But it also means that the scenario of mass retaliation against strategic strikes may not turn out that way either. One is based affirmative in evidence, the other is based in the fact that anything is statistically possible even if improbable. By the same token a nuclear denial tool or more powerful weapon could also be invented before then mitigating or removing current nuclear weapons as a serious threat.
Reply
deleted
· 7 years ago
I think we'd be more or less fine. If the war happened, they would only target major cities like New York City or Shanghai or places with a lo t of infrastructure. Smaller towns and cities would go unharmed. And radiation doesn't really spread, it lingers in one area. In other words, we'd be fine.
When a strategic nuke goes off, it detonates high in the air. The explosion touches down and the low pressure zone created by the burst which pushed all the air up sucks in irradiated soil and ground debris. The rapidly heating air rises into that mushroom cloud, reaching high into the sky. The very fine particles of nuclear debris float up high, carried by winds or trapped in water vapor clouds become irradiated. When the debris fall on their own, or are carried down by rain they spread far and wide. Locally winds, humans, and animals carry radiated particles, dust, or even themselves. If they consumed irradiated substances they excrete them in their drippings to be eaten or tracked by others, or if radiated they leave radiated corpses which may be scavenged as food and further spread radiation. Falling particles are called fallout. The most dangerous and intense radiation fades pretty quickly, but the low level radiation lasts very long and is especially hazardous if ingested.
False. Nuclear disarmament and age have seriously cut the stockpiles from their Cold War high. In wide open space without protection a 1 megaton device air burst has a 50% kill rate beyond the "hot zone" at center. Looking at our only real world uses we saw survivors literally at ground zero who were shielded in secure structures. Now- war heads are much more powerful than then, but technology has improved elsewhere too. The scenario of MAD applied in US vs USSR scenarios due to the size of our nuclear arsenals and politics of the time. If Russia nuked Chechnya it wouldn't be a small deal, but in today's climate that wouldn't trigger the US to launch all our weapons at once. It's a big ass globe and there are only so many bombs. People in remote or sparsely populated areas would be largely untouched save maybe fallout. Non combatant or non tactical nations would likely be spared almost completely. also te stats given are WAY off educated guesses.
Comments