Risking a nuclear attack now vs later. (SOMEONE has to say it.)

A nuclear exchange with North Korea might result in only hundreds of deaths, but one in the not-so-distant future could result in tens of millions.

Since miniaturization is technologically difficult, yet necessary for missile-borne bombs, North Korea would presumably arm its nuclear missiles with the SMALLEST bombs it has, not the largest. A mid-air on-target detonation would require very sensitive timing, so presumably it would be impact-triggered, and therefore ground-level. And Korea's furthest-range ICBMs would likely have very poor accuracy. So hitting a major city would require a major stroke of luck.

There is an online app called Nukemap, which allows a user to see how many people would be killed in the event of a nuclear bomb detonation. Users can select the location, size of the bomb, and whether it's a ground-level detonation or a mid-air detonation. Lethal effects include nuclear radiation, radiation poisoning, blast, and thermal radiation.

Randomly pick a location in the United States, and you'll probably find out that a Hiroshima-sized blast would kill a few hundred people. Quite possibly, a few dozen. You see, Hiroshima was a very densely populated city, and the bomb struck the population center. (Nagasaki missed its target, but nonetheless hit a very densely populated region.) Not many cities have that kind of population density. And you probably don't realize that about 99% of America is what YOU would call rural.

During the cold war, a bomb was accidentally dropped outside Goldsboro, NC. Since then, that population has surged. A Hiroshima-sized bomb would only kill a couple thousand. If North Korea pulled that off, it would be an unspeakable, horrific act of war. But not Armageddon. Not likely the size of the World Trade Center attacks. And only a fraction the size of what the World Trade Center attacks COULD have been if only the attack had struck after the business day started.

Even a bomb typical of our own missile arsenal would only have caused several thousand deaths.

With regards to that Goldsboro near-disaster, you may habe read that "the effects would have reached Washington, Baltimore, Philadelphia or New York." You probably didn't read what those effects were: a slightly reduced rate of certain common cancers. And MAYBE a slightly elevated rate of rarer cancers. Such a bomb would probably save more lives in Baltimore than it would cost.

I think it's very important to get these facts out there. After Chernobyl, hundreds of thousands of babies were aborted for no damned reason at all. I guess people believed 1960s-era horror movies about what radiation does to humans. Very near the meltdown, there was an elevated rate of some cancers, like thyroid cancer. These were detectable largely because those cancers are otherwise so rare. There was a slightly elevated rate of certain birth defects, again, detectable because any other causes are so incredibly rare. But in the areas around Chernobyl, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, cancer rates are actually lower than normal. (We're waiting to see the long-term effects on the Japanese meltdown.)

The armageddon scenarios from the Cold War were based on nuclear bombs being dozens of times larger than anything North Korea is likely to build... and there being thousands of nuclear warheads launched.

Today, North Korea may or may not be able to strike an American city with a nuclear warhead. We may be able to pulverize them before a launch was possible. We may be able to knock down any missile before it reached the U.S. Those that reach the U.S. may not be those same missiles capable of being armed with nuclear warheads. (Even Kim only threatened Guam... probably for a reason.) Our risks are not existential.

But imagine a hundred nuclear bombs all falling in the vicinity of Los Angeles. Now, the fallout levels become easily deadly, over the homes of twenty-or-so million people. Now, we don't have enough cures for the radiation poisoning. Now, the infrastructure is irreparably damaged. Now, relief and rescue operations are overwhelmed. Now, the land itself becomes uninhabitable.

FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY. I AM NOT AN EXPERT. I KNOW SLIGHTLY MORE THAN THE AVERAGE BEAR, BUT I AM USING ONLY THE SORT OF TOOLS AVAILABLE ON LINE.

Very hard to figure out.

A. Smart humans always act in what they THINK is their best interests.

B. Very clever people can try to APPEAR dumb or mad in order to fool their enemies.

What do we have here? Kim could be the Puppet Madman of China, he could truly have the power it appears he has and could be playing a game for show, or...??

The likelihood of him being truly crazy and his own people not finding a way to take him out to save themselves is VERY LOW. The military and other NK leaders would be in the 9/11 Let’s Roll frame of mind.

I read it put some 3-4 hundred street lights out in HI. In reality it had no significant effect. Also keep in mind the bomb used was nearly 1.5 megaton yield. I don't think NK has anywhere near the technology to duplicate even this test much less take out the grid in the entire US.

I feel pretty certain the true nuclear powers (US Included) have long since abandoned the idea of using EMP as an effective weapon.

