Discussion
BoRED S2upid said:
What happens if you were 10.5 miles away? would you be watching from your bedroom window and be ok?.
Well, after the flash had blinded you, the blastwave that followed shortly after would shatter the window turning you into mince and also making you deaf - it wouldn't be the best of days.tonyvid said:
BoRED S2upid said:
What happens if you were 10.5 miles away? would you be watching from your bedroom window and be ok?.
Well, after the flash had blinded you, the blastwave that followed shortly after would shatter the window turning you into mince and also making you deaf - it wouldn't be the best of days.It was only a a tactical nuke with a blast radius of 1.5 miles. There would have been fallout throughout the South East afterwards, but beyond hte Norht and South Circular, most people would have been OK.
It would, however, have done damage to the economy that would make even Brown's disaster look tame.
It would, however, have done damage to the economy that would make even Brown's disaster look tame.
ukwill said:
tonyvid said:
BoRED S2upid said:
What happens if you were 10.5 miles away? would you be watching from your bedroom window and be ok?.
Well, after the flash had blinded you, the blastwave that followed shortly after would shatter the window turning you into mince and also making you deaf - it wouldn't be the best of days.
Have a look at Trinity and Beyond if it is on Youtube - some of those bangs are pretty loud!
Audimuse said:
Keep it simple. London would be destroyed. With brown and his idiots with him would be dead. And also everyone who would drink or get in contact with the water from the thames would get a third eye and then die.
Didn't you watch it? "Brown" and his cronies dived into their super safe bunker, just after the home secretary had several, dramatic, 5 minute long pauses during his telephone conversation, 10 minutes before London was saved from mass destruction, but thankfully the bomb was defused only 0.000001 seconds before it was due to explode 
dibbers006 said:
All of you stop it... 
you're diluting my question!
What would happen to the Water... the water I tell you... think of the River
There would be a great big hole that all the water would fall into and we would suddenly be joined to Europe. Blokes from Brussels would arrive in NBC suits and by teatime we would be driving on the right, spending Euros and as our capital city and financial heartland would be vapourised we would be controlled from somewhere in Europe - let's say Berlin just for that Len Deighton touch. you're diluting my question! What would happen to the Water... the water I tell you... think of the River
Good job Connie defused it isn't it?
I find this website a while ago while mooching through the internet, it makes fascinating reading if you want to read about how a nuclear weapon would affect your average small city:
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/nukergv.ht...
If you want to find out the global effects, look here:
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/nuclearwar...
Really very interesting stuff.
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/nukergv.ht...
If you want to find out the global effects, look here:
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/nuclearwar...
Really very interesting stuff.
bob1179 said:
I find this website a while ago while mooching through the internet, it makes fascinating reading if you want to read about how a nuclear weapon would affect your average small city:
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/nukergv.ht...
If you want to find out the global effects, look here:
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/nuclearwar...
Really very interesting stuff.
Yeah, merry fhttp://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/nukergv.ht...
If you want to find out the global effects, look here:
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/nuclearwar...
Really very interesting stuff.
king christmas to you too!Absolutely sickening to read.
What was interesting was, a few years ago, I was reading an article about US submarines that would stay surfaced and hidden out of the conflict. Assuming a Soviet first strike, the purpose of these US submarines was quite simple if sinister.
It assumed that the Continental USA was, effectively, gone and that more likely that more of the USSR would have survived than the USA.
So, these submarines would, a few weeks into the conflict, would then launch their SLBM's against the USSR.....the theory being that the survivors in the USSR would be completely defenceless and this sudden strike from nowhere would wipe them out.
Very much a 'we are taking you with us to the afterlife' approach.
Overall, that timeline in the link showed how the MAD doctrine worked....no one can win a nuclear conflict. What cannot be tackled in the same way is some nutter with a device using it as a very very large bomb in a terrorist act or, some relatively small power, decided to 'flex their muscles' against a neighbour.
What was interesting was, a few years ago, I was reading an article about US submarines that would stay surfaced and hidden out of the conflict. Assuming a Soviet first strike, the purpose of these US submarines was quite simple if sinister.
It assumed that the Continental USA was, effectively, gone and that more likely that more of the USSR would have survived than the USA.
So, these submarines would, a few weeks into the conflict, would then launch their SLBM's against the USSR.....the theory being that the survivors in the USSR would be completely defenceless and this sudden strike from nowhere would wipe them out.
Very much a 'we are taking you with us to the afterlife' approach.
