> you will die from dehydration in about three days or from starvation in three weeks
The figure given for starvation is a common myth. With access to water, you can expect to live 2 months even under total starvation, or many months in "near-total starvation"[1]. Another medical source that I can't immediately find says that even after ~4 weeks of total starvation, once you have food you can expect to recover completely with no lasting effects.
This is highly variable based on the person involved. You can survive up to three months. Some people might die a lot sooner due to a variety of factors.
Totally depends on how much bodyfat you have. Today I just broke a 14 day wet fast. If it came down to it, I think I could survive for another 2 months at my current TDEE before I hit essential fats. I think that people with obesity could survive significantly longer without food.
My google-fu is failing but there is a famous case where an obese (scottish?) man didn't eat anything except vitamins for an entire year and didn't suffer any significant health effects.
This is a real worry. We're one bad decision by Kim Jong-un or Donald Trump from a small nuclear war. The SF bay area is a likely target. North Korea can probably hit the west coast of the US, but not the east coast.
SF and LA are the only worthwhile targets on the west coast; attacking Portland or Seattle or Anchorage seems unlikely for North Korea.
LA has some missile defenses at Vandenberg AFB, but northern California doesn't.
No it isn't. NK can arguably hit the western Alleutians, if you trust a Russian source. That's what they mean when they "continental US," stretching that reach is plain fear-mongering. Second, due to the planet's shape, once NK can hit LA, it can hit most of the US, and the east coast is not much of a stretch. ICBMs come in classes, so to speak, and the "next step" has nearly global reach, but keep in mind that it is still far off for NK. That's why NK's repeated threat recently is to Guam, and the jury is out on if NK can even pull that off accurately. Third, by reducing it to "one bad decision by KJU or Trump" you exaggerate the agency of those individuals. If war breaks out, it won't be because of Trump waking up with a headache. If KJU makes a first strike, all hell will rain down on NK so that simply will not happen.
I'm so glad to see someone else looking at this from a practical engineering standpoint. They've really had a handful of successful distance launches, none of which went much more than 2200 miles which is 50% of the way to hitting the US west coast (and I mean the COAST, not inland). Even then we have no idea how accurate they were since we don't know what their programmed target was. They've had far more failures than successes, and that demonstrates they have incredibly low reliability figures.
Let's also remember that there's still no real evidence they were behind the Sony hack. I'm all for stopping NK from causing trouble and helping their people, but we're hardly at risk in the US mainland. What we really need to worry about is them striking SK or Japan, because that they can do reliably and inflict a lot of damage not just to those nations, but the world economy and stability.
SF and LA are the only worthwhile targets on the west coast
Strategic Weapons Facility Pacific is in Washington, and is the only nuclear weapons storage facility on the west coast. In the "limited exchange" scenario, it would be a plausible counterforce target. Not a lot of civilian development on the Kitsap peninsula, though Seattle would be in the fallout plume. (A counterforce strike would probably be a ground burst)
FWIW, it a 'nuclear armageddon' because it concerns 100-200 nuclear warheads hitting the UK. North Korea doesn't have that capability, either proportionally speaking or in raw numbers.
As for targets, is your estimate of "worth" based on fatalities? Taking out the aqueduct system might have fewer direct fatalities but be more costly in terms of its effect on the agriculture and municipal water supplies.
> Taking out the aqueduct system might have fewer direct fatalities but be more costly in terms of its effect on the agriculture and municipal water supplies
North Korea knows that if it nukes we will turn it into glass. This is the regime’s Hail Mary threat, held as a deterrent. They’re not going to cash it in to take out an aqueduct.
Los Angeles wins on population, but San Francisco is as iconic and, as a symbol of American technological leadership, is a potent symbolic target.
North Korea knows that the US knows that if the US invades or attempts a "decapitation strike" there's a very good chance they'll get off at least one nuke and that nuke has a very good chance of hitting a very vulnerable target.
By having their hand on the button at all times it means the US can't pressure them militarily, and if the US can't do that, the US can't really do anything.
Is the US prepared to exchange millions of lives in exchange for bombing North Korea into oblivion and, if Iraq is any example, facing decades of anti-US terrorism? It's not something you can win with military force at this point.
The only way to fix North Korea is to try and carrot-and-stick your way out of it.
Trump isn't going to strike, at least not until his second term is threatened, and there is no such threat on the horizon yet and i don't see it coming soon (i'm not a fan of Trump, just stating the reality).
For NK - they build ICBMs as a weapon of deterrence and as a cheap [compare to say building a good economy/society - i'm from USSR and saw such situation with my own eyes] way of self-promotion/glorification and society stabilization. If they wanted to strike first, they could have already long time ago delivered their bombs using innocently looking cargo/container ship, small plane, boat, or even large torpedo, etc. or selling it to others who is dreaming about such hits on US and/or allies. Instead, Kim needs something that makes him safe from internal and external threats. Making NK a "nuclear superpower" achieves both goals simultaneously.
With strong disparity in the number of warheads, ICBM isnt really a strike first weapon. If NK ICBMs were a strike first weapon, China and Russia wouldn't let it to happen (it would be very easy for them to prevent NK from getting nuclear, like for example just by not helping that much or by directly sabotaging, and that is without mentioning any serious real steps those 2 could have taken) as otherwise NK could at any time turn it against either of them (may be secretly encouraged by another side). Both of those countries very well understand MAD and internal stabilization of a [poor and autocratic] society, and they want a stable NK. This is why they let (and helped) NK to get MAD (as hits on several or even just one US city would qualify as "Destruction" in the "MAD" today). Especially considering that the alternative - NK made into Iraq/Syria - is just so far beyond acceptable for both, China and Russia.
This is a confused video. NK has ICBMs today. Look at their launches. What they don't have is advanced reentry vehicles and the large numbers of ICBMs necessary to really scare the US.
A reentry vehicle isn't even necessary for an EMP weapon attack though. NK already launched satellites, which proves they can do everything short of reentry.
Putin's KGB nuke team is working hard to help them get ready. Those "leaked" Russian designs for Super EMP weapons and Soviet ICBMs are working well so far.
They don't need a re-entry vehicle to cause enormous damage to a target. An atmospheric detonation would be sufficient to knock out electrical systems over multiple states in an instant.
Can you imagine the mess that Puerto Rico is on power-wise, except over all of California, Nevada, Utah and Oregon?
The whole Saddam story and Iraq war II pretty much guarantees that all nations will seek nuclear armament and will refuse to truly comply with any deal.
Yet another reason Bush II was the worst president of the last 100 years.
Gaddafi was the dictator of another country that got rid of its nuclear program, and he didn't end to we'll either (but that was on another US presidents watch)
Yes, but it was mostly Bush II who institutionalized that doctrine. Obama continued to some extent the neoconservative program with awful consequences. My main criticism of him is that he ran as a radical against those policies and then governed as a lukewarm yes man.
Trump, as obnoxious as he is, would have to be truly terrible to beat the neocons.
I read that Hillary Clinton was pushing for war in the case of Libya, so indeed this kind of policy seems to be institutionalized by now [1]. I wonder how that could happen, as the US didn't get any clear benefit out of the Iraq war, didn't she? By that point in time the consensus seems to have been that the war created a big mess and a big budget deficit, so how could it become institutionalized?
Those interceptors are almost useless, especially against high altitude EMP attacks. There are 44 interceptors total and it takes 4 interceptors per incoming missile. NK could easily end up with dozens and then hundreds of ICBMs. Plus those interceptors probably don't really work very well.
The entire NK stand off may be a trap laid by Putin/Xi Jinping to take over the world. Once Trump attacks, they launch EMPs on the US and make it looks like NK did it.
They could possibly knock out the US nuclear triad. The ICBMs are the main component and they're vulnerable to trickery due to the super short launch window.
All it would take is Trump refusing to launch for 8 minutes and then eliminating 18 x Ohio subs. Russia/China might take some return fire but it wouldn't threaten Putin/Xi personally at any point.
The US should be scrambling to get every nuclear weapon onto a launch platform, like nuclear Tomahawks on every naval vessel, and just shred the START treaty. Major US allies should have 500+ independently developed weapons.
We're currently living in a dangerous time where MAD may not actually be in effect and it could lead to WW3.
It’s fun to speculate and worthwhile to perform thought experiments. However, is there any basis for your theories regarding Russia/China and NK?
Also, why is it a only triad? Where’s space in all of this? Wouldn’t paranoid sociopathic policy makers with their inflated USA military budgets have already considered the scenarios you’ve described and put multiple contingency plans into place? Just asking.
To offer an alternative, I’d speculate that between USA, Russia and China, all three have privately advanced their own technology to maintain deterrence for the foreseeable future. Just pure speculation of course, I’m not a government employee nor do I have any clearance or special info. Just seems improbable that the USA hadn’t planned for a superpower or alliance trying to disarm all of their nuclear arsenal at once.
Basically, the US military declared itself the victor of the cold war and stopped worrying about China/Russia. After 9/11, it reoriented its resources around anti-terrorism and and smaller "rogue states" like NK and Iran.
At the same time, China and Russia have gone on massive military spending sprees that are entirely aimed at global war.
World peace relies on a single point of failure: the US nuclear forces, which rely primarily on obsolete ICBMs. Failing that, Russia and China could easily take over the world using conventional forces and their own nuclear power.
The US nuclear triad is highly vulnerable, relying on 3 incredibly obsolete and vulnerable delivery mechanisms.
1. US ICBMs were supposed to be replaced and were not due to government bureaucratic bungling. The contracts to replace it are being awarded in 2017. There are 400 ancient ICBMs, in fixed silos, that can't be called back after launch and so may not be launched in time.
2. The 18 Ohio SLBM subs are old and easily found by major enemy navies, and are just one nuclear torpedo each away from being gone. Some may survive but not enough. They should've been replaced long ago.
3. The few dozen ancient B-52s have to fly for many hours to be able to launch their cruise missiles, which means they'll be shot down. Their their run ways may get destroyed before most even take off.
Your whole thread of comments simply sounds paranoid and detached from the reality that the US maintains and funds the continued development of the most advanced strategic warfare system in the world.
The Russians and Chinese can't even deploy a reliable survivable force. Their boomers are either rusting or poorly tested and their forces underfunded.
They can't even regularly deploy attack submarines to the Atlantic Ocean -- how are they going to simultaneously fix, track, and neutralize the US boomer force?
Your entire train of thought on US/RF/PRC deterrence relationships is fantastical.
I wouldn't say the ICBMs are obsolete, any more than an AR-15 is obsolete. They both function as intended. The Minuteman uses a solid booster; can't get more reliable than that. Subs aren't going to get any stealthier. Maybe orbital weapons would give the fastest launch; just drop it. Though they would not be stealthy either.
Though I always thought the proposed tunnel network carrying rail based ICBM was kind of cool. In the event of a nuclear apocalypse, it would be a good place for the mole people to live.
How does world peace/deterrence rely solely on the obviously aging USA triad?
What info do you have on adversarial capabilities beyond speculation and belief about their recent military expenditures?
Do you believe that the USA hasn’t considered your scenario already and put plans into place? Do you believe civilians would know the full extent of our nuclear capabilities?
Why do you believe China and Russia are possibly planning to disarm USA’s triad, and why do you believe they’d have the intelligence to do so? Something about leaks, the nsa, whistleblowers.. is there a connection here? Just speculating based on your notion that USA may be getting ganged up on by China and Russia.
Frankly your line of thought is valuable and worth exploring, and I’d like to see what info can be put on the table to explore your ideas further.
1. The US told its allies that it would handle MAD. The US system relies primarily on aging land-based ICBMs. None of the US' trusted allies have significant nuclear forces of their own.
2. The US has every reason to publicize and brag about nuclear capabilities. The entire point of nuclear deterrence is to make your enemy aware of how dangerous an attack would be. The US has done a ton of press on our nuclear programs. There are probably some contingency plans to arm airplanes with gravity bombs but probably nothing effective.
The US recently tested a Minuteman III by shipping a random missile across the country and reassembling it for launch.
Why did it have to be disassembled, shipped, and then launched? Why couldn't someone tell a random silo to remove its warhead and launch? Why can't they show how accurately it hit its target? It's supposed to be 100% reliable, what's the risk?
3. Putin and Xi Jinping have a lot of incentive personally, even if their countries take millions in casualties.
There's an opportunity gap right now while the US works on its next-generation military systems that will make attacks on the US impossible and preemptive attacks by the US possible.
4. The Chinese and Russian militaries are at incredibly high levels of readiness. Large-scale drills and snap drills can get everything in place without leaking any plan whatsoever. The only two people that have to know the plan are Putin and Xi Jinping themselves.
The U.S. has 20 aircraft carriers.
The next country down has 1 aircraft carrier.
The U.S. also has more naval and air units than both Russia and China combined...aircraft with far superior technology.
With the exception of ground troops and tanks which are sort of becoming obsolete in modern war with things like drones and tomahawks and long range missles combined with the need to cross oceans to deploy...the US has a far superior military.
Combine that with NATO countries who would Ally with us?
It seems like Russia and China even if they combined forces.. wouldn't stand a chance in a non-nuclear global war.
All it would take is eliminating 18 Ohio subs....that seems possibly more difficult than your statement portrays. Interesting comment. You're probably right about the interceptors. It's interesting to hear the perspective of someone who is hawkish on nuclear arms.
”the sort of fallout radiation provided by standard thermonuclear weapons […] decays by a factor of ten for each factor of seven increase in time—in other words, after seven hours, the radiation has decreased tenfold. After two weeks, it’s down to one thousandth. 14 weeks, one ten thousandth.”
With a mix of radiation sources of varying half lifes, it won’t be a 100:1 decrease after 14 hours, but is this, as I guess, just a rough fairly easy to remember fit to some sample curve, or is there some simple mathematical model behind this?
It's a rule-of-thumb. The fission of Uranium and Plutonium results in an incredible diversity of both isotopes and nuclear isomers.
Most of these isotopes exist on distinct decay chains. An unstable nuclear state may decay in more than one mode, each with a distinct time constant. Many of these decays occur as groups of decay chains that occur on extremely short time-scales, and may temporarily remain in metastable states (isomers).
So this general rule results from the superposition of many thousands of reactions, that proceed stochastically with distinct time constants and energy released.
According to the golden rule, rate constants are not directly connected to "energies of reactions", but to matrix elements $<f|H'|i>$ for different eigenfunctions i,f. The energy gap between two eigenfunctions may be very large, but the corresponding element may be zero and the rule would predict rate of transition as zero. It is only approximate rule, so the transition may still happen.
> The danger of radiation from fallout also decreases with time, as radioactivity decays exponentially with time, such that for each factor of seven increase in time, the radiation is reduced by a factor of ten. For example, after 7 hours, the average dose rate is reduced by a factor of ten; after 49 hours, it is reduced by a further factor of ten (to 1/100th); after two weeks the radiation from the fallout will have reduced by a factor of 1000 compared the initial level; and after 14 weeks the average dose rate will have reduced to 1/10,000th of the initial level.
These people would almost certainly die in the disaster scenario described. You are going to need to know more of the survival basics, like, how do you eat?
The figure given for starvation is a common myth. With access to water, you can expect to live 2 months even under total starvation, or many months in "near-total starvation"[1]. Another medical source that I can't immediately find says that even after ~4 weeks of total starvation, once you have food you can expect to recover completely with no lasting effects.
[1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-can-a-pe...