|Nuclear Attack||Woof the dog|
Dec 29, 2002 11:40 PM
|Everything wiped within 2 miles and fallout within 20 miles? What exactly happens? What are the effects upon wildlife and longterm effects upon the environment.
What is the difference between an atomic and nuclear? I am not clear on the issue.
Woof the dog.
|Not the king of thing that I like to think about.||Spoke Wrench|
Dec 30, 2002 6:56 AM
|They come in sizes. The bigger the nuke, the greater the impact from the heat and shock waves. They also come in different materials. It's possible to make a nuke that will maximize the amount of radiation fallout and poison a larger area for a longer time.
It looks to me like we are at the beginning of the end of the nuclear war era. Nukes are kind of crude in that you tend to destroy everything in order to impact the targets that have military value. Today's trend is to accurately put lots of smaller conventional warheads exactly on target, all at the same time. The countries that are still developing nukes tend to be ones that are behind the times and feel they might "level" the field by bringing others down rather than boosting themselves up. North Korea is a textbook example. It has to be embarrasing for them to see how well South Korea has prospered while they still have nothing. With not much to lose, I think those guys are dangerous!
If we are at the end of the nuclear war era, that sounds like better news than I think that it really is. Chemical and biological weapons are rapidly filling the mass destruction/ civilian terrorism void. Contageous biological weapons, in particular, are the weapon that keeps on spreading. The nice thing about these is they have less effect on the infastructure so that after you kill off most of the people, it would be relatively easy to move in and siphon off the loser's resources.
Uh - have a nice day!
|it would be a bad day||DougSloan|
Dec 30, 2002 7:22 AM
|Did you see the movie "The Day After"? Rent it sometime. It's a portrayal of a nuclear attack near Kansas City. There are lots of missile silos around there, so I guess that's why it would be targeted by the USSR (back then, around 1985?).
Nuclear and atomic are the same thing, from what I know. Atomic and hydrogen are different, for one is fission and one fusion, although the fusion bomb uses a fission reaction to get it started. I'm sure a Google search will turn up all sorts of info, and explain it better than we could.
The bigger bombs developed could wipe out an area far greater than 2 miles. Essentially, they turn everything closeby into plasma, and then heat and wind destroy things beyond the immediate area, and beyond that, fallout gets you. The EMR will wipe out anything electronic for miles, too, so don't plan on racing away in your car (unless it's an old diesel with mechanical injection!).
Radiation is bad stuff.
|Read John Hersey's "Hiroshima"||torquer|
Dec 30, 2002 12:38 PM
|This is reportage, originally appearing in the New Yorker magazine in 1945 and then in book format. It deals with the human toll of the attack and its aftermath. The New Yorker also published a multi-part article by Orville Schell (sp?), likely also published in book form, that dealt with the foreseen ecological and climate changes following a nuclear war between the (then) superpowers; this appeared in the 1980's, as best I recall.|
|In Hiroshima there's a model of the city . . .||cory|
Dec 30, 2002 12:46 PM
|I was in Hiroshima a few years ago, and at approximately ground zero, there's a model of the city as it was right after the bomb. Pictures of it may be available online (don't have time to look right now). Standing there and looking at the model, then out toward the horizon at the landmarks I could see, really brought home to me the extent of the devastation.
BTW, I second the vote for Hersey's book. My wife, an English teacher, has taught it for years. Brings the kids to tears every time.
|Also, Masuji Ibuse's "Black Rain" (nm)||czardonic|
Dec 30, 2002 2:21 PM