The first option is possible I believe. Not gonna happen anytime soon though, are you ready to live that long?

 

I don't think the Soviet-era defense system is still functional and effective against modern missiles.

Moscow has enough deep underground shelters though, so he will be fine if he gets there in time.

Yeah I mean architecturally.

If you aren't in the block getting a direct hit (and let's be real, wect will not just target residential areas for nuclear strike) staying as far inside as possible will save you

then it's a game of enduring a couple days eating iodine pills and not going outside, and hoping wind didn't blow all the fallout right on your building

Im not afraid of getting nuked because as far as I understand it is the most painless way to die. You get vaporized almost instantly. Death is coming at some point anyway so why fear it.

If you're lucky to be close enough.

But being outside, close enough to get irradiated but too far out to just get blown away is painful af. Your body will start slowly decomposing while you're still alive.

Moscow is a mess of residential and industrial areas. Easier to target everything. Considering the defense still may intercept some missiles it's also easier to launch few times more of them than needed to destroy the key points. So I believe the possibility of levelling everything to the ground in such a strategic city is high.

Finally some serious discussion.

 

Voted.

I don't know what kind of bombs wect has but if we consider the blast radius of Tsar bomba or even smaller nukes I don't think it matters where you put the bomb in Moscow, a single one perhaps might vaporize most of the city.

inb4 slovenia enlightens the finn

I might have overestimated it but nuclearsecrecy.com shows this is the "fireball radius", saying everything inside it vaporizes. That is 6km^2.

Wow it's fucking nothing, just hide in a refrigerator during the blast and then step out and continue with your day

Don't try this at home.

If I were a bigot proofster I'd say "nuclear war over ukraine? lmao"

 

But being a russorealist, I say: "nuclear war over r*ssia? lmao"

 

Let's take Tsar bomba then. Yield of 50Mt(TNT). So they say.

Interestingly enough, 50Mt(TNT) also happens to be best estimate of yield of Hunga Tonga volcanic explosion earlier this year. Though in this case, almost all the energy was released as a shockwave, rather than just a good half of it. So, let's compare the two.

https://www.volcanocafe.org/hunga-tonga-and-the-supercriticality-event/ (source for 50Mt figure)

 

The explosion of Hunga Tonga, as you probably know, was so fuckhuge that it was heard all the way to Anchorage, Alaska. That's a distance of some 9350km.

https://twitter.com/NWSAlaska/status/1482431322740060162

Now Tsar bomba was heard 780km away at Dikson Island, where it's reported that a glass also shattered (but that seems to be more a fluke, as we'll see soon.) Nobody heard it in more nearby Amderma, though, but perhaps just nobody was paying attention.

 

Either way, Hunga Tonga was VERY audible in Fiji (huge boom) at 700km and quite audible in New Zealand at 2000km. So, yeah. Apparently the shockwave from Hunga Tonga was more intense, sharper than that of Tsar bomba. We will use this to argue that destruction from Hunga Tonga can only serve as upper limit for estimation of nuclear explosion (and realistically we would be looking at quite a bit smaller effect).

Again, Tsar Bomba's shockwave circled Earth three times, and was measured as 0.6mbar the first time in Wellington, New Zealand. Hunga Tonga's shockwave circled Earth "for days" and was measured as 2.5mbar in Switzerland and 2mbar in England. And yet, in the capital of Tonga, Nuku'alofa, 65km away, it does not seem to have shattered much glass, judging by photos: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/NZDF_Saint_George%27s_Palace_January_2022.jpg

 

Tsar bomba is massively overdimensioned. Typical warheads are in the range of a couple hundred kt(TNT). Yes, some missiles can carry multiple warheads, but we're looking at a Mt or two max.

 

At this point, let me mention that shockwave effects geometrically scale with square of distance (at least, if we ignore dissipation, or possible effects of acoustic focusing by objects/landscape). This is simply a consequence of same amount of energy having to reach a sphere whose surface area grows with square of radius. (Well, once we're dealing with long distances, longer than height of the atmosphere, this becomes a linear law instead, as height is no longer a possible direction of shockwave spreading. It just terminates.) So a 500kt(TNT) bomb, with 100x smaller yield than Tsar bomba, will have similar effects on 10x smaller distances. Little Boy and Fat Man, with their 15-20kt(TNT), again have similar effect on yet 5-6x smaller distance (square root of ratio between 15-20 and 500).

 

Let's then look at reports of damage in Hiroshima and Nagasaki to get a sense of scale.

http://www.nasonline.org/about-nas/history/archives/collections/organized-collections/atomic-bomb-casualty-commission-series/abccrpt_pt3app9ch3.pdf

In Hiroshima, wooden houses (pretty much all the structures in Japanese cities at the time) were pulverized up to 1-2km, destroyed up to 2-3km, badly damaged up to 3-4km and unlivable but still standing. But for concrete buildings, outside 1km there was almost no damage observed. So, if your city is not build of cardboard, this is the metric you should be looking at.

In Nagasaki, damage is greater, not so much due to slightly higher yield than due to topography.

 

Cross-checking with nukemap you mentioned: for 15kt Little Boy, it says:

So, you should take the first metric as radius within which even concrete buildings are destroyed, second metric as radius within which wooden buildings are destroyed (but at this radius, concrete buildings are practically unscathed, aside for windows and doors getting rekt), and the third metric as radius within which even wooden buildings survive (but again, windows might get rekt).

 

Scaling this up 6 times, we get:

But that's without accounting for dissipation, airburst, etc.; for 500kt nukemap instead gives:

And for 50Mt Tsar bomba:

 

Given that not even windows were really rekt in Nuku'alofa from Hunga Tonga explosion, 65km away, I would say the "Light blast damage radius" of 50km for Tsar bomba is perhaps slightly exaggerated. And the descriptions of damage are not necessarily wrong, but they're vague on the side of sensationalisation. But I concur.

 

Now, regarding radiation... there's a big difference between being outside and inside. Why? Because most of the radiation release is blocked by structures. Thermal radiation which is the cause of burns is blocked by solid walls instantly, so just duck and avoid being irradiated through the window. And concrete is also fairly good shield from gamma rays; not as good as lead but still, 15-20% per cm (depends on wavelength.) Similar values for most comparable materials. So your typical 30cm exterior wall will block but a couple ‰ of ionising radiation. So, stay inside and you're good. Even better if you can go further inside so you're also shielded by another interior wall.

 

Now, let'sgo back to the report from Japan, we can read further down reports of people who survived by being in concrete buildings, closer than 1km to the centre:

(in Hiroshima) and several more concrete buildings listed in both cities. As a curiosity, in Nagasaki:

So, that's basically survivors directly in ground zero, simply by the sheer luck of being a bit underground, not even in a real bunker.

 

In light of this, it should also not be surprising that Jesuit priests survived the Hiroshima bombing because they were inside the church at the time, something passed around as a "miracle" by ignorants.

 

>>148228,

6km² ≠ 6km x 6km. 6km² is a circle of radius 1.38km. Superimposed to Moscow, that's about the size of inner ring road on your map.

 

tl;dr nuclearsecrecy.com / nukemap is a psyop that perpetuates the cold war era myth of nukes as the ultimate apocalyptic weapons, cultivated to enforce sword of damocles psychology and to enforce status quo through threat of mutually assured (fictional) destruction. Just stay inside bro. And avoid windows.

Cant read this wall but are you aware warheads can have different payloads, i.e. alpha heavy, blast heavy and etc.

not relevant to discussion as that will stay in the same order of magnitude, except that the ratios are slightly different (so you might have to assume 2x more in one category and 2x less in another)

I heard alpha heavy payloads almost not even damaging buildings.

Cant remember source tho.

certainly sounds plausible

but consider then also that alpha particles (⁴He) are blocked by almost any material even way more easily than gamma rays

similarly with neutrons (another side product of fission devices)

maybe im confusing ray length if its easily blocked by a concrete wall i think it gotta be useless right?

its probably some kind of very poisonous rays which can penetrate buildings.

depends what you drop it onto. it would devastate an army in the field pretty badly

they can probably go around corners too

serious question

 

what if a nuke blast will make me deaf?

Thanks for the info bernd. I have seen much higher exaggerations on Tsar bomba than on nuclearsecrecy.com

 

It sounds that the most danger is the radiation for anyone outside capitals, and in the end nukes don't even produce nearly as much radiation as reactor meltdowns. I don't even know if many people died because of Chernobyl.

4) Passing trannies

It's hard to say.

Official death toll is 31. While this literally only includes those who died more or less right away due to lethal radiation exposure, the usual estimates of ~10k also seem too high. In fact, the number seems closer to just the detected excess thyroid cancer rate. But thyroid cancer has fairly high survival rate.

 

Consider that the average dose of exposure people would get from actually LIVING within the exclusion zone is perfectly comparable with living in places with unusually high background radiation due to presence of radioactive ores, or due to high altitude. And yet those places do not detect significantly higher than normal cancer risk. (Note that specifically thyroid cancer is expected to occur after nuclear accidents, but for other cancers it doesn't matter what source the radiation is. The reason is that thyroid absorbs iodine, and if you were exposed to radioactive iodine (and didn't take the iodine pills then to overwhelm your body with so much iodine that most of it will get excreted), you now have radioactive iodine inside your body continuously doing low but steady damage. Oops.)

And there's indeed quite some people living in there, off the land, eating the produce that grows on supposedly unsafe soil. There's even a girl who was born and raised in the exclusion zone. (pardon the tabloid source: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7121825/Only-child-born-raised-inside-Chernobyl-exclusion-zone-healthy-student-aged-19.html) Wildlife is also thriving. All in all, apart from those parts that were directly contaminated with material from inside the reactor, right next to the power plant, the danger doesn't seem to be present.

 

Another good piece on actual danger of radiation exposure:

https://cancerletter.com/guest-editorial/20210423_3/

Xaxaxaxa

 

Кто о чём

 

Nuclear winter man. Nuclear winter ---> all non-chads die

The whole theory of nuclear winter is based on assumptions that dropping n-words causes widespread fires which in turn create enough heat to pollute the stratosphere like a major volcanic eruption does.

There's nothing nuclear about nuclear winter. You could much more efficiently accomplish the same result by simply setting everything on fire with conventional incendiaries.

nononononononono

 

not fires

 

Dust.

 

You see, throughout 60's and 70's (test ranges, good old times) the earth was cooling down. Guess that was all the dust rising from Semipalatinsk.

 

A similar cooling effect happened after Pitanubo volcano eruption.

Same shit had happened in 1816 (google "year without summer").

 

Luckily for Russ' land, continental climate allowed relatively warm summer, so "enough" food plants was grown anyway

Also, 2010 actually made everything hotter, not cooler. REEEEEEEEEEEE

retardo

 

it's fires, because otherwise dust/ash/whatever cannot continuously penetrate into the stratosphere.

 

2010 was an insignificant volcanic eruption that didn't pollute the stratosphere

Sounds definitely like nuking all the strategic places of the world doesn't provide enough radiation to let society collapse totally.

 

AI taking over earth is something that I have lately felt horrible about. I watched two movies and it really made me feel uncomfortable. However I also find it fascinating.

One theory is that AI wouldn't destroy us completely, but would try to use eugenics to create a perfect human (like in the movie I watched). What I just came up with is that an AI with an order to achieve greater intelligence would want to research everything, such as doing human experiments, as it would want to research neurology to find out if humans have any useful constructs to improve its intelligence. And of course it would choose to analyze the brains of a living human.

Also it could decide that destroying us is a waste, and instead put us into sleep through neuro implants and then control us while we are sleepwalking until we die.

 

Would be ebin

 

My grandma would tell me "Nobody's gonna your life or you".

Guess I will actually get some blissful sleep in the end, lol.

Thanks!

It says "firestorm" actually, not just fires.

 

MASSIVE blasts from da n-words are firestorm-like things themselves.

IMO, we are currently dealing with another kind of AI taking over the world: displacing humans out of their jobs.

 

I mean, it's not "European 1930's shit", it's more like "American 1930's shit" (free market, hungry ass) or "England in 1600's sheep shit" where people cannot sustain themselves because something more profitable is brewing.

Big explosions create a lot of dust and other particles themselves which may not settle for years. When Krakatoa volcano exploded in 19th century some cooling by a degree or so was recorded in the following years.

And the main problem of the nuclear winter is that even a slight cooling by few degrees while almost unnoticable by humans would cause massive drops in harvests. Combine it with broken logistics and you get a lot of people starved to death.

Disappointing innit. No escape.

That's not how it works if it doesn't penetrate into the stratosphere at the start already.

Troposphere and stratosphere generally do not mix, and troposphere has something called "weather" (hence troposphere) which washes everything out of it on the timescale of days.

 

It is fires, though. There is way more heat to be generated out of setting everything on fire than from the explosion itself.

Majority of damage from Hiroshima and Nagasaki was also caused by fires the explosion started, rather than the explosion itself.

t. knower

But it does, if the explosion is powerful enough and happened close enough to the ground. As it was with these volcano cases.

Yes, but unless everything is already on fire and air is full of shit it won't lift enough material into the stratosphere.

You really need sustained large scale fires, one bomb alone won't do.

Hunga Tonga, too, was just a single volcanic explosion, it was huge, but insignificant to effect in stratosphere.

One bomb alone won't do indeed. But if we're talking about some kind of full-scale nuclear war there might be more than one bomb close enough, doesn't it?

No.

I recommend you to read the relevant papers which predicted "nuclear" winter first (& as well as how failure of "nuclear" winter to occur after non nuclear 1991 Kuwait oil fires which should trigger it according to the original predictions debunked most of the theory already anyway)

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.31822020694212

I'll look through it, but 1988 and 1991 was quite a long time ago. If it was proved 30 years ago why do people still talk about the hypothesis? Why did the US and USSR/Russia sign nuke reduction treaties in later years?

It depends on what you call the theory. If it debunked statements about the new ice age coming - well, that's good, but as I said even cooling for few degrees for few years would be very devastating.

Wishful thinking and a lot of psyop invested into proving nukes are bad.

That you can generate enough heat to continuously pollute the stratosphere.

Not needed.

I gave your article a read only conclusions ofc and it states that for few months there would be a significant drop in temperature (on day 35 offset -2 degrees for winter time or -10 for summer time) which sounds quite realistic. And it basically means that the whole next season of harvest may be compromised (especially combined with disruption in wind patterns also mentioned in that article).

Well, instead of only reading the conclusions you should read how it reaches those conclusions.

Protip: it is by assuming that everything is set on fire. Not that nukes themselves cause this.

It actually mentioned combined effect and merging of clouds from dust and fires smoke. And it mentioned that particles from the explosions themselves reach altitudes of 25km which is way above the tropopause.

(And years of being an imageboard user took away my skill of reading long articles...)