Bernd 2022-05-11 17:06:04 ⋅ 4d No. 148200
To this date, 2022-05-11 aka ZOZZ-OS-LL, the only motivation to stay alive and continue is to witness: 1) AI/robots taking over Earth 2) supernatural beings juming in this world, screaming "noice matrix, now fock ya" 3) 1+2 Getting nuked is still a scary, but at least my townl would be levelled, not left for nuclear winter.
Bernd 2022-05-11 17:07:34 ⋅ 4d No. 148202
>>148200 Mockba should be designed to be nuke-proof tbh As long as you get alert and aren't outside / next to window of course
Bernd 2022-05-11 17:13:42 ⋅ 4d No. 148206
The first option is possible I believe. Not gonna happen anytime soon though, are you ready to live that long? >>148202 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.
Bernd 2022-05-11 18:06:10 ⋅ 4d No. 148208
>>148206 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
Bernd 2022-05-11 18:11:55 ⋅ 4d No. 148209
>>148200 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.
Bernd 2022-05-11 18:40:15 ⋅ 4d No. 148212
>>148209 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.
Bernd 2022-05-11 19:54:10 ⋅ 4d No. 148221
>>148208 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.
Bernd 2022-05-11 20:05:45 ⋅ 4d No. 148222
Finally some serious discussion. Voted.
Bernd 2022-05-11 20:08:33 ⋅ 4d No. 148224
>>148221 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.
Bernd 2022-05-11 20:10:42 ⋅ 4d No. 148226
inb4 slovenia enlightens the finn
Bernd 2022-05-11 20:19:15 ⋅ 4d No. 148228
>>148226 I might have overestimated it but nuclearsecrecy.com shows this is the "fireball radius", saying everything inside it vaporizes. That is 6km^2.
Bernd 2022-05-11 20:21:48 ⋅ 4d No. 148229
>>148224 >1 milliroentgen Wow it's fucking nothing, just hide in a refrigerator during the blast and then step out and continue with your day
Bernd 2022-05-11 20:23:31 ⋅ 4d No. 148230
>>148229 Don't try this at home. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jn4Vhkmb4Lw
Bernd 2022-05-11 21:42:23 ⋅ 4d No. 148231
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"
Bernd 2022-05-11 21:51:05 ⋅ 4d No. 148232
>>148224 <OK, my time to shine 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: >Heavy blast damage radius (20 psi): 340 m (0.36 km²) >Moderate blast damage radius (5 psi): 1.67 km (8.78 km²) >Light blast damage radius (1 psi): 4.52 km (64.1 km²) 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: >Heavy blast damage radius (20 psi): 2.04 km >Moderate blast damage radius (5 psi): 10.02 km >Light blast damage radius (1 psi): 27.12 km But that's without accounting for dissipation, airburst, etc.; for 500kt nukemap instead gives: >Heavy blast damage radius (20 psi): 1.73 km (9.37 km²) >Moderate blast damage radius (5 psi): 3.63 km (41.5 km²) >Light blast damage radius (1 psi): 9.34 km (274 km²) And for 50Mt Tsar bomba: >Heavy blast damage radius (20 psi): 8.91 km (249 km²) >Moderate blast damage radius (5 psi): 20.7 km (1,350 km²) >Light blast damage radius (1 psi): 54.3 km (9,270 km²) 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: >Nippon Bank ... 0.4km south-east ... Out of the total of 75 members, victims were counted as 43. (in Hiroshima) and several more concrete buildings listed in both cities. As a curiosity, in Nagasaki: >50 persons were working to arrange sewage in a cave trench of a hill beside the Nagasaki Prison, just under the explosion center. 7 persons among them, who were in a deepest corner, survived. 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.
Bernd 2022-05-11 22:30:41 ⋅ 4d No. 148234
>>148232 Cant read this wall but are you aware warheads can have different payloads, i.e. alpha heavy, blast heavy and etc.
Bernd 2022-05-11 22:34:27 ⋅ 4d No. 148235
>>148234 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)
Bernd 2022-05-11 22:35:24 ⋅ 4d No. 148236
>>148235 I heard alpha heavy payloads almost not even damaging buildings. Cant remember source tho.
Bernd 2022-05-11 22:43:20 ⋅ 4d No. 148237
>>148236 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)
Bernd 2022-05-11 22:48:34 ⋅ 4d No. 148238
>>148237 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.
Bernd 2022-05-11 22:50:18 ⋅ 4d No. 148239
>>148238 >if its easily blocked by a concrete wall i think it gotta be useless right? depends what you drop it onto. it would devastate an army in the field pretty badly >its probably some kind of very poisonous rays which can penetrate buildings. they can probably go around corners too
Bernd 2022-05-12 06:20:21 ⋅ 3d No. 148248
>>148200 serious question what if a nuke blast will make me deaf?
Bernd 2022-05-12 13:25:47 ⋅ 3d No. 148281
>>148232 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.
Bernd 2022-05-12 19:36:39 ⋅ 3d No. 148295
>>148281 >I don't even know if many people died because of Chernobyl. 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/