Your ugly, condescending tone is utterly misplaced, since I explicitly (and oddly for a forum like FR) noted, “FOR DISCUSSION ONLY: I’M NOT AN EXPERT...” proceeding to invite comment. Had you not written like such a blowhard, (and not been so obviously wrong), I might have appreciated your comments.

Every nuclear device the North Koreans have tested has been ground-based. While there are very advanced technologies in developing the most effective ground-penetrating warhead possible, it’s not nearly as difficult to create a bomb that can withstand terminal velocity.

Yes, you MAY destroy a mid-air-detonating warhead by knocking it into the ground, but even one NOT designed to survive such an accidental impact may very well survive it, and could even be accidentally triggered, like the Goldsboro bomb almost was. That’s right: it’s so damned easy to build an impact-detonating bomb we damned near made one accidentally.

It’s very plain that the North Koreans ARE working hard at overcoming limitations in their nuclear capabilities. DUH. That’s why I suggested we needed to do something sooner rather than later. Hopefully, that something avoids an attempted nuclear strike. Only a complete idiot would read what I wrote as saying “Yay! Let’s get bombed by the North Koreans!” But if — God forbid — Kim proves his insanity we will survive as a nation.

Thanks! Your answer gave me some reference points for further reading on the subject. I was aware of the “starfish” test over the Pacific that caused some issues in Hawaii but it did not plunge them back to the stone age... It seems precluded that this type of weapon would be a sure success and I was not sure of the basis for that. I had a coworker that used to go to Vegas to watch the tests so that should have been brutal on their grid and I wandered why it was not.

The good news: North Korea’s bombs would probably be smaller, perhaps much smaller, than Hiroshima’s. That bomb was 1% the size of the one which affected Hawaii.

The bad news: payload has little to do with the effect of an EMP, beyond making its reach arithmetically wider. And duplicating that test WOULD have taken out the grid in the entire U.S had it been over the middle of the U.S. Even a Hiroshima-sized bomb would’ve done very bad things, if launched high in the atmosphere.

The not-so-bad news: We’re better prepared than we were.

The still better news: Getting their missile up high enough to have the maximum EMP effect would also require that their missile expend all of its energy on height, so that it could never reach the mainland.

Why we need to act: They’re getting better and better missiles all the time.

“So, yes, I’m all for nuking the Norks if it prevents that. On the other hand, if we hit them, the Chinese might EMP us in retaliation, which comes to the same thing.

2 posted on 8/10/2017, 10:12:58 AM by backwoods-engineer (Trump won; I celebrated; I’m good. Let’s get on with the civil war now.)”

While I share your concerns about the effects of an EMP attack (which would have to be executed well, with top-notch equipment - something that NK probably can’t do NOW), I think that your statement about China is 100% off.

First, if China attacks us with an EMP, what are we going to do, play tiddlywinks? Nope, Trump (or whomever is in charge) will light up China BUT GOOD.

Second, even if you had an Obama-type President who wouldn’t hit back even if millions of us were killed in an attack, China would STILL suffer greatly, since our economy would tank so much that the Great Depression would look like good times. China depends entirely on exports, and we are their biggest customer. Also, good luck to them in trying to collect on nearly $1 trillion of US Treasury bonds if they kill half or more of our population. A President who didn’t even cancel that debt in such circumstances would be assassinated by someone in his inner circle who lost family in the attack.

So, NO, China isn’t going to EMP us. Not when the choice is between us and North $hitholestan.

Your ugly, condescending tone is utterly misplaced, since I explicitly (and oddly for a forum like FR) noted, “FOR DISCUSSION ONLY: I’M NOT AN EXPERT..

I didn't think it was ugly, but you are right about the condescension. "NOT AN EXPERT" and "FOR DISCUSSION ONLY" doesn't justify your war mongering but if you are going to do it I would appreciate it if you put a little more thought into your efforts. It's kind of hard to "discuss" your ideas without pointing out the errors in your assumptions right up front.

While there are very advanced technologies in developing the most effective ground-penetrating warhead possible, it’s not nearly as difficult to create a bomb that can withstand terminal velocity.

Spoken like a true expert - which you have admitted you are not. Attaching a proximity detector (bought off the shelf right over the border in China) vs developing a nuclear weapon that can detonate after hitting the ground. Yeah, right, those two are in the same ball park and yet you said that it would have to be detonated on impact and hence less destructive than a detonation at height... kind of makes the rest of your post worthless when you screw up that early in your "discussion." An intentionally dirty nuke detonated over a large city can kill millions but with your caveat that it has to be detonated on impact you throw out that possibility and talk about a few hundred casualties. Yep. Lot's of condescension in my tone.

That’s right: it’s so damned easy to build an impact-detonating bomb we damned near made one accidentally.

And you know that it almost went off how? Ah, your "expert" opinion again.

Only a complete idiot would read what I wrote as saying “Yay! Let’s get bombed by the North Koreans!”

Only a complete idiot would say that we can attack a nuclear and biologically armed nation and expect to suffer only a few hundred casualties.

>> An intentionally dirty nuke detonated over a large city can kill millions <<

Ridiculous, absurd, unadulterated nonsense. You obviously not only know not one bloody thing about what you’re writing about, you’re too lazy and/or stupid to validate your own ignorant statements by looking something up on the internet.

>> And you know that it almost went off how? <<

Government documents declassified in 2013 of Parker F Jones, supervisor of nuclear weapons safety at Sandia National Labs, writing on October 22, 1969 criticizing yet concurring with the assessment by Dr. Ralph Lapp, formerly of the Manhattan Project, made in 1962:

“Lapp’s report lacks objectivity and accuracy. His sources of information are patently erroneous, or he chooses to misuse them for his own benefit. But the central point is correctly stated: one single, dynamo-technology switch stood between the United States and a major catastrophe...”

Again... this isn’t even a bomb designed to detonate on impact; this was a bomb designed to detonate in the air, which almost spontaneously detonated on the ground.

Just so you can appreciate precisely how stupid your notion that a dirty bomb could kill millions is:

“A dirty bomb (RDD) is not a weapon of mass destruction.” — Center for Disease Control.

“In 1987, in Brazil, thieves stole Caesium and distributed it throughout a local population. The effect was similar to a dirty bomb explosion. Despite the International Atomic Energy Agency calling it “one of the world’s worst radiological incidents”, only four lives were lost.”

“The primary threat of dirty bombs are not direct loss of life, but of potentially life-threatening mass panic and economic dislocation.”

“A similarly sized conventional bomb would likely be deadlier than a dirty bomb (RDD), causing death primarily through a shock wave. The chief threat of a dirty bomb would from the ensuing panic.”

Just so you can appreciate precisely how stupid your notion that a dirty bomb could kill millions is:

“A dirty bomb (RDD) is not a weapon of mass destruction.” — Center for Disease Control.

I did not say "a dirty bomb" I said "An intentionally dirty nuke". They are not at all the same thing. A dirty bomb is a conventional bomb that spews radioactive waste over a small area and a dirty nuke is a nuclear weapon designed specifically to spread highly radioactive isotopes such as strontium-90 and caesium-131 across hundreds of square miles. These isotopes, if incorporated into the construction of a nuclear weapon, will still be killing people for generations after the dirty nuke explodes. Damn dude, you really need to stick to subjects you are a least marginally familiar with.

The bomb that "almost" exploded descended on it's parachute. It did not hit the ground (or the water in this case) at terminal velocity.

Wikipedia:

"Three of the four arming mechanisms on one of the bombs activated, causing it to execute many of the steps needed to arm itself, such as charging the firing capacitors and, critically, deployment of a 100-foot-diameter (30 m) retard parachute. The parachute allowed that bomb to hit the ground with little damage."

So, to prove me wrong when I said your scenario of a nuclear armed missile detonating on impact was bullhockey you gave an an example of a nuclear weapon descending under its parachute... Are you about ready to give up yet?

"Ooh, gee... The North Koreans wil NEVER figure out how to build a parachute!"

Oh gee dummy, you are the one that said, and I quote:

"A mid-air on-target detonation would require very sensitive timing, so presumably it would be impact-triggered, and therefore ground-level."

and then you told us that this ground level detonation would, and again, I quote:

"result in only hundreds of deaths,"

So, you continued, we should attack North Korea now before they improve their technology to the point where in the future they could kill "tens of millions" of us with a mid-air detonation.

So, if our casualties would be reduced from tens of millions to a few hundred because North Korea is unable to determine when to detonate their incoming warhead how is it now possible for them to release a parachute on their incoming missile at the proper time when you have already stated that they are currently unable to determine this proper time? Logically speaking, you're sort of stepping all over your toes here Dangus.

I'm not even going to go into your stupidity of conflating the difficulty of deploying a parachute from a missile at incoming terminal velocity with deploying a parachute from a bomb dropped from an airplane since I think you have already embarrassed yourself enough with your war mongering idiocy on this thread. Have a nice day.

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.