improbable that this would be the case in all but the most remote corners of the earth.

I'm not saying that life on earth wouldn't survive a nuclear war, it survived similar conditions in the past. (Huge asteroid collisions) Humanity however, would be done and done. If someone ever pulled the trigger on this, it's game over in the worst possible way for all of us, and good riddance to us all.

No doubt about the challenging conditions.
But life is proving to be more adaptable than expected.
Chornobyl, today:
Bears, wolves, lynx, bison, deer, moose, beavers, foxes, badgers, wild boar, and raccoon dogs (don't ask them about their family), amphibians, fish, worms, and bacteria are some of the species that make a home in the radioactive area.

Talking of boars and pigs, turned a menace in Canada, seems they may be invading the USA ecosystem.
Already in the northern territories their familiar oinky "sorry, eh" can be heard.

The problem is food production, or rather the lack of one. Once you irradiate a large enough portion of the Earth's biosphere (after a total and complete destruction of pretty much the entire territory of the US, Russia and probably most of the NATO cities of Europe by second and third strike strategic forces) even if you disregard the very likely proposition of a nuclear winter, the radiation poisoning alone of most of the world's freshwater supply will completely and utterly devastate the production of food in the third world countries which would survive the initial nuclear holocaust. Most of these poorer countries have problems with food production TODAY, imagine what would happen to their populations if they had to deal with the fallout of that magnitude.

Within a few years of this kind of conflict most higher mammals would be extinct, including humans. Any kind of nuclear confrontation between states is pure and utter madness.

This comment was edited on Nov 22, 2023, 03:25.

Burrito of Peace wrote on Nov 21, 2023, 19:17:

Prez wrote on Nov 21, 2023, 12:04:
Depending on how a nuke is detonated determines wether or not the land beneath it becomes a hopelessly irradiated wasteland for millenia. If you travel to Hiroshima and Nagasaki today you will find thriving, beautiful cities even though both cities were devastated by nuclear fire only 70 years ago. Just an FYI.

But, and there always is one, the yields of Fat Man and Little Boy were positively tiny compared to the yields of today. Little Boy had a 15 kiloton warhead and Fat Man had a 21 kiloton warhead. A modern Trident II Mk 5 bears 475kt and that's just one SLBM. If a modern SLBM were to have hit Nagasaki and Hiroshima, they would still have a 100 mile wide exclusion zone to this day and probably for several centuries to come.

That's not including the Minuteman III ICBM with its 10 MIRV warheads at 475kt for each MIRV warhead.

The reason the contamination in Japan was limited is because those were air bursts. Air bursts are much more destructive to property (because of the shockwave) than ground bursts, but cause less (though still significant) fallout. and thus most modern nukes (at least ours) are intended to be air bursts. A ground burst contaminates the soil and then blasts it into the air, causing massive fallout. There is some speculation that some other countries may intend use ground bursts to deny us the use of destroyed cities.

Really has nothing to do with size. Size is just a bigger boom. You could likely rebuild any city destroyed with an airburst within a decade or two.

Of course this has nothing to do with nuclear winter. Nuclear winter is the dust and debris kicked up by a massive number of nukes going off, covering a large part of the planet, and blocking the sun for months or years.

Generally, unless your target is underground (e.g. a bunker or a heavily fortified emplacement) the goal is to detonate a nuke at an elevation that maximizes the blast. Higher yields would mean a higher elevation required for maximum effect. I haven't been in the know for many years about the construction of ICBM's (I was on the USS Georgia in 98) but those were very high yield Tridents. The amount of fissile material they contained (that would cause the irradiation or "nuclear winter" people refer to) was generally thought to be low enough that the vast majority of it would be consumed in the blast after detonation when exploded at the altitude they would provide maximum effect at. Thankfully, our theories about habitability following detonation remain only theories as this unspeakably horrendous event never actually occurred.

Prez wrote on Nov 21, 2023, 12:04:
Depending on how a nuke is detonated determines wether or not the land beneath it becomes a hopelessly irradiated wasteland for millenia. If you travel to Hiroshima and Nagasaki today you will find thriving, beautiful cities even though both cities were devastated by nuclear fire only 70 years ago. Just an FYI.

But, and there always is one, the yields of Fat Man and Little Boy were positively tiny compared to the yields of today. Little Boy had a 15 kiloton warhead and Fat Man had a 21 kiloton warhead. A modern Trident II Mk 5 bears 475kt and that's just one SLBM. If a modern SLBM were to have hit Nagasaki and Hiroshima, they would still have a 100 mile wide exclusion zone to this day and probably for several centuries to come.

That's not including the Minuteman III ICBM with its 10 MIRV warheads at 475kt for each MIRV warhead.

Depending on how a nuke is detonated determines wether or not the land beneath it becomes a hopelessly irradiated wasteland for millenia. If you travel to Hiroshima and Nagasaki today you will find thriving, beautiful cities even though both cities were devastated by nuclear fire only 70 years ago. Just an FYI.

Intelligent minds think alike.
Dumb ones too

No aspersion to another excellent as usual input by RedEye9, easily the right thesis (hey, let's try it !).
Mine, as a programmer, is just to be open to contrariness

WannaLogAlready wrote on Nov 21, 2023, 11:20:
Nuclear winter is an hypothesis not an absolute certitude (stratospheric winds, ozone depletion cooling the air and so strengthening the winds of the polar vortex, influencing winds all the way down to the lowest atmosphere layer, cleansing black rain, etc) as is contending nuclear summer.

One year or two of failing crops would kill millions even with careful rationing but not necessarily everyone everywhere.
Not an extinction level event per se.

Haha, almost at the same time. Jinx!

MeanJim wrote on Nov 20, 2023, 18:55:
When it comes to coffee, I try not to make it a routine. I buy a different brand/blend/roast each time to mix things up. If you drink the same thing all the time, eventually you become numb to it. A few years ago my local grocery store stopped carrying whole bean coffee, so I started ordering from Amazon.

A couple of years ago I tried that Trade Coffee subscription. I got a different 2lb bag every time, freshly roasted right before they ship it. I signed up with one a promo codes, and it was only slightly more expensive than buying 2lb. bags from Amazon. I canceled it because the price kept creeping up and my grocery store carries whole bean coffee again. The selection of whole bean coffee is pretty slim though, and they're mixed in with ground coffee, so it can be a bit of a hunt to find. They generally always have the Starbuck's brand in whole bean, and bought it for the first time in a while last month. They had them on sale if you bought 3 or more bags, so I got three different blends and roasts. It's not bad coffee, but not the greatest. They all look and taste like dark roast to me, and I couldn't tell the difference when I finished one bag and started a different one.

I'm probably going to start alternating between ordering from Amazon and buying from the grocery store unless the grocery store starts to get more variety. When I ordered from Amazon, I would alternate between buying a coffee I knew I liked and something I hadn't tried yet. The one coffee that stands out and I went back to often was Kicking Horse's Three Sisters blend.

I have a Black Rifle subscription. AK Espresso and Black Beard's Delight are my go to blends, but they have a ton of really great blends normally, and they also have limited runs which are mostly fantastic, albeit much more expensive.
Lava Panther, Tactisquatch, Liberty, and Escape Goat are my favs. I wish they would add them to the subscription model.