StarDestroyer.Net BBS

A lot of people I talk to at my high school believe that in the event of nuclear war, everyone's more or less dead. Period.

Is it possible that over the years, people have subtly suggested the idea in entertainment and media (with a few exceptions) that nuclear war is fatal for all, so as to dissuade the public from ever accepting the use of nuclear weapons ever again? So as to create within the public a deep fear and distrust of nuclear weapons? (and perhaps nuclear-generated electrical power as well...)

I realize it sounds like conspiracy crap, but I wanted some input on it.

See you in Vault 13.

weemadando wrote:See you in Vault 13.

Bring an extra water chip, just in case.

Crispy on the outside, tenderly radioactive on the inside.

Ghost Rider wrote:
Bring an extra water chip, just in case.

Too bad all of em went to fucking Vault 8.

Yes, the effects of nuclear war have been greatly exagerrated.

Are we talking out n' out MAD here? Or do you envision some sort of limited exchange?

Frank Hipper wrote:Are we talking out n' out MAD here? Or do you envision some sort of limited exchange?

MAD as a policy never existed.

it might be exagerated but that´s just fine.

This is probably a better way of expressing my question:

Does anyone think it's plausible that people have worked towards presenting an exaggerated representation of the effects of nuclear war in an effort to instill a deep fear and distrust of anything labeled "nuclear"?

The effects might be exaggerated, but that's fine by me. The effect of a nuke war would be devestating enough that it's not worth the trouble.

I just hope one day we get a weapon of equal effectiveness without the nasty fallout. Cause it's the fallout that'll be the problem.

FireNexus wrote:The effects might be exaggerated, but that's fine by me. The effect of a nuke war would be devestating enough that it's not worth the trouble.

I just hope one day we get a weapon of equal effectiveness without the nasty fallout. Cause it's the fallout that'll be the problem.

Airburst nuke. Near-zero fallout. It really only ground-bursted nukes that are a problem.

fallout (as in alpha particles and radioactive dust) is really only dangerous if breathed or if it gets into the blood where it can make its way to bone marrow and cause leukemia.

same with uranium dust. getting it on your skin is not that bad, your skins pretty durable and a few bits of uranium dust wouldnt put out enough radiation to severly penetrate your skin. worst i'd estimate is equivalent to a bad sunburn. top layers of skin are dead, so they'll absorb what they absorb without consequence. If the xrays are powerful enough theyll pass right through no problem. its the UVs that are a bitch cause they penetrate only so far through skin. Black people will survive better, thanks to melanin absorbtion of UV radiation.

Remember kiddies! If you're playing in a nuclear waste land, or Los Angeles, remember to wear your rubber suits!

Beowulf wrote:

FireNexus wrote:The effects might be exaggerated, but that's fine by me. The effect of a nuke war would be devestating enough that it's not worth the trouble.

I just hope one day we get a weapon of equal effectiveness without the nasty fallout. Cause it's the fallout that'll be the problem.

Airburst nuke. Near-zero fallout. It really only ground-bursted nukes that are a problem.

True, but in an all-out nuclear war, among the targets would be things like trainyards and missile silos, which demand ground-bursting for effective destruction. Granted, the fallout would probably not be the end-all of humanity, but it would still be fairly unpleasant for those caught in it. (on the otherhand, it's not so bad when the wind's blowing in the opposite direction... so if Portland gets groundburst nuked, and the wind's blowing east, I'll be okay )

I suppose it's healthier for the world at large if the masses believe that nuclear war will be the end of us all. Still seems kind of unsettling. And annoying, when you have to confront that sentiment in the context of a serious conversation.

I suggest everyone here interested in the topic go read Herman Kahn's On Thermonuclear War. It's a dated read, but still good - and make sure you have an empty stomach.

phongn wrote:I suggest everyone here interested in the topic go read Herman Kahn's On Thermonuclear War. It's a dated read, but still good - and make sure you have an empty stomach.

Phongn, when the fuck did you get psychic powers? I just borrowed this precise book, but I haven't read it yet.

Gil Hamilton wrote:

phongn wrote:I suggest everyone here interested in the topic go read Herman Kahn's On Thermonuclear War. It's a dated read, but still good - and make sure you have an empty stomach.

Phongn, when the fuck did you get psychic powers? I just borrowed this precise book, but I haven't read it yet.

LOL. I've brought it up a few times here on SD and SB, IIRC. But do read it on an empty stomach; I let my brother read it and he almost puked.

phongn wrote: LOL. I've brought it up a few times here on SD and SB, IIRC. But do read it on an empty stomach; I let my brother read it and he almost puked.

Why? Is it the casualty figures?

MKSheppard wrote:

phongn wrote: LOL. I've brought it up a few times here on SD and SB, IIRC. But do read it on an empty stomach; I let my brother read it and he almost puked.

Why? Is it the casualty figures?

Not just those, but he discusses figures that may be "acceptable" or "unacceptable," if it's worth spending n dollars in peacetime to reduce d deaths by m millions and so on. He does it in a somewhat detatched, analytical manner as well.

Phong, you kind of have to do that in a Vulcan type way otherwise too many people die.

kojikun wrote:Phong, you kind of have to do that in a Vulcan type way otherwise too many people die.

Oh, I know that. (I've heard of nuclear attack simulations done by the government with the emotional versus the unemotional). OTOH, Kahn's "matter-of-fact" way of presenting things sometimes tended to annoy people.

Perhaps the perception is based around the feeling if one country launches, another will counter launch, and so on. So you're dealing with not just one nuke, you're dealing with several.

Lord_Xerxes wrote:Perhaps the perception is based around the feeling if one country launches, another will counter launch, and so on. So you're dealing with not just one nuke, you're dealing with several.

You're not dealing with one nuke, you're dealing with the entire arsenal. In a conflict with nuclear powers escalation is virtually inevitable.

phongn wrote:

Lord_Xerxes wrote:Perhaps the perception is based around the feeling if one country launches, another will counter launch, and so on. So you're dealing with not just one nuke, you're dealing with several.

You're not dealing with one nuke, you're dealing with the entire arsenal. In a conflict with nuclear powers escalation is virtually inevitable.

Indeed, once nukes start flying nations become very concerned about the possibility of a counter force strike and will escalate if only to avoid risking there loss. Now of course if the nations have relatively small arsenals, like India and Pakistan the overall exchange might not be all that large just because thats all they have.

"This is Geraldo Rivera reporting live from Ground Zero. My bones are turning green and I'm puking my guts out".

(Let's see 'em put that one on the air. )