Messages
223
Reactions
351
All the folks who were actually paranoid about it, in the '50's (who built bunkers), are past by now. There are so many different scenarios plausible that it's the luck of the draw should some nuclear occurrences happen. Direct assault, or unidentified dirty device(s)? Some folks will be at the wrong place at the wrong time is my take on it. PAX
 
Messages
19,504
Reactions
74,381
Launching a nuke is going to be detected right away, and what ever systems in place to respond will kick in, and weather or not they can do anything or not, at least it's a known! My biggest fear is the ones we never saw coming, the little suitcase nasties snuck in under the radar and placed in areas where they can do the most damage!
 
Messages
3,830
Reactions
7,619
We've had 30 years to forget about it, now of a sudden it's an issue again. It never really went away insofar as the major powers were concerned. There were still the lesser players who were and are making noise, such as Iran and North Korea. Since the Soviet Union went away, we assumed adults were in charge there which has turned out to be an erroneous assumption.

The lesser players can't do as much damage as the larger ones. A nuke going off in one location where they are able to deliver to would be unfortunate for that community but not a national deal breaker. The big players have much greater delivery capability and once that were to get going, it would be what we dreaded during the (first) Cold War. Which the US was never really properly prepared for then. The only blast shelters extant were reserved for high political and military figures. Inadquate fallout shelters existed in urban areas. The focus was mainly on awareness, not significant survivability. Such initial preparations as were made during the Eisenhower administration fell by the wayside during the Vietnam era. After that, the government found other ways to spend vast sums of money such as social welfare programs.

These days, there isn't much political will (or money) for serious official preparation. It's kind of the "ostrich effect," bury your head in the sand and hope for the best.

In my case, I'm old and fairly fatalistic. Nuclear holocaust would be the end of my constellation of physical ailments. The lives for survivors of a major nuclear combat exchange would have lives forever changed in ways we can only now imagine.

The radiation sickness medications currently under discussion would not avail much comfort for concentrated populations anywhere near targeted regions. The pills might be of use in select areas of lower population against drifting fallout. Meaning, far from detonation sites. Like Chernobyl, where no bomb went off yet there was widespread fallout.
 
Messages
1,601
Reactions
2,935
Launching a nuke is going to be detected right away, and what ever systems in place to respond will kick in, and weather or not they can do anything or not, at least it's a known! My biggest fear is the ones we never saw coming, the little suitcase nasties snuck in under the radar and placed in areas where they can do the most damage!
You have much greater confidence in our government then I do that they could detect anything. Hope we never have to find out.
 
Messages
124
Reactions
91
"One of the biggest challenges is educating the public, which requires sustained communication –– something that's become nearly impossible given today's political polarization and short attention spans, Schlegelmilch said."

IMHO that pretty much sums it up. The general public is technically STUPID, emotionally driven, and would not pay attention if we had time to attempt to educate them.
 
Messages
3,830
Reactions
7,619
Of more immediate threat, as I see it. A limited, tactical nuclear deployment by the Russians in Ukraine out of desperation as they get pushed back.

Which if done, would put the US in a real McHale's Navy moment: "Gee skip, what do we do now?"
 
Messages
3,830
Reactions
7,619
Launching a nuke is going to be detected right away, and what ever systems in place to respond will kick in,
There is the subject of anti-ballistic missiles for air defense against ICBM's, you have to wonder how much of it is real, how much is questionable. The US has a patchwork of ABM weapon systems but just like in the movie, "Fail Safe," there is always a weapon that will make it through, 100% effective defense of any kind is a difficult achievement.

Taking it step further, if ABM's were effective in knocking out ICBM's in flight, what would be the effect of the outcome? Meaning, belts of radioactive debris encircling the earth? EMP effect? Etc. Now we are in the age of hypersonic delivery systems, they fly in lower arcs closer to earth.
 
Messages
19,504
Reactions
74,381
There is the subject of anti-ballistic missiles for air defense against ICBM's, you have to wonder how much of it is real, how much is questionable. The US has a patchwork of ABM weapon systems but just like in the movie, "Fail Safe," there is always a weapon that will make it through, 100% effective defense of any kind is a difficult achievement.

Taking it step further, if ABM's were effective in knocking out ICBM's in flight, what would be the effect of the outcome? Meaning, belts of radioactive debris encircling the earth? EMP effect? Etc. Now we are in the age of hypersonic delivery systems, they fly in lower arcs closer to earth.
As of 2008, I knew most of what our capabilities in this were, at our best, maybe 70% Effective at stopping something IF, and that's a great big IF it could be detected at launch! Now, this isn't the whole truth of it, not even close! Those pesky SSN's could sneak in close, launch a salvo and there would be little if anything done to stop that!
As far as successfully intercepting something and then having fall out, that's not really a big thing, for any fall out to occur, the weapon being intercepted would have to actually detonate, which would mean it was a failed intercept. The Weapon would have to be very close to it's intended target for that to happen, otherwise, what's left ( The Warhead(s)) would be inert! This in itself is a big unknown, would Russia or one of the other Nuke Countries have a "default" setting that automatically detonates the weapon if it's threatened before it reaches it's target?

We're also operating under the illusion that we actually know and understand what Russia and the others weapons systems are actually capable of, how long ago were they built and to what level of current capabilities are they currently maintained at?
 
Messages
506
Reactions
855
I'll sum up that entire article in one word.

"No"

At one time the USA had a good civil defense program. - No more.

Nowdays the government, infrastructure and the people are far more dependent on EMP susceptible electronic gear.

People are less self reliant (gardens, stored food, water sources)

Many homes use to have fireplaces, but the environmental crusaders have done much to eliminate that.

So the answer is "No"
 

Latest Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top