U.S. Rethinks Strategy for the Unthinkable



http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/16/science/16terror.html?src=http://forums.bethsoft.com/index.php?/topic/1149834-the-return-of-duck-and-cover/mv

Gee, first North Korea almost restarting the Korean War, now the return of Duck and Cover. Did we suddenly slip back into 1950's again? I'm starting to wonder if the New Age idea of thoughts becoming reality if enough people think them might have something to it. Maybe we should all give these Fallouts a break for awhile.

But then again --- THEY"RE TOO MUCH FUN! See ya in the wasteland.

There's a difference.

In the 1950's, you needed to get under desks, chairs, etc. if you were struck by a Nuke. NOW you stay in any stable building. Oh, and you were given an advanced warning of a Nuke attack in the 1950's.

At any rate, if you survive a Nuke, what are you going to do? Getting into any stable structure seems to be the best idea- at least you have a roof over your head until help arrives, whenever that may be.

Um...how is being inside a "stable building" going to protect someone from a nuclear attack? First there's the blast, which with current weapons could cover a very large area, everyone there dies instantly. Then there's a larger area where deadly radiation bursts into every window and room of every building.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FN0j7hTUcWY
OBEY THE ENEMY!

The article states that the policy is directed more towards limiting exposure to nuclear fallout, which you would be breathing in if you tried to flee the area. the blast wave will kill you. The gamma rays from the initial explosion can be stopped by enough concrete and the fallout is at its most deadly while airborn. So if a nuke goes off in your area and you are lucky enough to not have been fried to a crisp, staying inside is probably a good idea.

The nuclear threat never did go away since the 50s. I watched an interesting documentary a couple of days ago about this subject.

Countdown to Zero: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1572769/

I'm so glad I live in a country that probably will never get bombed.
Unless someone goes, "Hey! We forgot about them!" And aims a nuke at us for the heck of it.

Do you even know what the purpose of "Duck and Cover" in the 1950's was? In the 50's the Government knew what atom bombs did to buildings, desks and cities. They did lots of tests in the New Mexico desert to figure out what happens when an atomic bomb goes off. The purpose of "Duck and Cover" back then is the same as now. It is to give people the illusion of safety, especially kids. Nothing is going to save you if you're at the epicenter, or within 10 miles of the epicenter, of a nuclear explosion. But I bet you would feel a lot better if you thought there was a chance that you could live through it.

Yeah, but then your telepaths start contacting mutants from around the world and bringing them to your country.

Well, there are more than 23000 nuclear weapons in the world. I bet if they launched 'm all in a nuclear attack no matter where you live will be save. Maybe you'll live but it certainly will have some nasty effects IMO.

We will all just have to hope that mutants can't swim.

Double that number. The US (United States) and the SU (Soviet Union) probably produced a helluva lot of nuclear weapons in secret.

Been a long time since I read The Chrysalids, but I seem to recall NZ sent a pretty kickin' VTOL to get them.

Yep, this number is just a rough official estimation. There is a lot more, not only the secret ones but also all the material/weapons that went missing.

If I knew what you were talking about, I could perhaps post a witty response. But I don't What is this...The Chrysalids... And VTOL. *Is ashamed of her ignorance*

The article gives the answer. They are thinking either a terrorist bomb, or North Korea or Iran getting through our missile defenses. Either way, nukes from those sources might not be as big or as numerous as, say, from the USSR or China. So getting survivors to hide in a building might actually save a lot of lives in that case. But I'm thinking Duck and Cover 2.0 might be a tough sell, given how many people perished in the Twin Towers because they were waiting around for someone to tell them it was ok to leave.

Only Gamma radiation. And it has a travels in straight lines - turn the corner into the office with no windows, or head to the toilets - no immediate source of radiation. Alpha and beta particles wont get through windows.

(Heading to the bathroom is actually advice given in cyclone areas as the walls are generally tougher.)

Take a look around children. Theres a major push on several fronts in America to turn back the clock 60 years.

"Fear is the mind killer"

The Chrysalids is an excellent 55 year old sci-fi novel, and the source of my original joke. VTOL is vertical take-off and landing. In this case a supersonic jet capable of travelling from New Zealand to Labrador and landing vertically so it doesn't require a runway.

