Established Member
I'm confused...doesn't fusion not produce much, if any fallout? Wouldn't they want more the reaction to be from fission then from fusion if they want to avoid heavy fallout?Due to some design characteristics (and the overwhelming desire to make devices as clean as possible), even in a fusion device, most of the explosive yield comes from the fission component, not the fusion.
Order of Kilopi
Don't forget their national pastime is chess---ours is what---playing ballgames?Originally Posted by Kebsis
Established Member
I'm no expert in this area but this doesn't pass the smell test for me. Joel Skousen is a complete woo-woo. He has articles with names like "New World Order Factions Struggle for Control" and he thinks that the Soviet Union secretly still exists and is planning WWIII. Coincedently enough he has a line of books out on how to build houses that would survive armageddon. This guy is like Nancy Lieder or an HBer, not a reputable source.
Order of Kilopi
Degustibus non est disputandum.
Established Member
The variables are so great that there is no way of seeing this objectively.
A could be a way bigger then what we may think.
B could be a lot nastier than we could believe.
Cival war could be a norm. Cival war at a small scale. As some have said why liston to the other fools?
Established Member
That's nonsense. There is no other way to describe it. The one solid factual statement (a production rate of 3 ICBMs per month) is out by a factor of almost an order of magnitude. Lets look at another example of this idiot's ravings.
This also is utter nonsense. The policy of absorbing a first strike and then retaliating was laid down by Kennedy in 1961 and had been re-affirmed by every President since then. It reflects the absolute need to be sure that a strike really is a strike not a false warning. (one might reflect that any policy on which Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan agree must have something to say for it). We've had a lot of false warnings of inbound strikes.President Clinton directed our military to absorb a nuclear first strike rather than launch on warning (our only true deterrent to a first strike) and to prepare to retaliate afterward. That first strike will take down all command and control, all bombers (since none are on alert), most missiles, and all satellite and submarine communications.
Which is why launch on warning is insane, psychotic moronic idiocy. Nobody who has even the slightest understanding of what nuclear weapons are and what nuclear strategy involves would make such an asinine proposal. If this lunatic's policy had been adopted, we would have had a dozen or more nuclear wars over the last decade alone. His comments are so stupid they deny rational belief. At this point we can ignore everything else this moron says. He is simply to ignorant to have any credibility. He should be locked up in an asylum somewhere where he can't do any damage.
The first strike will not take down our C4I, bombers etc etc. The system is deliberately designed to ride out an attack. Its multiply-redundant with a plethora of interconnecting links and communication paths. Once again, this moron is speaking from abysmal ignorance. Furthermore, its inexcusable ignorance - there are plenty of sources out there that give accurate information; a ten-minute google research should have told this guy he is spouting garbage.
There are plenty of reliable sources on defense information out there (the DoD website is as good a place as any to start). Why waste our time linking to this woo-woo
Established Member
The Russians are probabaly lucky to have sufficient diesal to get to their nuclear sites. Build new stuff? Do not think so. If so, fools they be. The Russians have enough crap to keep them world players for a long time. No need for special new nukes.
Established Member
The problem is that nuclear weapons have a limited shelf-life; after a while they have to be dismantled and re-manufactured. What's hanging the Russians up is a deathly shortage of remanufacturing capacity - the same facility has to deal with nuclear devices, fuel rods for reactors and a clutch of other things. The Russians are actually building around five- six ICBMs a year. The catch is their older ones are falling apart at a much faster rate so the actual size of their deliverable arsenal is going down not up. Add in the fact that their ability to keep their devices working is inadequate and one can see why they aren't worried by their falling ICBM strength.
By the way, sticking bio and chemical weapons onto ICBMs is a lot more difficult than it seems.
Established Member
I am not sure why the Russians, as you say, are not worried by their falling ability: as stated in your second to last sentence. If they are worried, they will try harder. If not, they have no more worries then the rest of us none nuke types. If they wish to be part of the "nuke" club. Have fun! There are many countries in the world that could be in this club and choose not too. If you do not want to run with the big dogs: stay on the porch.The problem is that nuclear weapons have a limited shelf-life; after a while they have to be dismantled and re-manufactured. What's hanging the Russians up is a deathly shortage of remanufacturing capacity - the same facility has to deal with nuclear devices, fuel rods for reactors and a clutch of other things. The Russians are actually building around five- six ICBMs a year. The catch is their older ones are falling apart at a much faster rate so the actual size of their deliverable arsenal is going down not up. Add in the fact that their ability to keep their devices working is inadequate and one can see why they aren't worried by their falling ICBM strength.
By the way, sticking bio and chemical weapons onto ICBMs is a lot more difficult than it seems.
Established Member
The falling ICBM numbers don't worry the Russians because they have onlya limited number of devices to put on them; so they are keeping the number of missiles needed to deliver what they've got and letting the rest go rot. Russia isn'ta superpower any more but it is a major regional power. In that environment, being nuclear-capable buys a lot, especially whn one has huge land borders to defend and economic reosurces don;t allow troop levels adequate for the purpose. Nuclear weapons are a very cost-effective option for defense.
Order of Kilopi
"Safe" is a very relative term. Today US is an extremely risk-averse society, absurdly so by the standards of most of the world. If mercury levels in fish are high enough for even a remote chance of slight birth defect, the river will get a warning. In countries where birth defects are common, people will eat this fish with relish, and never notice any effects - not because they are careless, but because the effects will be completely swamped by birth defects from other sources. Yet these people survive and breed. So unless the fish downwind from the blast were so radioactive as to kill you quickly, you'd be better off eating it than starving. Sure, it would give you cancer eventually, but in the scenario described cancer will pretty much standard cause of death anyway.
I like to point out that by EPA standards the entire city of St. Petersburg is a radiation hazard. If the house I grew up in (or the hospital I was born in) were transported to anywhere in US, it would have to be cordoned off and razed by guys in moon suits and scary-looking machinery. Yet here I am, perfectly healthy with an advanced degree, and genetically normal children.
Order of Kilopi
Sorry, I disagree. Herbal contraceptives such as pennyroyal (technically, they are abortifacients) have been known since ancient Greece, and are still widely known today. Granted, they are neither very reliable nor particularly safe (drinking pennyroyal tea every time you ovulate will eventually destroy your liver), but they are a lot more reliable than nothing, and a lot safer than giving birth yearly in unsanitary conditions. And I suspect that in a post-nuclear world herbal medicine and its practicioners would be held in very high esteem. Much higher than in Middle Ages, when they were persecuted as witches, and use of abortifacients was especially targeted by the Catholic Church.
Established Member
As a super paranoid Canadian, I see some disturbing parallels to what you state about the Russians, and, what I see in my own land. Would it not be a good idea if Canada was to make some nukes to be more credibile? We have no troops. Maybe it would be easier to produce a few nukes; thereby, everyone would take us (Canada) seriously? We have vaste resources, the most resource hungry country in the world is next door: and they (the United States) have attacked us twice before.The falling ICBM numbers don't worry the Russians because they have onlya limited number of devices to put on them; so they are keeping the number of missiles needed to deliver what they've got and letting the rest go rot. Russia isn'ta superpower any more but it is a major regional power. In that environment, being nuclear-capable buys a lot, especially whn one has huge land borders to defend and economic reosurces don;t allow troop levels adequate for the purpose. Nuclear weapons are a very cost-effective option for defense.
What do you say?
Order of Kilopi
Great thread. One of the best I´ve seen. Congrats, Stuart, for your acute insights.
Established Member
It is certainly an argument one could make; in fact, under certain circumstances a very good argument. However, there needs to be a very careful assessment made here. What exactly are the strategic threats facing Canada? Are they of the scale and magnitude that require a significant defense investment. That means the development of the devices themselves (not costly), the delivery vehicles (costly) and the command control systems (very costly). There was a time when the Canadian forces were nuclear equipped - that's why the CF-104 was modified the way it was. That capability was surrendered because the way the situation evolved made the maintenance of a nuclear capability less appropriate (in the government's eyes at least).
If you were in a situation where your national security was seriously threatened by a large conventional enemy then the institution of a nuclear capability would make a lot of sense. However, if you are contemplating the possibility of a US invasion,. the solution is much simpler. Meet the troops at the border, give them all large helpings of poutine and watch them drop dead of heart failure.
Established Member
I don't disagree that contraception existed back then (there is evidence that the ancient Greeks used vaginal sponges and other herbal medicines were used in the Far East). Condoms made from lamb intestine also have a long history) However, I did stress the word reliable. Modern contraception, that is both reliable and easily available, is very much a derivative of the mdoern industrial age. I have no doubt that such remedies would return - as would the use of hebal medicines (modified by surviving medical knowledge that would highlight the effective and reject the ineffective). But they are not safe, effective or widely available.
We only need to look worldwide to see that. However much one may argue the existance of such contraceptive methods, they were neither widely used nor were they effective; in fact they still are not - because we can see how ineffective they are in comparison with modern methods. Worldwide (not just where the Catholic Church) held sway, the old herbal and other methods simply did not work on a society-wide level. They may have worked ona limited scale for a small group of people but we can see for ourselves they hd no impact on a society-wide level - which is the level we are looking at here.
Established Member
Most fallout comes from debris that is sucked into the fireball. If we do an airburst (so the fireball doesn't touch the ground) that source is virtually eliminated. Another significant source is the debris of the device itself. If we can design a device so that most or all the fissile in the pit is consumed, then that cuts the amount of contamination down as well. The key to that is to compress the pit and contain the initiation as much as possible. The function of the fusion component is to do that so that it vastly incraeses the efficiency of the fission component. Add in that fusion (as a process) is quite clean, it means we can make a nuclear device that yields very little contamination. And that is the Holy Grail of the nuclear industry.
Order of Kilopi
Please read my post on the mercury/radiation dangers. "Safe" and "reliable" are relative terms. By modern standards, primitive contraceptions are neither, but are a lot better than nothing.
They were never WIDELY used because most people either did not need them, or were in no position to argue. Social classes where limiting the number of children was an advantage AND women had a say in the matter were few and far between. And in these classes primitive contraceptions DID work - enough to make a difference, anyway. And post-nuclear world will start out with (more or less) gender equality AND awareness that limiting childbirth has advantages. That, plus knowledge of herbal contraceptives may not stave off gender inequality forever, but may do for several generations. Long enough to rebuild civilization.However much one may argue the existance of such contraceptive methods, they were neither widely used nor were they effective... They may have worked ona limited scale for a small group of people but we can see for ourselves they hd no impact on a society-wide level - which is the level we are looking at here.
Established Member
The critical point here is the statement that limiting childbirth has advantages. Not here it doesn't. In fact the exact reverse is true; limiting childbirth is a sure and certain way to extinction. Remember, the A-country has gone and with it most of the industrialized power of a country. Things like agriculture and production are back to manpower. The death rate doesn't stop with the day of the great laydown, the population will plummet for years afterwards. Hig birthrates are essential to compensate for that. Also, in such circumstances, large numbers of children are an essential investment in the future - in the absence of machinery, food production is directly proportional to people involved,
My guess is that both contraception and abortion will be illegal within a few decades after the Great laydown. It'll vary from group to group, some will take longer than others but they'll all end up at the same place. Babies are essential for the future, the more of them, the better for that future. Your herbalist who sells a contraceptive tea lasts as long as it takes for the authorities to find him/her. Then they get hanged from the nearest tree.
There is a reason why pioneer cultures have large numbers of children - its because if they don't, they die. Same applies here, the overwhleming need is to replace casualties and have the largest possible next-generation. Anything that gets in the way has had it. If a herbal contarceptive gets in the way, its gone together with anybody who tries to distribute it.
Established Member
In western cultures, that's the case now. In the USA at least, women outnumber men, and women voters outnumber men voters. Women seem to prefer electing men as wielders of power.Again, a very valid point. I think the main difference, though, is likely to be education. During the Middle Ages, education was largely in the hands of the Church - an organization that was male-dominated - so there was a self-reinforcing system. In a post-laydown society, bringing up children and their education is likely to be in the hands of women and will reflect that environment. I can see a situation arising where power is exercised by men, but which men get to exercise power is decided by women (which, by the way, happened quite often in the Middle Ages).
Order of Kilopi
ALL non-muscle power is gone? Sorry, I find that hard to believe. There is A LOT of decentralised power production distributed through B-country. Generators and tractor engines can be converted to run on wood alcohol. Wind and waterwheels can be used to make electricity. Sulfa drugs can be made to combat infections. I suggest you read the novel "1632" by Mike Flynn (a small West Virginia town -- perfect B-country -- is magically transported into 1632 Germany). MANY things could be done which were not available in pre-industrial age. But they all depend on retaining the scientific knowledge and hands-on skills -- a lot of which will be in the heads of women. A society which turns all of its women into baby factories may soon get overrun by a smaller in numbers but better armed and better equipped society which allows them to work productively.
Established Member
To add too the contraceptive world, this argument would ONLY have merrit in the Western world. Any survivour outside of the west, and, maybe China and India---maybe---would do just what Ilya has stated. Outside off this Western world, there is nothing to stop a resumption of that what they have been doning/done for the last 180,000 years.
We, in the west, would have too make decisions within one generation.
There is no way that any western women would volutarily surrender personal soverenty without a dang good reason.
Order of Kilopi
I assume you mean "inside of the west".
Established Member
Why does it matter? Making our own weapons cleaner does not help us much if our enemies’ weapons are dirty—unless we give that technology to them, which does not seem likely.
In your recovery scenario, I think you’re overstating the regression of our technology overmuch. It’d take casualty figures much higher than you are projecting to kick us back to 17th century levels across the board. The average home in the US has better hand tools in its basement or garage than the settlers at Jamestown had, and a single surviving Wal-Mart or Home Depot would represent more goods and tools than the US produced in a decade in the 1600s to early 1700s. Basic knowledge of sanitation, medicine, and first aid would also put us well ahead of frontiersmen. Some areas (the ones with plentiful local resources and where local governments are skillful enough to salvage key infrastructure and protect resources from looting) would recover quickly, and become the new centers of industry with technology close to pre-war conditions. Outside of those havens, life could get pretty harsh, though. No doubt some regions would regress to frontier-like levels as fuel shortages and infrastructure decay cut off remote areas.
It would also be very hard to wipe out the basic knowledge of our technology even without the benefit of a surviving department store. I personally could construct a small wind or hydro-electric generator from scratch, given the right scrap materials and enough time—and there are plenty of people more knowledgeable than me that might survive. Given a few good books, I think any reasonably determined and literate community could quickly reconstruct at least a 1920s standard of living with a few more modern “leftovers” tossed in.
For an interesting analogy, the reconstruction in Afghanistan has many of same problems as our post-nuclear war scenario. They are constructing an electrical, sanitation, medical, transportation, communications, manufacturing and water infrastructure from scratch. The food production has been devastated by drought and war. Heavily armed Warlords fight for control of the limited resources. Yet they are making progress, particularly in the areas where the local government is strong. Of course, they have a huge advantage in being able to import food and high-tech resources—whereas a post-nuclear US would have to rely on what remains of its own capabilities.
Anyway, thanks for the fun (though morbid) mental exercise.
Established Member
Read the book, and 1633 as well, and thought it was a lot of fun. I have an electrician for a friend. My freind says that a moron, with enough copper, can generate a LOT of energy. In any world were the fecal matter hits the impeller (I think it was D. Webber whom spoke so), it would be our duty to ensure that every women makes a weighed decision.ALL non-muscle power is gone? Sorry, I find that hard to believe. There is A LOT of decentralised power production distributed through B-country. Generators and tractor engines can be converted to run on wood alcohol. Wind and waterwheels can be used to make electricity. Sulfa drugs can be made to combat infections. I suggest you read the novel "1632" by Mike Flynn (a small West Virginia town -- perfect B-country -- is magically transported into 1632 Germany). MANY things could be done which were not available in pre-industrial age. But they all depend on retaining the scientific knowledge and hands-on skills -- a lot of which will be in the heads of women. A society which turns all of its women into baby factories may soon get overrun by a smaller in numbers but better armed and better equipped society which allows them to work productively.
On to meds. Way back, we used to live a long time. If bullets fly, and people are all shoot up. Let us hope that this will happen right away. At least at the beginning we may have enough good medicine. And, like I said, people used to live a long time.
