News Hawaii false nuclear alert

[MaverickSawyer]

Plans?
Wake up, sigh, grab the wallet and documents, climb down into the cellar, try going back to sleep, climb back up, get a thick cover, climb back down, go back to sleep.

With nukes you are either screwed or not screwed. In the former case you won't wake up anyway, and in the latter case there is no point to wake up early anyway.

You're forgetting fallout. THAT's what has me running like hell to get out of the wind path of a strike.

 

[DaveS]

You're forgetting fallout. THAT's what has me running like hell to get out of the wind path of a strike.

Exactly. Prime example is Chernobyl. The USSR only acknowledged that the reactor exploded after winds carried the radioactive particulates from it over Central Europe.

 

[Andy44]

It really depends on what kind of attack it is and who is attacking.

If Hawaii is attacked by North Korea, it will be at most a handful of poorly-aimed, low or medium yield warheads, in which case your biggest worry is fallout and wind direction, as you will most likely be outside of any major blast areas. Get under cover and try not to be looking out windows. North Korea will very quickly cease to be a threat after that for various reasons. This will be roughly the equivalent of the US nuclear attacks on Japan. Those unfortunate enough to live in blast areas will suffer horribly, but the State of Hawaii overall will ride it out and rebuild, as Japan did.

If, on the other hand, it's a full-blown exchange over the North Pole with megaton-yield MIRVs, things are different. I live close enough to DC to get vaporized, hopefully quick and painless. If you are in an area that avoids this treatment, you will need to have a short term plan for avoiding fallout for the next few weeks at least, followed by a long-term plan for not starving to death in the next few months and years. The US produces a LOT of food, and that will stop. Also, the climate will be wrecked by the nuclear winter effect, which means more than just cold and crop death, it also means UV damage and more crop death, etc. There will be no electric grid, virtually no fuel or oil production, just basically hell and then worse than hell. It is estimated that most of the world's population will survive the initial nuclear exchange, but a large fraction of the human race will starve to death within a few years. Good luck not being one of them.

 

[Graham2001]

I suppose one should be grateful that this scenario did not occur in a major metropolis such as LA or NY.

Actually something similar happened in California last year...

 

[PhantomCruiser]

Honestly there is more to it than nukes. We get a fair share of tornados, plus the annual ice storms in winter and rainfall in spring that can disrupt "normal" services. I'm outside the ten mile line for evacuation of both of the nearby nuclear plants (but would be expected to go to work at one of them should an event occur ).

With the exception of an event at one of the plants, there is usually more than a few minutes warning of an impending event. So I can cut them some slack, but it's clear that Hawaii isn't prepared. I seem to remember a tsunami warning a while back where they fared a bit better with their response, but even with that there was plenty of notice.

For a nuke strike I agree, the civil response is pretty limited and dependent on location. But for most emergencies, don't people have contingency plans? My house was built in the late 50's and the basement is more than adequate for a storm shelter/bunker. Some people would call us "preppers" but having food stocks and supplies was just something I picked up from my grandparents.

Does anyone else remember the regular testing of the "Emergency Broadcast System" when they were growing up? Or am I just showing my age?

 

[jedidia]

Does anyone else remember the regular testing of the "Emergency Broadcast System" when they were growing up? Or am I just showing my age?

They're still doing it in Switzerland, so I assumed it would be the same in places where something might actually happen... :blink:

 

[Notebook]

UK doesn't talk about surviving a nuclear attack anymore. I can remember some films from the COI(Central Office of Information, government propaganda/info) on the telly in the 60's. Not the content though.

There's a nice note in a breifing for government ministers when they were debating Blue Streak(UK Medium ICBM), and the silo option.
It went someting like" A first strike on the UK to neutralise Blue Streak, would require sufficient ICBM's to do the job that our interest in retaliation would be irrelevant".

Looks like they weren't planning on survival for most of the population, UK is too small.

N.

 

[boogabooga]

It really depends on what kind of attack it is and who is attacking.

I think that one has to assume that if one nuclear weapon flies, they ALL fly.

 

[Notebook]

Indeed, heard the Chief of the General Staff talking about nuclear exchanges a while ago. One of his comments: "Everything that's left, goes" Scary stuff.

N.

 

[tl8]

Indeed, heard the Chief of the General Staff talking about nuclear exchanges a while ago. One of his comments: "Everything that's left, goes" Scary stuff.

N.

The British approach to nukes is morbidly fascinating. There is a strong sense of pragmatism and the reality of their usage.

I don't know the command chain, but the UK would have the lowest official that can order the release of nukes? Everyone else has a President or dictator in charge (Israel maybe?).

 

[Notebook]

Haven't researched the current deterrent, which is Trident.
I was just interested with the Blue Streak missile. Basically, the Army had no use for it, the RAF wanted flying machines, Navy didn't want it. So, Blue Streak had no sponsors in the military. So my info is 50+ years old!

