reohn2 wrote: ↑11 May 2022, 7:08pm
LancsGirl wrote: ↑11 May 2022, 6:28pm
reohn2 wrote: ↑11 May 2022, 5:19pm
Lancs Girl
I'm going with Mike's analogy.
In other words,if the button is pushed and the UK is the target and we don't stop it midflight we're are fooked,if we do stop it midflight someone could be!
We can look at the possibilities and predictions,but the human race has some truly awesome power at it's finger tips which means there's no winners.
We can also look at the possibility that because of that it won't happen,but when a seemingly meglomanic madman has the destruction of the world,or at least a large part of it,at hand,I get worried!
That said,thanks for the reassurance.
It's a shame you don't seem to have taken the time to investigate any of the links I gave.
Ah well, such is the internet, I suppose.
I wish I had your confidence,take a look at the destruction caused by modern conventional warfare such as is currently happening in Ukraine or Syria,yes it's localised but a nuclear strike wouldn't be by comparison.
If Russia's nukes are as badly maintained as you suppose then if they leak or accidently explode in their bunkers,only Russia and perhaps limited countries to the west would suffer,as if that wouldn't matter!
But as you say other than in Japan and some nuclear weapons tests in isolated places,the affects aren't really known,though the effects of a single nuclear plant exploding in Chernobyl had a pretty devastating effect.
As I said thanks for you reasurrance,but it doesn't put my mind at rest if people start lobbing nukes about.
I'm not trying to "reassure" you, or anybody else.
A single nuclear device is a horrible thing. Lots of them at once even more so. I'd like them not to be used, and not even exist at all.
And I certainly don't have "confidence" about what a full scale nuclear exchange would be like. Quite the opposite. I'm saying that a great deal of it is unknown.
It is actually those who think that they "know" exactly what a full scale nuclear would be like who have confidence. Greatly misplaced confidence, based on very little knowledge and, I suspect, nothing more than a smattering of popular culture - On The Beach, The Day After, Threads, etc. Or the very debatable idea of "nuclear winter".
Some of the physics of a nuclear explosion is well established. Though it's worth looking at the "TNT Equivalent" link I posted earlier to see that that isn't a settled area. But nuclear fission (then fusion) itself, the prompt effects of EMP, IR radiation, gamma radiation, then blast effects, are reasonably easy to predict, as well as defensive measure against them, some of which are easy to take. Remember that Akiko Takakura survived the Hiroshima bomb, despite being only 300 metres from ground zero. She lived to old age, in her 80s I think. The IR radiation is relatively easy to shield from, as evidenced by the difference between burn severity on naked versus clothed skin. The effects of fallout are more variable.
But people express strident views on internet platforms, without appearing to have the least knowledge or evidence to back up those views. And to double down on that lack of knowledge, by not even addressing evidence which is placed before them, doesn't make their strongly held views more credible. Quite the reverse.