I see. Written by a New Zealander? If not, that's rather surprising. I always get a kick out of seeing little old NZ mentioned in international literature. Except for when Sergei Lukyanenko called LOTR an "American movie" in whichever book it was. I digress.

Our policement aren't armed and the air force possesses about 3 helicopters and one ancient Hercules that may be falling apart, and our navy has perhaps one boat. If mutants swarmed the place, we'd be screwed. Hell, if anything swarmed the place, we're screwed.

'Duck and cover' is better than 'stand around and either catch enough rads you fall apart; or get shredded by flying debris; or get burned from the heat'

Remember that 'duck and cover' was in the event that you saw the detonation...if you were on the street you dived into a gutter or got underground quick smart, etc. These days, I'd guarantee that if a small nuke went off in a major city, a lot of people in office blocks would go to gawk at what made the big bright flash outside and would be shredded when the blast blows in the windows. We simply aren't conditioned to think of nuclear attack, from whatever source, as likely to occur.

I think many of the forum members do not understand how nuclear weapons actually cause damage.

First there is an intense output of heat, causing temperatures near the center to reach millions of degrees for a brief time. Anything flammable will auto ignite, metal and glass will begin to melt and fuse. Obviously anybody in these conditions dies instantly, but the temperature drops off quickly as one goes outward. A few kilometers from the center, temperatures are survivable and most of the heating will result from light. Burns will result if you are exposed. Solution: stay out of line of sight of the detonation to avoid being burned by the intense light.

Second there is an overpressure wave as the millions-of-degrees air at the center expands violently. This wave is deadly to humans within a few kilometers, but beyond that, we are surprisingly resistant to brief pressure effects since we are squishy. Long after the pressure wave has stopped being directly dangerous to humans though, it is still easily capable of destroying buildings. Think of hurricanes. The same wind that completely obliterates a house won't damage a person, the real danger comes from being hit by things flung or toppled onto you. Solution: get inside something that can protect you from flying debris, and under something that can protect you if the building fails. The classic one is desks since everybody has a popular image of the films being shown in schools, but a door frame will also offer some protection. This is what "Duck and Cover" is mainly aimed at.

Third there is the radiation. Radiation goes in straight lines, true enough. But the most deadly type of radiation from the bomb is gamma, which will mostly pass through solid objects. The atmosphere itself absorbs gamma radiation, but it requires many kilometers to absorb enough to make exposure survivable. Putting as much mass between you and the radiation as possible will reduce the dose you get, but realistically it will probably take several meters of concrete or earth to let you walk away unaffected. Unless you are near the center of a truly massive structure, getting underground (basemants) or behind some earth (embankments, trenches) is probably the better alternative. With adequate time to search for a good place this is survivable, but "D&C" doesn't really do anything for you.

"D&C" won't save your ass if you're near the center of the detonation, but it will reduce the chances of your taking damage from the most avoidable effects if you are some distance away, and is not entirely feelgood fiction from the government. It's also not meant to be a comprehensive safety protocol. It's what you do if you are surprised by a detonation with no time to find a more significant and effective defensive position. Obviously if you know a nuclear strike is imminent (likely, given today's EWS) then you should do something more self-preserving than hiding under a desk.

For some reason reading the above post reminded me of the dude that was near the blast zone for both the Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombs. How unlucky can you get...

I will install lead sheeting as siding on my house! and use lead-based paint on it!

If you are too close, you will be gone anyway, no matter where you hide if it's a reasonably big nuke.
If you are lucky enough to be far away for surviving the initial blast, including heat and radiation, getting inside a stable structure might make sense.

The biggest danger (except of raiders and mutated geckos) for survivors of an attack will be radiation from nuclear fallout I guess.



Assuming that a building will shield you from good parts from the radiation of the fallout (should work if its mostly alpha and beta radiation), staying inside could really improve you chances to survive.
Actually, finding a skyscraqer and setting up camp in the middle might work quite well, as you will be far away from the fallout on the streets and on the roof of the building.