Established Member
Actually its Eric Flint and I have the novel plus its sequels. However, even there, the problem is that the inhabitants of the town are finding their industrial infrastructure unsupportable and are having to regress. They are going back to roughly an 18th century technology level, interspaced with a few modern wrinkles (the modern often being the 19th century). For example, their rifles are unsupportable once reloadings upplies run out so they are going back to flintlocks (big advance on matchlocks but a long step back from semi-automatics). Yes, a lot of things can be done. However, you underestimate the level of industrialization that existed in the days of the First Frontier - not far from where I live is an 18th century watermill.
The real problem isn't what's available but how it all interlinks. Its great having electricity but how do we distribute it - cabling. Where are the great reserves of cable - in the cities. How do we make light bulbs? In the quantities required? There are things we can make but how do we make the intermediates? How do we trade when areas of the country (including all the hubs) are gone? Its not the damage itself thats the killer, its how things fit together and that's where the problem lies.
Fertilizer - to make fertilizer in industrial quantities, we need nitric acid. To make nitric acid we need stainless steel. The supplies of stainless steel are - incinerated. So, no nitric acid, so no artificial fertilizer. We're back to using night soil.
You are still missing the point. Survival is a function of people - the more people the segments or fragments of the disrupted society have, the greater their chance of survival. Without large generations of children coming up, it won't matter what the society does, its dead. Your point aboput preserving knowledge is valid and I did mention that knowledge salvage is a major concern. But it can't take precedence over eating.MANY things could be done which were not available in pre-industrial age. But they all depend on retaining the scientific knowledge and hands-on skills -- a lot of which will be in the heads of women. A society which turns all of its women into baby factories may soon get overrun by a smaller in numbers but better armed and better equipped society which allows them to work productively.
Established Member
Remember that scandal about China gaining access to U.S. nuclear technology a few years back>...........
Seriously, the drive to make clean devices isin everybody;s interest. They're just so much more useful than dirty ones.
Its a question of what can be sustained rather than what we can hold right away. Take your Wal-Mart for example. Most of them are in big Malls and most of those are close to potential targets. Few questions, how can we replace batteries when they wear out? Or light bulbs? How do we make wire? how do we galvanize steel? Take the average Wal-Mart and assume it survives. Most of that stuff will be worn out and useless in five or ten years at the most. What do we replace it with? When the clothes wear out, what do we replace them with? Home Depot gives us lots of wood and tools - what do we do when the wood is used and the tools are blunt? Yes, we can support a relatvely modern lifestyle (1920s is a good guess) but for how long? We slide back. The question is how far.In your recovery scenario, I think you’re overstating the regression of our technology overmuch. It’d take casualty figures much higher than you are projecting to kick us back to 17th century levels across the board. The average home in the US has better hand tools in its basement or garage than the settlers at Jamestown had, and a single surviving Wal-Mart or Home Depot would represent more goods and tools than the US produced in a decade in the 1600s to early 1700s.
I agree, there would be such areas, but pre-war? How? Simple question. How do we replace the computers (and that includes the one in your car engine). Or the printers - where do we get toner from? The basic knowledge is certainly valuable - just the words "it can be done" are worth volumes. If we went back to 1920s typewriters - where do we get ribbons and carbon paper from? How do we make the letters - each one owuld have to be carved by hand.Basic knowledge of sanitation, medicine, and first aid would also put us well ahead of frontiersmen. Some areas (the ones with plentiful local resources and where local governments are skillful enough to salvage key infrastructure and protect resources from looting) would recover quickly, and become the new centers of industry with technology close to pre-war conditions. Outside of those havens, life could get pretty harsh, though. No doubt some regions would regress to frontier-like levels as fuel shortages and infrastructure decay cut off remote areas.
Its much mor difficult than you think. Just take something you want (say rifle ammunition, 7.62 x 51 for example. Now work out how to get there. From scratch. How are you going to make the primer? and the propellent? And the cases? not to mention the bullet? This is the old, old problem, its not making the thing that gets you, its making the tools to make the machine tools to make the thing.I think any reasonably determined and literate community could quickly reconstruct at least a 1920s standard of living with a few more modern “leftovers” tossed in.