Overall, that timeline in the link showed how the MAD doctrine worked....no one can win a nuclear conflict. What cannot be tackled in the same way is some nutter with a device using it as a very very large bomb in a terrorist act or, some relatively small power, decided to 'flex their muscles' against a neighbour.
XB70 said:
Absolutely sickening to read.
What was interesting was, a few years ago, I was reading an article about US submarines that would stay surfaced and hidden out of the conflict. Assuming a Soviet first strike, the purpose of these US submarines was quite simple if sinister.
It assumed that the Continental USA was, effectively, gone and that more likely that more of the USSR would have survived than the USA.
So, these submarines would, a few weeks into the conflict, would then launch their SLBM's against the USSR.....the theory being that the survivors in the USSR would be completely defenceless and this sudden strike from nowhere would wipe them out.
Very much a 'we are taking you with us to the afterlife' approach.
Overall, that timeline in the link showed how the MAD doctrine worked....no one can win a nuclear conflict. What cannot be tackled in the same way is some nutter with a device using it as a very very large bomb in a terrorist act or, some relatively small power, decided to 'flex their muscles' against a neighbour.
It really does make quite unsettling reading, but the thing that amazes me is that this is very recent, yet seems to have been more or less forgotten. I remember as a kid reading the 'Protect and Survive' leaflets that were handed out and being generally quite scared of being bombed by the Ruskies.What was interesting was, a few years ago, I was reading an article about US submarines that would stay surfaced and hidden out of the conflict. Assuming a Soviet first strike, the purpose of these US submarines was quite simple if sinister.
It assumed that the Continental USA was, effectively, gone and that more likely that more of the USSR would have survived than the USA.
So, these submarines would, a few weeks into the conflict, would then launch their SLBM's against the USSR.....the theory being that the survivors in the USSR would be completely defenceless and this sudden strike from nowhere would wipe them out.
Very much a 'we are taking you with us to the afterlife' approach.
Overall, that timeline in the link showed how the MAD doctrine worked....no one can win a nuclear conflict. What cannot be tackled in the same way is some nutter with a device using it as a very very large bomb in a terrorist act or, some relatively small power, decided to 'flex their muscles' against a neighbour.
I also remember going to Poland for the first time in the 1980's and thinking how much of an adventure it was as we were going across the iron curtain!
Unfortunately, nobody knows what the future holds. Will a terrorist group manage to build and detonate such a weapon? Will Russia continue her posturing and re arm and start a new Cold War? Will there be a new threat that we haven't thought of?
I've always had a huge interest in Cold War history, and for me articles like the one linked above really give an interesting insight to what could have been.
XB70 said:
Absolutely sickening to read.
What was interesting was, a few years ago, I was reading an article about US submarines that would stay surfaced and hidden out of the conflict. Assuming a Soviet first strike, the purpose of these US submarines was quite simple if sinister.
It assumed that the Continental USA was, effectively, gone and that more likely that more of the USSR would have survived than the USA.
So, these submarines would, a few weeks into the conflict, would then launch their SLBM's against the USSR.....the theory being that the survivors in the USSR would be completely defenceless and this sudden strike from nowhere would wipe them out.
Very much a 'we are taking you with us to the afterlife' approach.
Overall, that timeline in the link showed how the MAD doctrine worked....no one can win a nuclear conflict. What cannot be tackled in the same way is some nutter with a device using it as a very very large bomb in a terrorist act or, some relatively small power, decided to 'flex their muscles' against a neighbour.
This was crucial to the whole MAD doctrine: it was designed to deter a massive first strike with the fear of retirbution from beyond the grave (almost).What was interesting was, a few years ago, I was reading an article about US submarines that would stay surfaced and hidden out of the conflict. Assuming a Soviet first strike, the purpose of these US submarines was quite simple if sinister.
It assumed that the Continental USA was, effectively, gone and that more likely that more of the USSR would have survived than the USA.
So, these submarines would, a few weeks into the conflict, would then launch their SLBM's against the USSR.....the theory being that the survivors in the USSR would be completely defenceless and this sudden strike from nowhere would wipe them out.
Very much a 'we are taking you with us to the afterlife' approach.
Overall, that timeline in the link showed how the MAD doctrine worked....no one can win a nuclear conflict. What cannot be tackled in the same way is some nutter with a device using it as a very very large bomb in a terrorist act or, some relatively small power, decided to 'flex their muscles' against a neighbour.
Audimuse said:
Keep it simple. London would be destroyed. With brown and his idiots with him would be dead. And also everyone who would drink or get in contact with the water from the thames would get a third eye and then die.
Morbid, but true. The Japanese started losing their hair and got bum blood soon after the attack.Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff