Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nukemap

nukemap.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 124 posts

Re: Nukemap

#71

Post by geenew »

rootusrootus wrote: post #67
lsllc wrote: post #52

I assume we'd be looking at a Topol SS-25 missile type attack from Russia? For a city such as Boston, are we only looking at a single strike, or does the doctrine call for multiple warheads per city/metro area? For Boston at least you only have to be 7-8 miles from ground zero to avoid most of the damage and due to the prevailing winds, most of the fallout (from a ground strike) would be towards the north east (an ai…

> are we only looking at a single strike I like the "only" part :). But in any case, the US and Russia both (by treaty) have about 1500 nuclear weapons ready to use. I'm guessing Boston would get more than one.

I remember hearing that, back in the bad old days of (first) cold war, there was a perverse kind of civic pride about being on the presumed target list. If your city was going to be nuked, then it had to be important.

Re: Nukemap

#72

Post by codingdave »

seanp2k2 wrote: post #53
k__ wrote: post #32

I don't know how much of what I saw online was Ukraine propaganda. But the Russian military seems to be in bad shape. Almost nothing of the new stuff they paraded all these years is used in Ukraine. Some people argued that it's a smart ploy, others say they simply don't have the technology in amounts that are enough for a war. It makes me think, how many nukes does Russia actually have? How many are usable? How many…

I’m pretty convinced that they’re sandbagging to see what happens and how little they can try to get what they want. They’re definitely playing mental games with the rest of the world. What’s much less clear to me is what the actual goal is and what the state of their country will be once it’s settled. Gain Ukraine, lose connection to the rest of the world and most foreign trade, plus put your citizens through hell…i…

There were leaked documents of their plan. They expected it to be a 15 day exercise to take Ukraine. The pushback they have received from the entire world was unexpected. I'm not sure of their plans either, but you can be sure that the current events were not their plans. (Or maybe not so sure if everything is propaganda, but this doesn't seem like a well planned effort by any measure.)

Re: Nukemap

#73

Post by jupp0r »

tablespoon wrote: post #3

I was looking at this the other day, and was wondering how nuclear weapons would actually be targeted against the US. Would they be aimed at city centers or nearby infrastructure? Would each city be targeted with one warhead, or blanketed with several over a large area? Because if there's a full-scale nuclear war, if the Russians only target the center of my city, I probably have a chance of surviving. However if the…

From my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong):

Bunker targets (mostly ICBM silos, heavily shielded targets like the bunkers under the White House, etc) would be targeted with a surface burst because bunkers would withstand air bursts.

Soft targets like airports, major cities, factories, ports, etc would be targeted using air bursts to maximize the destruction by preventing the shock wave and direct radiation from being shielded by geography and buildings.

Re: Nukemap

#74

Post by [deleted] »

sdoering wrote: post #56
lbotos wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but isn't the problem "second strike": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_strike With nukes, you gotta stop your nuclear armed opponent from killing you second, first.

With nuclear weapons you know that getting all enemy weapons is a slim chance. So you aim for maximum destruction of the enemy. If I had to decide on targets I would go for max destruction in terms of lives. In the initial impact and in the long term. So the biggest cities, nuclear power plants, water supply, food production. As said when usi g this option I don't expect my people to survive as well.

[deleted]

Re: Nukemap

#75

Post by agency »

nostrademons wrote: post #54
tablespoon wrote: post #3

I was looking at this the other day, and was wondering how nuclear weapons would actually be targeted against the US. Would they be aimed at city centers or nearby infrastructure? Would each city be targeted with one warhead, or blanketed with several over a large area? Because if there's a full-scale nuclear war, if the Russians only target the center of my city, I probably have a chance of surviving. However if the…

The vast majority of nukes are "counterforce" - they're targeted against military targets, primarily the enemy's own nuclear arsenal. Strategic reasoning for this is pretty simple: only by destroying the enemy's weapons can you prevent the destruction of your own citizens, and destroying the enemy's citizens is pretty cold comfort if all of yours are dead. I've heard that each Minuteman 3 silo in the U.S. has multipl…

"Fun" fact: Seattle is 20 miles (as the crow flies) from Naval Base Kitsap which is the home port for all of the pacific fleet of Trident ballistic missile submarines.

