Nuclear war hovers over South Asia

[Tom Mazanec]

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/176123/ ... anet/#more

[Trevor]

One thing I'm going to point out is that however destructive nuclear weapons might be, they're not the doomsday weapons that they are commonly perceived as in the media. It's quite possible to survive them if you know how.

For example, in Hiroshima, the 50% death rate for individuals in wooden homes is at 6/10ths of a mile. Now at that range, the blast wave is about 12PSI, and the radiation is close to 1,000 rads. It's important to keep in mind that these were Japanese homes made of wood and even paper, far weaker than houses in the United States today. The 50% death rate in Nagasaki was at around 15PSI, at around the same distance.

Modern cities are mostly made of steel and concrete, not wood and paper as Japanese cities of the time were. Concrete buildings mostly survived, as did the individuals inside of them, even in areas close to the blast radius. Using Hiroshima and Nagasaki is not a good comparison because of the different densities and building compositions of the cities.

Another thing I should point out is the existence of firestorms. Most of these models I've seen are assuming a massive firestorm in every city, in every target, as a result of each bomb dropped. That's nothing but fantasy. There are certain conditions necessary for firestorms to develop. You need a high building density, a low wind, flat terrain, and a high density of flammable materials such as wood. Despite the larger bomb, Nagasaki did not erupt into a firestorm.

Much of the talk about nuclear winter is the belief that every city that is it will erupt into a massive firestorm, covering the whole area, sending millions of tons of soot into the atmosphere. While I'm not going to say it can't happen, I really doubt that so much will go up into the atmosphere that the earth will be destroyed and humanity exterminated. Most cities will not erupt in firestorms, due to the circumstances that I previously explained. You'll see a lot of fires, certainly, but there's a major difference between a fire and a true firestorm.

[John]

I've seen several claims that the firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo
were far more destructive than the nukes.

[Trevor]

They were, at least in terms of the area destroyed. The two atomic bombs killed more people within a given area, but that was because of the complete lack of warning. A handful of bombers weren't seen as a threat and weren't worth shooting down due to their lack of anti-air capability. Therefore, people were out in the open with no warning and many had no protection. Both cities had air-raid shelters, but almost none of them were occupied. Even 15-30 minutes of warning would save a lot of lives in American cities.

I admit, I am hoping that at least some parts of the government grow a brain and begin civil defense measures before the strategic exchange starts. Most likely a forlorn hope, but it would be nice.

From what I've gathered through various conversations I've had, most people seem to believe that civil defense is utterly pointless. You can't survive a nuclear war and it's pointless trying to, so things like civil defense and Duck and Cover are seen as worthless when they're not. Granted, you won't save everyone, but you can save many people who would have otherwise died without such preparations.