For Trident, obviously it has to be self-contained, and as UK wouldn't launch first, or on warning, the submarine commander would press the buttons?
As was mentioned before, its a deterrent, doesn't matter when you get your retaliation in, as long as the other side believe you will launch when attacked.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...-button-who-would-fire-Britains-missiles.html

How could it be deployed when everything else had been obliterated? Each silent submarine carries a "letter of last resort" from the prime minister outlining what Trident operators should do.

That makes more questions than it answers. Would pacifist PM order not to launch?


N.

 

[Quick_Nick]

That makes more questions than it answers. Would pacifist PM order not to launch?


N.

The contents of the letter remain secret so that adversaries always have to consider the possibility of retaliation. But the letter might actually forbid retaliation if the PM does not want to cause the extinction of humanity.
Mutually assured destruction is great as a threat, but would you really want to carry it out fully?

 

[Notebook]

Don't think the UK nukes are enough for extinction. Do a lot of damage to central Europe/Near Asia, but I would think that's it.

N.

 

[Urwumpe]

Don't think the UK nukes are enough for extinction. Do a lot of damage to central Europe/Near Asia, but I would think that's it.

N.

Depends on WHAT you damage...

 

[steph]

Thinking of it, those in submarines and large sea vessels have a high chance of coming out fine. Resources for weeks or months, and with a bit of luck and info, even the ability to chose where to head next. Same for the ISS, though they'd be utterly helpless upon return.

Maybe the southern hemisphere could be largely untouched as well. I don't think much of the stuff in there represents a valid targets

A while ago, the US released the target list used during the Cold War. For my area, it was something like two or three multi-megathon warheads for the military base about 30 km to the east and the airbase about the same distance to the south. My grandparents' house would have been vaporized. They lived close to an airbase and radar station which would have had several hits. Absolutely no chance.

It's interesting to see how even small targets would have gotten hit. There were so many warheads that pretty much anything was up for grabs. Maybe since eastern europe was probably in the flight path of the follow-on nuclear bombers, they didn't want to take any chances with air defenses.

 

[speedademon]

I was kind of surprised at how ill prepared people were. Does nobody know anything about civil defense anymore? Or it a because I'm a cold-war survivor that I still have plans in place?

We are still experiencing civil defence trainings here in Korea(not considered very important, though), thanks to the largest terrorist group in the world controlling half of our country.
It's almost like we are still living in cold war era.

 

[Linguofreak]

A while ago, the US released the target list used during the Cold War. For my area, it was something like two or three multi-megathon warheads for the military base about 30 km to the east and the airbase about the same distance to the south. My grandparents' house would have been vaporized. They lived close to an airbase and radar station which would have had several hits. Absolutely no chance.

It's interesting to see how even small targets would have gotten hit. There were so many warheads that pretty much anything was up for grabs. Maybe since eastern europe was probably in the flight path of the follow-on nuclear bombers, they didn't want to take any chances with air defenses.

I once ran across some old declassified document from the cold war discussing nuclear strategy, and it discussed possibilities for nuclear war aside from the "everyone flushes all their ICBMs at the commencement of hostilities" scenario that tends to be assumed by the public. They didn't rule out that possibility entirely, but they seemed to assume something more like conventional war, escalating to the use of tactical nukes in the combat zone, escalating to limited strategic bombardment, escalating to full strategic bombardment, with the escalation potentially stopping at any stage along the way.

Now, the thing about Eastern Europe is that the Eastern European Plain is the optimal invasion route from Western Europe to Russia or vice versa. NATO would be trying to gain control of it to get the Warsaw Pact off their doorstep, and Russia would be trying to hold onto it to keep NATO off their doorstep, so alot of the fighting would happen there. Romania would be a target because of the potential for troops holed up in the Carpathians to flank an advance through Ukraine. Similar considerations hold today, except that this time through the nations of Eastern Europe are more closely aligned with NATO than with Russia.

 

[Notebook]

Thinking of it, those in submarines and large sea vessels have a high chance of coming out fine. Resources for weeks or months, and with a bit of luck and info, even the ability to chose where to head next. Same for the ISS, though they'd be utterly helpless upon return.

Maybe the southern hemisphere could be largely untouched as well. I don't think much of the stuff in there represents a valid targets
"snip"

Sounds like you wrote the book for:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Beach_(novel)#Title

Unwatchable I'm afraid, but a good scene to watch to get a feel of the movie. Don't watch if you need cheering up!

Try 1:14:35 in:

N.

 

[Andy44]

I think that one has to assume that if one nuclear weapon flies, they ALL fly.

That is really only one possible scenario.

---------- Post added at 06:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:33 PM ----------

Sounds like you wrote the book for:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Beach_(novel)#Title

Great Scenes: Waltzing Matilda Finale - YouTube

Unwatchable I'm afraid, but a good scene to watch to get a feel of the movie. Don't watch if you need cheering up!

Try 1:14:35 in:
On the Beach 1959 Full Movie - YouTube


N.

That movie, technical errors aside, stands the test of time as a great and terrifying film.

 

[Notebook]

Indeed, I mean technically not content of course. Worth a watch if you can get a good copy.
Direction reminds me of Kubrick, cinematography marvellous. Excellent cast, shows Fred Astaire in a new light.

N.