Your last point here is the key. Afghanistan is being rebuilt with stuff brought in from outside. What level of technology can Afghanistan itself, isolated from the outside world support?For an interesting analogy, the reconstruction in Afghanistan has many of same problems as our post-nuclear war scenario. They are constructing an electrical, sanitation, medical, transportation, communications, manufacturing and water infrastructure from scratch. The food production has been devastated by drought and war. Heavily armed Warlords fight for control of the limited resources. Yet they are making progress, particularly in the areas where the local government is strong. Of course, they have a huge advantage in being able to import food and high-tech resources—whereas a post-nuclear US would have to rely on what remains of its own capabilities.
Established Member
Look at the western women who accept Islamic customs and their gross infringement on personal sovereignty. But that isn't the point
It wouldn't happen like that. The increase in birth-rate after major disasters is well-documented but even that isn't the point. Its not going to be a "Wown, lets all do this". Things will drift into new ways. Women who get pregnant will be looked after - would you send a pregnant woman into a dangerously-radioactive building? And social attitudes would change along with that. As I said, some groups will go more than others but they'll all drift that way.
By the way, I'd say the end of civilization as we know it is a "dang good reason"
Established Member
If enough people wished to make a 'high society,' it could happen. If enough like minded souls wanted to ensure that their 'get' were that which survived: they could make it happen. We all can argue till the cows come home. Who will survive a holicaust? I bet if you could be the wittness from above, you would see some bad crap happen in the name of humanity. "A" people would come out of the wreckage like a rat out of a Mexican City garbage dump. "B" people would survive as well---under the guns of the "A" people. A couple battles would happen. "A" people will rule: the very people who rule us know.
I think that Stuart is just too bloody kind in his accessment.
Established Member
I’d debate their usefulness, given that we can never use them without ending the world anyway. As a deterrent, I’d think that dirty weapons would be much more effective…Remember that scandal about China gaining access to U.S. nuclear technology a few years back>...........
Seriously, the drive to make clean devices isin everybody;s interest. They're just so much more useful than dirty ones.
Well, if we used all of our resources merely on disposable goods, we’re not going to sustain it long. The key is to use our remaining resources to rebuild our manufacturing capacity—and that is where I think your scenario is a bit pessimistic. The key to manufacturing is machine tools—often big honkin stuff that would likely survive in B country. Even most rural school systems have a reasonably well equipped shop classroom, and light to medium industry is pretty well distributed. An early priority would be getting power to these facilities, and using them to make more machine tools and industrial plant components. From there we can rebuild our other industries, starting with the ones directly supporting food, water, and medicine (chlorine for drinking water would be my #1 priority, to stave off cholera etc). Heavy industry will take longer to reconstruct, but with the abundance of scrap metal we can probably get by for the few years necessary (even pre-war, we have a lot of junkyards…).
I’d consider computers to be unnecessary for the most part—they are essential to modern productivity, but we can get by without them in most cases. Besides, we have enough surplus electronics in B country to meet demand for quite some time, at least for essential tasks. Gaming would take a severe blow, certainly, and getting the Internet back up would finally test TCP/IP at its original purpose.
As I said above, I don’t think we’d lose all of our machine tools, nor would it take long to rebuild our manufacturing capacity in key industries if we allocated resources properly. Plus, with pre-war planning, we could have stockpiles of the key tools and materials we need to rebuild our industrial capacity distributed in B country.
I’d argue that isolated parts of B country would be sufficiently intact to both maintain themselves and protect surrounding areas—I’ll call them Havens. This is where I see the similarity: the Havens would be analogous to the US, building the stuff that the devastated regions cannot. Shipping the goods to the rest of the country is similar to the problems the US faces in rebuilding Afghanistan: lack of transportation, danger to workers from looters and warlords, and lack of local resources to support construction and workers. Early goals would be reconnecting transportation and communications between the havens, allowing trade of resources that cannot be locally produced. Security of the havens would be a top priority—I’d expect large camps of refugees in the areas surrounding the Havens creating a continual threat of uprisings, and possibly even degeneration into city-states that war with each other over regional resources. Strong national identity might save us from that, but more likely not—we will not be able to spare the resources for a wasteful federal government at that point, and local interests will take priority with long-distance travel and communications so limited.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote