Posted on 11/15/2023 6:25:48 PM PST by algore
About 300 million people in the United States would be put at risk of death from exposure to radioactive fallout in the four days following a nuclear attack, according to a new report that models the possible effects of such a grim event.
If the US is attacked with nuclear weapons, an adversary would most likely concentrate all fire on the country's intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) launch facilities (silos).
Any retaliatory attack from the US would come from these silos, located in Colorado, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Wyoming - and taking them out would be an enemy's first priority.
This is the assumption scientists used to model the fatalities from a nuclear strike, with the 450 ICBM silos in these states serving as the epicenter.
The population density in these states is low, but winds could carry the radioactive material far and wide.
Their maps are part of a special report on the US's nuclear program published Wednesday in Scientific American.
And the results are grim: Depending on weather conditions, 90 percent of the population of the lower 48 U.S states, as well as people living in Mexico's northern states and the most populous regions of Canada, would be at risk of receiving lethal doses of radiation.
Using weather patterns recorded through 2021, scientists simulated the aftereffects of an 800-kiloton warhead hitting every one of the 450 silos at once to cripple the US arsenal. First, they mapped how wind patterns would have carried the fallout on each day of 2021.
For the map above, they recorded the worst possible outcome for each location. In this scenario, three million people living in communities around the silos would risk receiving eight grays (Gy) of radiation in the four days following the attack, resulting in certain death.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
but then look at the source, An article from magazine I used to read and respect 40 years ago.
One nuke, and the country that started it would be nuked, too. It isn’t that hard to figure out.
Almost preferable to the direction we’re headed.
Strange that this report comes now. This sis something from the height of the Cold War. I wonder what General Buck Turgidson would have to say?
So when are the boyz gonna move their “nuclear ‘doomsday’ clock” closer to midnight?
We need better missile defense, not better missiles.
Dumb. Wiping out the ICBMs doesn’t save you from a complete nation destruction retaliation. There are probably 8 to 10 out on patrol at any given time.
$300 Million Dollars?
That’s still nothing but ‘crumbs’ compared to the Money Bombs Joe keeps lighting off for Ukraine. That country has had several feedings of BILLIONS of American Dollars, and is still making noise with it’s battered tin cup.
Gimme a break. Poppycock!
IS this CHICOM propaganda? Sure reads like it.
SSBNs that is....nobody can nuke the ICBM fields and survive.
And we absolutely need satellites with the ability to destroy missiles in space. Saying we don’t support the militarization of space will only put us at a disadvantage compared to rogue states.
I’ve decided if nukes go off I am going to try and survive, but if I don’t, I’m ok with that. I won’t be able to live with a moral code I feel is right under those conditions, and I’d prefer not to have to live that way and have those memories. I don’ t have a problem defending against potential nasties, its having to say no or not being able to help those that need help without dying for it.
An interesting thought experiment —
Imagine that we have pretty good intelligence within the Kremlin. We know most of what Putin does, and what he knows.
Imagine that Putin (or some other guy) decides to nuke the US.
Imagine that he pushes the button. But there is a break in the communications technology, the chain of command, the missiles don’t work — whatever. The button is pushed, and the US is NOT nuked.
But we KNOW that Russia just tried to nuke us.
What do we do? Do we shrug it off (”Nothing happened, so we should do nothing.”) or do we quickly nuke Russia (the whole world will see this as unprovoked US aggression).
It is not good to live in a world where anyone has to develop a contingency plan for something like this.
Wasn’t meant to be funny. If you’re fine with having nearly every freedom eliminate, nearly every gun forfeited, and living as a slave to the leftists, have at it. I’d rather be nuked and get it over with quickly. I’ve made my peace.
And I’m worried about the climate why??
So a country that decides to nuke us (knowing it will also be nuked) targets our silos. Of course, they will be emptied by the time the missiles arrive.
Or, they could hit every major population area on the continent.
Yeah, they would go with option A. Not.
“ the US is attacked with nuclear weapons, an adversary would most likely concentrate all fire on the country’s intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) launch facilities (silos).”
*********************************************************
All fire? No way, Jose. Not by a long shot.
One nuke, and the country that started it would be nuked, too. It isn’t that hard to figure out.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I see the possibility of a different scenario. With an intellectually challenged puppet as “leader” of the free world it’s possible that the U.S. would NOT respond to a nuclear strike with a nuclear counterstrike!
Assumes they hit the silos and not the cities. They would probably just hit the cities.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.