Re: Nukemap

#76

Post by baybal2 »

nostrademons wrote: post #54
tablespoon wrote: post #3

I was looking at this the other day, and was wondering how nuclear weapons would actually be targeted against the US. Would they be aimed at city centers or nearby infrastructure? Would each city be targeted with one warhead, or blanketed with several over a large area? Because if there's a full-scale nuclear war, if the Russians only target the center of my city, I probably have a chance of surviving. However if the…

The vast majority of nukes are "counterforce" - they're targeted against military targets, primarily the enemy's own nuclear arsenal. Strategic reasoning for this is pretty simple: only by destroying the enemy's weapons can you prevent the destruction of your own citizens, and destroying the enemy's citizens is pretty cold comfort if all of yours are dead. I've heard that each Minuteman 3 silo in the U.S. has multipl…

No post body was provided.

Re: Nukemap

#77

Post by nostrademons »

minot wrote: post #46
wonderwonder wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Each to their own but I have never understood this way of thinking. I have kids, I would want them to survive and to have a chance at life even if its not the shiny modern one. I would also want them to have kids and so on. Life would obviously be hard but it would still be life. Death comes soon enough for everyone anyway. Obviously the best outcome is no nukes at all.

I think the difference is I don’t have kids. I would like to think I want kids but there is no way I can afford having kids especially given I’m not sure if I can even afford to retire. I don’t understand the way of thinking of people millennials and later who aren’t at least millionaires who choose to (not counting accidental pregnancies) have children.

I'm a millennial with kids. I've been predicting that the world ends in nuclear holocaust for the last 15-20 years or so, since I was a teenager. My wife and I had the "If the future is going to be as bad as you predict, why bring someone new into this world?" conversation before we chose to have kids.

The simple reason is that if we don't, we lose by default. Survival is the Great Game, the one that has been going on throughout history and will continue to go on for as long as life continues to exist. In the U.S. we've been lucky enough to not need to play the game for the last 3 generations or so, with survival basically assured, and so a lot of people have forgotten how to play. In its absence, we've made up a lot of other games, like "Will I get more karma on Hacker News?" or "Will I get promoted at work?" or "Will I get rich by picking the right cryptocurrency?" But it's worth remembering that these are games, on some level their results don't matter (certainly not if there's a nuclear holocaust), and we may be once again called on to play the Great Game again.

So I just try to be grateful that I don't have to play the survival game right now, while keeping perspective and remembering that that can change in an eyeblink, and trying to keep my wits and skills sharp enough that I could pick it up again if needed.

Re: Nukemap

#78

Post by yellowapple »

c03 wrote: post #27
lkbm wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recently learned about the "nuclear sponge" strategy. The US has a bunch of ICMBs stationed in remote areas in hopes of drawing nuclear strikes to those areas, away from population centers[0]. [0] https://kottke.org/20/10/americas-nuclear-sponge

However nice that sounds, that is unlikely to happen. History shows that targeting civilians is by far the most effective to make the opposition concede.

> History shows that targeting civilians is by far the most effective to make the opposition concede.

Judging by how WW2 went, history seems to show the exact opposite.

Re: Nukemap

#79

Post by bumblebritches5 »

lkbm wrote: post #6
tablespoon wrote: post #3

I was looking at this the other day, and was wondering how nuclear weapons would actually be targeted against the US. Would they be aimed at city centers or nearby infrastructure? Would each city be targeted with one warhead, or blanketed with several over a large area? Because if there's a full-scale nuclear war, if the Russians only target the center of my city, I probably have a chance of surviving. However if the…

I recently learned about the "nuclear sponge" strategy. The US has a bunch of ICMBs stationed in remote areas in hopes of drawing nuclear strikes to those areas, away from population centers[0]. [0] https://kottke.org/20/10/americas-nuclear-sponge

No post body was provided.

Re: Nukemap

#80

Post by OkayPhysicist »

ZoomerCretin wrote: post #59
tablespoon wrote: post #3

I was looking at this the other day, and was wondering how nuclear weapons would actually be targeted against the US. Would they be aimed at city centers or nearby infrastructure? Would each city be targeted with one warhead, or blanketed with several over a large area? Because if there's a full-scale nuclear war, if the Russians only target the center of my city, I probably have a chance of surviving. However if the…

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD1124730.pdf The US defense establishment believes the literal nuclear bombing of cities is an unlikely strategy. Russian first-strike strategy involves the usage of nuclear weapons for their Electromagnetic Pulse generating effects. The ability to destroy electricity delivery, generation, and electronic devices is just as likely to destroy or render ineffective an adversary's ability…

I am... dubious of the actual danger EMP poses to submarines. If they were surfaced, especially if they were attempting to recieve radio communications, sure. But a submerged submarine would be extremely well shielded.

The real question would be whether a submarine captain would be willing to press the button based on radio silence alone.

Post reply on HN