Jerseyspud wrote: ↑Sat Mar 05, 2022 6:38 pm
Thing is nukes now are a much more precision bomb.
If the nuclear attack is a terrorist event that could be very much a precision hit probably loaded on the back of a lorry and driven into position. Worse news is that it would likely be a city like London rather than a military target to maximise casualties.
The other option is of course a strike by a hostile power and at the moment that's looking like Russia as the prime suspect. Somewhere like North Korea is more likely to target the US rather than us. The less than stella performance of the Russian military in the current situation can't help but make me think just how effective their nuclear weapons are or would be. How precision a weapon might they actually be ? There seems to be a train of thought with the Russian military of "good enough" . The T34 wasn't the best tank but it was good enough , the AK might not have had the accuracy of NATO rifles but it was good enough for most cases. Could their nuclear weapons be the same? Is it really necessary to drop the bomb in the centre of London , if it hit say Reading would that be good enough to cause mass casualties and disruption?
Jerseyspud wrote: ↑Sat Mar 05, 2022 6:38 pm
Thing is nukes now are a much more precision bomb.
If the nuclear attack is a terrorist event that could be very much a precision hit probably loaded on the back of a lorry and driven into position. Worse news is that it would likely be a city like London rather than a military target to maximise casualties.
The other option is of course a strike by a hostile power and at the moment that's looking like Russia as the prime suspect. Somewhere like North Korea is more likely to target the US rather than us. The less than stella performance of the Russian military in the current situation can't help but make me think just how effective their nuclear weapons are or would be. How precision a weapon might they actually be ? There seems to be a train of thought with the Russian military of "good enough" . The T34 wasn't the best tank but it was good enough , the AK might not have had the accuracy of NATO rifles but it was good enough for most cases. Could their nuclear weapons be the same? Is it really necessary to drop the bomb in the centre of London , if it hit say Reading would that be good enough to cause mass casualties and disruption?
ICBMs are multiple warhead devices. IIRC, something like 6 nukes and 3 dummies. They don't need to be accurate. Just the destruction in morale would be more than enough 'Bang for your buck' to Putin, who seems to either not know, or not care who or what they hit.
Graceful Degradation! Prepping's objective summed up in two words. Turning Disaster into Mild Inconvenience by the power of fore-thought
Yeah that's how i was thinking.. A single bomb hitting anywhere is going to cause death and destruction and be very disruptive. Ok so there would be more if it hit the capital but even a hit in the Scottish highlands is going to have an effect. One effect might be to make the hostile power shoot a few more over and for us to retaliate in kind and escalate the whole thing. Kind of makes preparations at best hit and miss.
Well, I've been doomscrolling those interweb pages again and come across this guy. Very unassuming prepper YouTube channel. He states he's a nuclear expert trained in the military but we can all be anything on the internet.
Anyway, first in a series of how to survive a nuclear attack, https://youtu.be/8EREpYxO4dk
It's aimed at a wide audience (not just the prepper community) and has some sound advice on what to do in the initial few days. The expert interviewed seems knowledgeable.
One thing I didn't know, don't use conditioner on your hair as it can fix radiations!
Also a great story about a Japanese guy who survived both Hiroshima and Nagasaki, either the unluckiest or luckiest man in the world depending on your perspective and who lived to be 80 years old...