Nuclear Blast in the United States?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by MACDRIVE, Oct 19, 2006.

  1. MACDRIVE macrumors 68000

    MACDRIVE

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Location:
    Clovis, California
    #1
    Obviously this is the worst case scenario and if this ever happened, our government has failed us big time, but is it inevitably going to happen anyway?

    The US government is making more and more enemies every day, which makes me wonder: do we have to have so many enemies?

    If there were to be a nuclear blast(s) in the United States, where would we go from there?
     
  2. macman2790 macrumors 6502a

    macman2790

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2006
    Location:
    Texas
    #2
    you scared me, i thought it actually happened, lol.
     
  3. munkle macrumors 68030

    munkle

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    Location:
    On a jet plane
  4. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #4
    It might happen. I've always believed the gov was more inept than evil, especially this one. And we have made more enemies while weakening our defense and crippling law enforcement. Plus, as we've seen from Katrina, we are woefully unprepared to deal with the fallout.

    Sorry, that probably didn't help much.
     
  5. MACDRIVE thread starter macrumors 68000

    MACDRIVE

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Location:
    Clovis, California
    #5
    If it did happen in just one state, would the rest of the country function normally, or would there be complete lawlessness throughout the entire country? :confused:
     
  6. PlaceofDis macrumors Core

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    #6

    naw, there wouldn't be complete lawlessness. think back to Sept. 11th '01. was there lawlessness after that tragedy? no. while this would be a greater tragedy and more lives would be lost, utter anarchy and chaos wouldn't naturally follow. perhaps in surrounding regions as people scram and such but overall things would after an attack of such be rather uptight. people would be more afraid than anything.
     
  7. MrSmith macrumors 68040

    MrSmith

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2003
    #7
    America has carried out plenty of nuclear blasts. At least in this scenario it would be in its own backyard.
     
  8. Lau Guest

    #8
    If there was say just one bomb hitting one city (unlikely, but just say there was), I think if it was here in the UK we'd be pretty screwed because we're so little and the fallout would affect a lot of the country. But if it happened in the US, how much of the country would be affected by it?
     
  9. iGav macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2002
    #9
    Considering the area that Chernobyl affected..

    Depending on weather and atmospheric conditions, it's highly possible that the whole of the U.S. would be affected to varying degrees of severity.
     
  10. iBlue macrumors Core

    iBlue

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Location:
    London, England
    #10
    Very little, I imagine. The US is huge. The UK however is smaller than the state of California.
     
  11. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #11
    It would depend greatly on which city was targetted. If, for instance, the explosion was in Washington DC, the prevailing winds would carry the fallout in the direction of New York, Boston etc., which would no doubt cause panic on a gigantic scale in addition to a massive number of deaths from the initial blast. However, if the bomb targetted Seattle or Denver, their relative isolation would make the human situation easier to control.

    Although I still think this idea of terrorists getting nukes is a Hollywood conceit. If a nuclear blast did hit the US, I suspect it would more likely be part of a full on nuclear war. In which case, don't worry too much about lawlessness. Chances are you'll be killed by another one yourself pretty soon afterwards.
     
  12. iGav macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2002
    #12
    Interesting map showing the fallout from Chernobyl.
     
  13. Lau Guest

    #13
    Mmm, interesting. Thanks for the clarification. Edit: and very interesting map, Gav. It's really quite evenly spread in every direction.

    I think you're right about the greater scale of it, dynamicv, by the way. Say the US was hit by one from country X, would they retaliate by nuking that country immediately, knowing it could be kicking off something much bigger?
     
  14. clevin macrumors G3

    clevin

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    #14
    depends who is president, or maybe not?
    and maybe depends who is the country X, if its NK, it might be ok tho, others,,,,, might be the end of the human civilization.
     
  15. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #15
    Country X is far more likely to be one of the bigger fish IMO. NK, with it's piddly little arsenal of five or six warheads and it's unpredictable missle technology is far less likely to fire one. Much better to just keep reminding the world that they have nukes to keep people from attacking their borders.

    A country the size of China, however, with (according to estimates in 1997) just over 3000 warheads and a reliable ICBM to sit them on, is another matter. I guess we all just have to hope it doesn't come to that.
     
  16. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #16
    The "more enemies" thing is meaningless. North Korea has been our enemy since 1950. Iran has been our enemy since the fall of the Shah in, what, 1978? There have been numerous anti-Israel groups who would be equally happy to set off a nuke in the US if the opportunity arose.

    Using Chernobyl as a comparison is a case of apples and oranges. Chernobyl was a chemical explosion which threw vast quantities of radioactive materials into the atmosphere. Long half-lives.

    Think instead of Hiroshima, where the irradiated material was of short half-life and the area is generally repopulated.

    FWIW: The rule of thumb is that five half-lives take material back to the original level of radiation, to the original background count. Irradiated material such as iron has a half-life of around eight years.

    The big kicker in the whole issue of a nuke is the size. Kilotons? Megatons? So far, the Bad Guys are still in the atomic bomb stage, not the hydrogen bomb stage. Kilotons. Still, bad juju.

    A guess at the delivery system? Either on a ship, detonated in a harbor; or in an innocent-appearing container, delivered via semi to a distribution point near you.

    Government efficiency? Er, uh, they check about five percent of the tens of thousands of containers per day that enter the U.S. "All" we have to do is multiply the appropriate budgets by a factor of 20...

    'Rat
     
  17. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #17
    Actually, that's probably nowhere near true: they probably check the easiest 5%. You'd probably have to multiply by at least 100 to get close.
     
  18. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #18
    Indeed.

    The drama elements aside, it's a pretty realistic look at what post-nuclear attack life would be like.

    It's being discussed here.
     
  19. Thanatoast macrumors 6502a

    Thanatoast

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    Denver
    #19
    Is it inevitable? No. Depends on if we keep poking hornet's nests, I suppose.
     
  20. sushi Moderator emeritus

    sushi

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2002
    Location:
    キャンプスワ&#
    #20
    I don't worry much about a conventional nuclear bomb.

    What I do worry about is a dirty bomb. A dirty bomb is much easier to make and deliver than a conventional nuclear bomb. A dirty bomb set off in the middle of any major city around the world definitely have an effect on that particular area for many years.
     
  21. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #21
    Yeah, people who deliberately explode radiological weapons in cities are pretty much scum huh?
     
  22. Unorthodox macrumors 65816

    Unorthodox

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2006
    Location:
    Not at the beach...
    #22
    I'll be hiding under my bed if anybody needs me. :)
     
  23. sushi Moderator emeritus

    sushi

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2002
    Location:
    キャンプスワ&#
    #23
    You've got to be kidding. Then again, you have no humor indicator on your comment so I must assume that you are serious and thus have no idea about dirty bombs.

    A DU projectile is much much different than a dirty bomb.

    For your reference:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_bomb
     
  24. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #24
    And the end difference is? You still irradiate portions of a city.

    Or is it only evil when brown people do it?
     
  25. sushi Moderator emeritus

    sushi

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2002
    Location:
    キャンプスワ&#
    #25
    You really have no idea as to the difference?! Simply amazing.
     

Share This Page