Off Topic discussion initiated in LRS-Bomber to look at...

Unread postPosted: 15 Dec 2012, 19:53
by mcraptor
::This is a thread which was split from http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... -lrs.html::

XanderCrews wrote:Getting caught sucks doesn't it?

You keep saying that but nobody has a clue what you're talking about except yourself. You honestly sound like a loony. I suggest you explain yourself.
XanderCrews wrote:I couldn't agree more, but a hypersonic missile is a waste of time and money when you can have something like an LRS Bomber, which believe it or not is what this thread WAS about.

Well no it isn't a waste of time and as already discussed the use of one does not preclude the use of the other, in fact they could augment each other in many situations. I believe we started with the possibility of having a stealth LRSB but with supersonic capability for when speed was more important than stealth in order to accomplish the mission.

XanderCrews wrote:not to mention the stealthy payload carrying UCAVs the US Navy is working on as we speak.

No good against a target with a strong local ADS. Payloads don't have EW aircraft following them either and omit some of the technology carried by planes, in case it falls into the wrong hands, so the stealth achieved is probably less than you think. It has applications, but it's not a one size fits all.

XanderCrews wrote:Never!! Asking the AFRL to stop pissing money away on pointless crap would be like asking the sun not to rise. I'd hate to have that money going to something feasible, or even helpful.

Mere arrogance.


XanderCrews wrote:
count_to_10 wrote:
Except that you probably needed a drone there in the first place to locate the target. I'm not sure how much use a hypersonic weapon is going to be in a denied area -- they only seem to be useful for a circumstance where you forgot to arm your ISR asset, and the target is going to be moving beyond your ISR's reach in an hour (before a subsonic cruise missile can get there) but not in half and our (before a hypersonic weapon can).


^buy that man a beer. 8)

Well if we're dealing with an enemy such that we can fly a drone over them without them noticing, modern weapons are surplus to requirements anyway. Anything capable of flight and the transport of bombs should probably do the trick.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 15 Dec 2012, 20:16
by XanderCrews
You keep saying that but nobody has a clue what you're talking about except yourself. You honestly sound like a loony. I suggest you explain yourself.


No. Basically there are people on here who already know you don't know what you are talking about and have said as much. I'm not going to give you any information that might help alleviate your ignorance of basic concepts.Those in the know, know you are wrong. That's enough for me.

The fact that you continue to dwell on it shows you know you messed up and now look to find out how so you won't make the same mistake again later on. I must be a loony, because I noticed you are speaking about things you have no knowledge of.

I believe we started with the possibility of having a stealth LRSB but with supersonic capability for when speed was more important than stealth in order to accomplish the mission.


Which you naturally interpreted as "hypersonic super missile"


Well if we're dealing with an enemy such that we can fly a drone over them without them noticing, modern weapons are surplus to requirements anyway. Anything capable of flight and the transport of bombs should probably do the trick.


Hey! look who finally gets it!

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 15 Dec 2012, 20:21
by XanderCrews
mcraptor wrote:
Sometimes people have a very child-like perception of how a nuclear war will run and I have to put them in their place.



Pot, meet kettle :lol:

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 15 Dec 2012, 20:36
by mcraptor
XanderCrews wrote:
No. Basically there are people on here who already know you don't know what you are talking about and have said as much. I'm not going to give you any information that might help alleviate your ignorance of basic concepts.Those in the know, know you are wrong. That's enough for me.

Here I'll post it again with added explanation in case you forgot:

Ballistic missiles with maneuvering MIRVs *(Multiple Independent Re-entry Vehicles)* are all that makes sense for the nuclear deterrent and when you say 'triad' I take it that's what you mean.

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_triad*

A plane with a cruise missile just isn't fast enough. The game will be over before it gets anywhere near, unless you're planning a pre-emptive strike which is super-stupid and the missiles will still get intercepted before they reach defended targets and you'll be forever known as the dickhead nation that started WWIII.

*Plus you'll get flattened as soon as the enemy sees all your bombers have left their base.*


This part of the presentation is now reserved for questions. No need to raise your hand, just shout out. There really are enough ballistic missiles to do the job without cruise missiles or tactical nukes and the use of any nuclear weapons in anything except an all out war is unthinkable.

I assume your idea is to strike pre-emptively and fly these stealth aircraft deep into enemy territory and fire cruise missiles at things like missile silos, which will have a massive localized ADS more than capable of destroying any subsonic crap you care to fling at it. And in case you think nuclear warheads will go off when the weapon is destroyed, think again, that isn't how they're designed and anything other than a near direct hit on hardened nuclear complexes won't cut it.

Oh, and once the first missile is detected the enemy's central command will fire 200 SS-18 Satans at you, each armed with ten 750kT warheads. So you now have a couple of thousand 0.75MT warheads heading towards you at Mach 25-30 plus decoys and they'll be there in about 20-30 minutes along with whatever Topol-M, Yars and SLBMs join them. Your country is gone. What next?

Sometimes people have a very child-like perception of how a nuclear war will run and I have to put them in their place.

XanderCrews wrote:The fact that you continue to dwell on it shows you know you messed up and now look to find out how so you won't make the same mistake again later on. I must be a loony, because I noticed you are speaking about things you have no knowledge of.

Or maybe it's the other way round.

There are only 2 reasons for bombers taking off in a nuclear war:

1) To avoid destruction; and

2) To launch ALBMs if there was such a thing still in operation.

The role of 'Air' in the Land Sea Air Triad has always been a weak one that bothers enemies far less that ICBMs and SLBMs coming from out of nowhere and hitting them in <30 minutes.

There's really no purpose to a stealth attack against an enemy with SLBMs either. Even if everything went unrealistically well and you knocked out all ICBM silos and enemy bombers before they leave the ground, you still get a few thousand SLBM warheads poured on you anyway.

Nuclear war is unwinnable and only an idiot would consider the possibility.

XanderCrews wrote:Which you naturally interpreted as "hypersonic super missile"

I believe I started by mentioning some kind of supersonic capability and I wasn't the only one.


XanderCrews wrote:
Hey! look who finally gets it!

So why are we discussing stealth again? Surely it's futile since your proposed enemy doesn't even have radars, let alone SAMs. :lol:

XanderCrews wrote:
mcraptor wrote:
Sometimes people have a very child-like perception of how a nuclear war will run and I have to put them in their place.



Pot, meet kettle :lol:

Kettle meet singularity.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE:

Unread postPosted: 15 Dec 2012, 21:01
by XanderCrews
Keep talking, you are just digging a deeper hole. Also it turns out that repeating yourself over and over doesn't help your case. You should cut and paste it 5 or 6 more times at least.

mcraptor wrote:Or maybe it's the other way round.


I'm not the one who keeps trying to expand on a scenario in the hopes of proving knowledge.

please continue to "put us in our place" with your clear inside knowledge of nuclear strategy from the 1980's

mcraptor wrote:
Nuclear war is unwinnable and only an idiot would consider the possibility...Sometimes people have a very child-like perception of how a nuclear war will run and I have to put them in their place.



doesn't that make you an idiot?

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE:

Unread postPosted: 15 Dec 2012, 21:07
by borntoholdout
WOW... :doh:

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 15 Dec 2012, 21:25
by mcraptor
XanderCrews wrote:Keep talking, you are just digging a deeper hole. Also it turns out that repeating yourself over and over doesn't help your case. You should cut and paste it 5 or 6 more times at least.

Well I've given you chance to explain yourself, so now I'll just tell you that you're clearly wrong and keep repeating that.


XanderCrews wrote:please continue to "put us in our place" with your clear inside knowledge of nuclear strategy from the 1980's

With pleasure.

mcraptor wrote:
doesn't that make you an idiot?

Logic failure. When did I ever say nuclear war was winnable? That's the whole point I'm trying to make. It's a deterrent and a ballistic missile deterrent >> a bomber deterrent.

Damn, given your monumental comprehension failure, God knows what you thought I said that was wrong. Doesn't that make you the real idiot for:

a) Misunderstanding what I was saying; and

b) Just being plain wrong.

In summary, within your own secret little world you think I am wrong, so rather than discuss the issue, you keep it to yourself so that you can continue deluding yourself without the risk of exposing your imaginary sense of superiority to scrutiny for fear that it would all come crashing down.

Feel free to keep amusing me with your babblings.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 15 Dec 2012, 23:01
by XanderCrews
mcraptor wrote:Feel free to keep amusing me with your babblings.


Tell us more about how the nuclear war will be over in a half hour

assumes that your plane can even fly through ash and fallout without the engines giving up.


Tell me more about this as well

Tell the children about Type II deterrence. Explain what a hostage city is. What is SIOP?

I'll leave you time to google some of this.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE:

Unread postPosted: 15 Dec 2012, 23:34
by count_to_10
Can we get this topic back to how the new bomber will be using F-35 technology?

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 15 Dec 2012, 23:44
by XanderCrews
count_to_10 wrote:Can we get this topic back to how the new bomber will be using F-35 technology?


By all means.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE:

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2012, 00:25
by neptune
I regretfully requested this thread be deleted. :(

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2012, 00:58
by XanderCrews
neptune wrote:I regretfully requested this thread be deleted. :(


My apologies. /i feed him

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2012, 11:23
by mcraptor
XanderCrews wrote:
Tell us more about how the nuclear war will be over in a half hour

Quite simple. Both sides launch several hundred long range ballistic missiles from land and submarine, which each deploy 8-12 warheads of several hundred kT yield, which arrive in <30 minutes.

XanderCrews wrote:Tell me more about this as well

Nobody has really experience the atmospheric effect of several thousand thermonuclear devices going off. It's quite possible that the atmospheric particulate debris will damage jet engines. Not a certainty but certainly a possibility.

XanderCrews wrote:Tell the children about Type II deterrence.

A Type II deterrent would be stopping the USSR from attacking a third party like Europe. The idea of tippy-toe nuking, where each side nukes a little bit is also unrealistic as it would very quickly escalate.

Assuming this hypothetical tippy toe war did break out, speed of response would be paramount, i.e. not waiting for the USSR to invade the whole of Europe before responding, hence why Pershing I/IA SRBMs and Pershing II MRBMs were based in the UK and Europe during that period. Such missiles guaranteed a sub-10 minute 80-400kT nuke respond to any aggression rather than waiting for a B-52 to haul its fat a$$ across the sky over a period of several hours, possibly getting shot down on the way.

Don't bring a bomber to a missile fight.

In the 1950s when the Soviet missile technology was ahead of ours we had to loop bombers around the ocean constantly just in case. In the 1960s various efforts were made with fast bombers like the XB-70 and fast cruise missiles like the Vought SLAM, but it was quickly realized that ballistic missiles were the fastest, most effective methods of delivery and such projects were cancelled.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2012, 11:28
by mcraptor
XanderCrews wrote:
neptune wrote:I regretfully requested this thread be deleted. :(


My apologies. /i feed him

For future reference - I'm not hungry. Now can we get back on topic?

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2012, 16:13
by madrat
mcraptor wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
Tell us more about how the nuclear war will be over in a half hour

Quite simple. Both sides launch several hundred long range ballistic missiles from land and submarine, which each deploy 8-12 warheads of several hundred kT yield, which arrive in <30 minutes.


Nuclear wars were meant to last anywhere from 5-12 years.

Go read WarDay by Whitley Strieber. It will explain why no waged nuclear war is over in an hour, let alone a year. It's a quick 500 pages.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2012, 16:39
by XanderCrews
madrat wrote:
mcraptor wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
Tell us more about how the nuclear war will be over in a half hour

Quite simple. Both sides launch several hundred long range ballistic missiles from land and submarine, which each deploy 8-12 warheads of several hundred kT yield, which arrive in <30 minutes.


Nuclear wars were meant to last anywhere from 5-12 years.

Go read WarDay by Whitley Strieber. It will explain why no waged nuclear war is over in an hour, let alone a year. It's a quick 500 pages.


exactly.

McRaptor, if it is over in a half hour, why do we need PCPs? Hostage cities? or second strike capability along with pauses? You are confusing MAD with modern NUTS. which both sides had switched to be the 1970s. Both sides realized MAD was unfeasible, something you still don't seem to understand.

Which is what tells me you don't know what you are talking about. You are giving concepts from the 1950s and 1960s and trying to shoe horn into concepts that were no longer held by both sides WHEN THE COLD WAR ENDED 20 years. You are two eras removed from today's reality. Yet you continue to "put us in our place" while you clearly lack even basic knowledge of nuclear strategy.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE:

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2012, 17:14
by mcraptor
XanderCrews wrote:Getting caught sucks doesn't it?

For the record, I've responded to all your questions about Type II deterrents and the use of Pershing I/IA/II missiles deployed in Western Europe, which were intended precisely for that kind of deterrence. Such missiles can strike within <10 minutes (II) and <5 minutes (I/IA). I still say that such a thing would escalate all too quickly but hopefully you can see that a job which bombers require hours to do can be done in minutes. That's not to say that bombers don't play a part, but it's a secondary role and not the preferred method of delivery. PM me if you want to continue this.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2012, 17:34
by mcraptor
madrat wrote:
mcraptor wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
Tell us more about how the nuclear war will be over in a half hour

Quite simple. Both sides launch several hundred long range ballistic missiles from land and submarine, which each deploy 8-12 warheads of several hundred kT yield, which arrive in <30 minutes.


Nuclear wars were meant to last anywhere from 5-12 years.

Go read WarDay by Whitley Strieber. It will explain why no waged nuclear war is over in an hour, let alone a year. It's a quick 500 pages.

I guess it's all hypothetical but people's resolve might be catastrophically altered when:

several hundred million people are laying burnt on the streets;
their country is on fire;
the atmosphere is unbreathable;
remaining people are dying from cancer;
the sun is blotted out;
nothing can be grown;
all factories are destroyed;
most engineers are dead;
most laborers are dead.

People will be more worried about surviving than fighting over some kind of pseudo ideological bullshit that they never fully understood in the first place. All of a sudden there'll be a huge realisation that by fighting they all lost and that they were all infinitely better off before they started fighting.

I sure as hell couldn't be assed fighting a nuclear war for 12 years even if it were possible.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2012, 17:47
by mcraptor
XanderCrews wrote:
McRaptor, if it is over in a half hour, why do we need PCPs? Hostage cities? or second strike capability along with pauses? You are confusing MAD with modern NUTS. which both sides had switched to be the 1970s. Both sides realized MAD was unfeasible, something you still don't seem to understand.

Which is what tells me you don't know what you are talking about. You are giving concepts from the 1950s and 1960s and trying to shoe horn into concepts that were no longer held by both sides WHEN THE COLD WAR ENDED 20 years. You are two eras removed from today's reality. Yet you continue to "put us in our place" while you clearly lack even basic knowledge of nuclear strategy.

I've already addressed this.

A hypothetical Soviet assault on Western Europe was to be met with copious amounts of SRBMs and MRBMs, hence their deployment there. Frankly I think that any use would have quickly ramped up though.

I think I admitted somewhere that bombers might play a lesser part in mopping up but they're much like an emergency diesel generator compared to the main power grid (ballistic missiles). Anything you can do with a bomber, you can do with a ballistic missile, only 10-20 times faster.

Nuclear strategy is also an oxymoron. If you find yourself in a nuclear war, your strategy has failed. The only workable strategy with nuclear weapons is one of deterrence. Using them means they've failed in their function.

In summary I guess it's useful to have a strategic bomber capability but what we have is fine. AGM-129s don't require replacement. Arguably Minuteman IIIs and Trident D5s do though, as do Ohio Class submarines. So I wouldn't concern myself with the secondary stuff when the primary stuff needs looking at.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2012, 17:49
by count_to_10
mcraptor wrote:
madrat wrote:
mcraptor wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
Tell us more about how the nuclear war will be over in a half hour

Quite simple. Both sides launch several hundred long range ballistic missiles from land and submarine, which each deploy 8-12 warheads of several hundred kT yield, which arrive in <30 minutes.


Nuclear wars were meant to last anywhere from 5-12 years.

Go read WarDay by Whitley Strieber. It will explain why no waged nuclear war is over in an hour, let alone a year. It's a quick 500 pages.

I guess it's all hypothetical but people's resolve might be catastrophically altered when:

several hundred million people are laying burnt on the streets;
their country is on fire;
the atmosphere is unbreathable;
remaining people are dying from cancer;
the sun is blotted out;
nothing can be grown;
all factories are destroyed;
most engineers are dead;
most laborers are dead.

People will be more worried about surviving than fighting over some kind of pseudo ideological bullshit that they never fully understood in the first place. All of a sudden there'll be a huge realisation that by fighting they all lost and that they were all infinitely better off before they started fighting.

I sure as hell couldn't be assed fighting a nuclear war for 12 years even if it were possible.

So, that isn't actually what happens in the aftermath of a nuclear war.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2012, 17:50
by mcraptor
count_to_10 wrote:So, that isn't actually what happens in the aftermath of a nuclear war.

Let me guess. Does the ice-cream man come in your scenario?

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2012, 18:00
by count_to_10
mcraptor wrote:
count_to_10 wrote:So, that isn't actually what happens in the aftermath of a nuclear war.

Let me guess. Does the ice-cream man come in your scenario?

Dust can make things cooler, but it won't "blot out the sun", and, while it would reduce crop yields, it won't eliminate them. The radiation won't be giving people cancer in in less than decades, and, due to the fact that most will be H bomb air bursts, there won't be much in the way of localized contamination either.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2012, 18:29
by mcraptor
count_to_10 wrote:
mcraptor wrote:
count_to_10 wrote:So, that isn't actually what happens in the aftermath of a nuclear war.

Let me guess. Does the ice-cream man come in your scenario?

Dust can make things cooler, but it won't "blot out the sun", and, while it would reduce crop yields, it won't eliminate them. The radiation won't be giving people cancer in in less than decades, and, due to the fact that most will be H bomb air bursts, there won't be much in the way of localized contamination either.

That's totally inaccurate scientifically. The dust and ash unleashed is likely to parallel a large volcanic disaster, which have historically blotted out the sun or at least blocked most of it. It may not be totally dark but it'll likely be close.

Gamma ray exposure, fast moving particles and dust sucked up, as well as exposed clouds could all give people radiation sickness and forms of advanced cancer in days or weeks.

Material can be made radioactive by indirect exposure by the same mechanism.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE:

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2012, 18:42
by count_to_10
Um, no.
You would have to detonate them on the ground to get that kind of dust in the air. In air bursts, all of the radioactive material goes up into the upper atmosphere, where it spreads out over a large area -- and fades into the existing background.
I would be far more worried about the economic system of the world collapsing as pretty much all of the worlds centers of production get flattened. That is more likely to starve people to death than the direct environmental effects.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2012, 10:29
by mcraptor
count_to_10 wrote:Um, no.
You would have to detonate them on the ground to get that kind of dust in the air. In air bursts, all of the radioactive material goes up into the upper atmosphere, where it spreads out over a large area -- and fades into the existing background.
I would be far more worried about the economic system of the world collapsing as pretty much all of the worlds centers of production get flattened. That is more likely to starve people to death than the direct environmental effects.

The implosion caused sucks dust up regardless of whether you airburst it or not and the massive gamma ray burst will will damage the atomic structure of material, plus the neutron radiation, and the water vapor in the atmosphere itself. It's probably difficult to fully comtemplate the effect of 10,000+ nuclear warheads going off, ranging from 100kT to 30MT in yield. Whole continents will be on fire afterwards with nobody to put them out, they will just burn until they run out of stuff to burn through. Surely you saw the dust on 9/11 when just 2 buildings collapsed. Rotting corpses will probably give rise to epidemics. Just about everything electronic will be out of commission, whether directly affected by the blasts or not. Nobody will give a sh*t about fighting anymore. The only fighting done will be to survive - that will be the only 12 year fight after a nuclear holocaust.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE:

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2012, 23:58
by count_to_10
So, you do realize that it is neutrons that can make stable elements radio active, not gamma rays, right? In an air burst, very few of the neutrons find a nucleus that they can make significantly radioactive. No, whole continents will not be on fire - though there will probably be a number of forest fires. The Navies will survive for a number of months unhindered. Whether fighting continues afterward depends on the exact circumstances.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE:

Unread postPosted: 18 Dec 2012, 06:07
by madrat
Mount St. Helens erupted only 1000 times more powerful that an A-Bomb. I'm pretty certain there will be survivors and society will mold itself according to its resources.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 18 Dec 2012, 10:38
by mcraptor
count_to_10 wrote:So, you do realize that it is neutrons that can make stable elements radio active, not gamma rays, right? In an air burst, very few of the neutrons find a nucleus that they can make significantly radioactive. No, whole continents will not be on fire - though there will probably be a number of forest fires. The Navies will survive for a number of months unhindered. Whether fighting continues afterward depends on the exact circumstances.

Gamma rays can ionize atoms and molecules and cause cancer. Surely everyone knows that?

Anything flammable will burn. Any buildings with paper, plastic, rubber and furniture will burn relentlessly until all sources of fuel are spent.

Navies unhindered? Really? Did you not know that most Soviet anti-ship missiles could be nuclear tipped, as could torpedos. A few submarines is about all you'd have left, maybe.



madrat wrote:Mount St. Helens erupted only 1000 times more powerful that an A-Bomb. I'm pretty certain there will be survivors and society will mold itself according to its resources.

Which is only 15-20MT, or less than one SS-18 with a single RV option.

St. Helens was relatively small.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_la ... _eruptions

The most recent supervolcano, but far from the largest:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory

The Toba supereruption (Youngest Toba Tuff or simply YTT[1]) was a supervolcanic eruption that is thought to have occurred sometime between 69,000 and 77,000 years ago at Lake Toba (Sumatra, Indonesia). It is recognized as one of the Earth's largest known eruptions. The related catastrophe hypothesis holds that this event plunged the planet into a 6-to-10-year volcanic winter and possibly an additional 1,000-year cooling episode. This change in temperature is hypothesized to have resulted in the world's human population being reduced to 10,000 or even a mere 1,000 breeding pairs, creating a bottleneck in human evolution.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE:

Unread postPosted: 18 Dec 2012, 23:49
by count_to_10
Gamma rays don't do anything to people that wouldn't be dead already from the blast.
You can't just compare energy between nukes and eruptions as far as dust goes -- basically all of the eruption goes into pushing dust around, while very little of the nuke's does.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2012, 10:53
by mcraptor
count_to_10 wrote:Gamma rays don't do anything to people that wouldn't be dead already from the blast.

Not so. With increased distance gamma radiation becomes more prevalent than neutron radiation and leads to beta particles being released from other atoms it meets. Furthermore the neutron radiation mutates the nuclei of the surrounding matter. Factor in the dust of radioactive material released by the bomb itself and a very large amount of radioactive material is released into the environment. The neutron radiation is definitely the primary concern.

count_to_10 wrote:You can't just compare energy between nukes and eruptions as far as dust goes -- basically all of the eruption goes into pushing dust around, while very little of the nuke's does.

And the volcano is in one area, nukes will be spread over 2 or 3 continents; about ten thousand megatons of them, with dust and ash from everything they obliterate and smoke from anything in the resulting fires.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2012, 03:07
by borntoholdout
madrat wrote:
mcraptor wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
Tell us more about how the nuclear war will be over in a half hour

Quite simple. Both sides launch several hundred long range ballistic missiles from land and submarine, which each deploy 8-12 warheads of several hundred kT yield, which arrive in <30 minutes.


Nuclear wars were meant to last anywhere from 5-12 years.

Go read WarDay by Whitley Strieber. It will explain why no waged nuclear war is over in an hour, let alone a year. It's a quick 500 pages.


The book is a good read. But the nuclear war in the book is a limited nuclear attack. Not an all out one. As I understood it anyway. The book takes place 5 years after the war. The main character is a writer who travels the US accessing the damage and seeing what has survived.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 25 Dec 2012, 17:54
by Beazz
madrat wrote:
mcraptor wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
Tell us more about how the nuclear war will be over in a half hour

Quite simple. Both sides launch several hundred long range ballistic missiles from land and submarine, which each deploy 8-12 warheads of several hundred kT yield, which arrive in <30 minutes.


Nuclear wars were meant to last anywhere from 5-12 years.

Go read WarDay by Whitley Strieber. It will explain why no waged nuclear war is over in an hour, let alone a year. It's a quick 500 pages.


WOW... Simply amazing!!! You actually told people to go read some science fiction book by an author who is known for science fiction, horror and ufology and then take his fiction novel as how a real nuclear exchange is to take place? Amateur hour has surely struck!!!

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE:

Unread postPosted: 26 Dec 2012, 02:36
by madrat
Beazz, glad you could grace us with your unexceptionally and witless driveby. The story is fiction and it is sourced with the best available references released up until that date. And you probably are aware that government releases on the topic largely agree with said author's premise that nuclear wars were neither quick nor total apocalypse. If you want to draw different conclusions of what would happen then no problem. Otherwise I am sure you're book on said topic is better. It just was never published. Nor written. Nor conceived.