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

101–110 of 124 posts

Re: Nukemap

#101

Post by beeboop »

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 and have also chosen to not have kids (vasectomy) for similar reasons - it's expensive, the world feels unstable, and mental illness is pretty bad for both me and wife. However I don't fault people who highly value having kids, and I think it's an extremely human trait to want them with a higher priority than anything else.

Re: Nukemap

#102

Post by pvg »

geenew wrote: post #90
dang wrote: post #81

This counts as a dupe because there was a major thread in the last year or so (two, in fact). This is in the FAQ: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html . For the curious, some related threads: Nukemap Is Down - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30516807 - March 2022 (4 comments) 10 Years of Nukemap - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30282649 - Feb 2022 (56 comments) Nukemap - https://news.ycombinator.com/i…

In this case, it's more of a proxy for discussion of fears of nuclear war given the rise in tensions since the invasion of Ukraine, I think.

probably but that only makes it even dupier

Re: Nukemap

#103

Post by nradov »

beeboop wrote: post #101
minot wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 and have also chosen to not have kids (vasectomy) for similar reasons - it's expensive, the world feels unstable, and mental illness is pretty bad for both me and wife. However I don't fault people who highly value having kids, and I think it's an extremely human trait to want them with a higher priority than anything else.

Unstable is the default state of the world. Throughout history there have only been a few brief periods of relative stability. Now we are living through a reversion to the mean.

Re: Nukemap

#104

Post by amanzi »

In the third ring ("Thermal radiation radius"), my reading of it implies that you have 100% chance of third degree burns. But is that if you are standing outside in the street? I read recently that your chances of survival increase greatly if you stay inside your house with closed doors and windows. Or would the radiation still easily penetrate inside your house?

Re: Nukemap

#105

Post by ben_w »

geenew wrote: post #86
ben_w wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not a weapons expert so I DuckDucked RS-28, and apparently it’s a missile not a warhead? Wikipedia says it can have a payload of: > 10–15 MIRVs[3] Unspecified number of Avangard HGVs I don’t know how to make use of this information.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targeta... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targeta... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avangard_(hypersonic_glide_veh...

Not what I meant, those were linked directly by the bit of Wikipedia I quoted.

I don’t know the implications of having these as a payload.

What size warheads can be mounted in this particular missile’s MIRV option? Are they typically all warheads or are most decoys? If multiple, are they likely to be redundantly targeting the same location, or is this used to target multiple locations from a single launch? The Wikipedia page on MIRVs basically answers “yes” rather than expanding my intuition for how these are likely to be configured.

The Avangard article specifies warhead payload range, but I have no idea how it’s intended to be used even if the maximum count per missile was not unspecified.

Re: Nukemap

#106

Post by Volundr »

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…

> If you live in a suburban bedroom community, there is a very high chance of you surviving an initial attack unscathed.

"Unscathed" is a questionable term here. Sure you likely don't get vaporized in the initial blast, but given grounds strikes, which to my understanding are more likely in a modern nuclear exchange you likely get enough radiation from the fallout you wish you had been vaporized. Depending on prevailing winds this can be true for a shocking distance from the impact site.

Re: Nukemap

#107

Post by geenew »

ben_w wrote: post #105
geenew wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targeta... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targeta... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avangard_(hypersonic_glide_veh...

Not what I meant, those were linked directly by the bit of Wikipedia I quoted. I don’t know the implications of having these as a payload. What size warheads can be mounted in this particular missile’s MIRV option? Are they typically all warheads or are most decoys? If multiple, are they likely to be redundantly targeting the same location, or is this used to target multiple locations from a single launch? The Wikipe…

IANANWEONWP, but:

For the number of decoys vs warheads, I /think/ the only real design limit is the throw-weight of the missile and volume of the fairing. This[0] has slightly more information on decoys. The 'it depends' remark is based on the fact that, AFAIK, the choice of decoy:bomb ratio depends on what the attacker thinks they need. Since the US ABM stuff is currently just for very limited strikes, I would guess they wouldn't waste too much space on that. But, they have an option to increase the ratio of decoys:bombs if the US ABM gets denser.

The SS-28 missile has a high throw-weight, in either case; it's replacing the SS-18, which had the record.[1] The wiki page on Russian warheads is mostly filled with 'Unknown model XX megaton warhead', so there's not much detailed info on mass for that side of the equation.

For the Avangard, the advantage that hypersonic vehicles give over a bog-standard ICBM warhread (which themselves travel at hypersonic speeds) is that they're manoeuvrable, so that they can approach a target from an unexpected trajectory . They don't have to fly on a simple arc, and they can change direction, for example, launch from North Korea, fly over the ocean, then attack South Korea from the west. A couple places I heard them discussed was on The Diplomat's podcast[2], and a CFR podcast[3].

One last thing, if you need more things to not think about: FOBS, which poses a similar threat as hypersonics.

Edit: one last last thing: One way to think about decoys/hypersonics/etc is that they are, in a backwards way, a good thing, since they /re establish/ mutually assured destruction. Without MAD, the whole situation becomes more unstable.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penetration_aid [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-36_(missile)#R-36M_(SS-18) [2] https://thediplomat.com/2021/10/the-inter-korean-missile-rac... [3] https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/hyperventilating-over-... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_Orbital_Bombardment...

* I am not a nuclear weapons engineer or nuclear war planner

Re: Nukemap

#108

Post by Jill_the_Pill »

mikewarot wrote: post #50

You don't know where the incoming ICBMs are targeted... Beau offers a much simpler way to think about this and plan ahead that could save your life https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ox8ZDbCNTCE

What a sweet guy and a clear communicator. He should be training our public health officials in communication.

Re: Nukemap

#109

Post by sbierwagen »

malandrew wrote: post #62

I would love if this was designed to take into account elevation data so you could figure out what areas would be shadowed by natural structures like hills. For example, I'm in Seattle, but on the East side and I expect to be fully shielded from a surface detonation in downtown and to be mostly shielded from air detonation depending on the altitude. Speaking of air detonations, what altitudes are most nuclear missile…

Airburst height varies based on warhead size. Bigger the bomb, the higher the damage-maximizing airburst altitude.

And don't be entirely confident about where a bomb would be detonated. Nearby explosions can push a reentry vehicle off course. (RVs can't maneuver, so it can't adjust course when pushed. Not that there's a lot of time to steer at Mach 23.) Maximum accuracy requires GNSS satellites to be intact and the RV to be able to hear them, neither of which may be true in a full nuclear exchange.

Re: Nukemap

#110

Post by kqr »

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.

In many parts of the country the people have voted in a government that doesn't let you starve even if you have children.
Post reply on HN