Yellow is the fireball radius and direct damage from the fire ball. Everything within yellow is frankly dust. Casualties 100% dependent on the height of the fireball and the detonation over the target.
Red is the Air blast, about 20PSI of over pressure. Concrete buildings are destroyed. fatalities are about 100%
Green is the radiation radius, exposure to 500 rems fatalities are at 50% to 90% from instant death to long term death over several weeks from acute radiation sickness.
Grey is secondary air blast at 4 psi of over pressure. Most buildings will be damaged from severe to demolished, Casualties range but the expectation would be about 50% to 80% depending on exposure or the building damage.
Orange is Thermal radiation pulse. instant third degree burns to exposed skin, flammable materials will ignite, with the larger bombs you would see a fire storm.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Well good think Korea doesn't have those really big suckers. Nor do they have several thousand like the USA or Russia.
I am starting to feel better, but I suppose what I was mostly worried about was contamination and long term effects on ecosystems and water in Canada if N Korea lobbed one into the middle of the USA.
An interesting take on the NK strategic nukes...it wouldn't make much sense to lob a nuke at the US. It would be suicide...better to have that threat available (like a 'fleet in being') but if war ever did happen to use the existing nukes in a defensive manner (as crazy as it sounds...nuking a habour to send a GTFO message to invaders).
An interesting take on the NK strategic nukes...it wouldn't make much sense to lob a nuke at the US. It would be suicide...better to have that threat available (like a 'fleet in being') but if war ever did happen to use the existing nukes in a defensive manner (as crazy as it sounds...nuking a habour to send a GTFO message to invaders).
Not to be a true jerk, but I don't know if that type of strategy makes much sense.
Tactical Nuclear Weapons - Lets define these as aircraft and artillary and demolition charges. These are designed around smaller warheads and they are battlefield agile. What I mean by battlefield agile is that you can change your use and targeting on the fly based on how fluid your battlefield is. They are effective against things like Fleets, armored columns, logistical and fueling centers. During the cold war for exampled NATO had a stockpile of aircraft capable quick deployment weapons (Even Canadian Fighters were considered nuclear capable). If the Soviets broke through at Fulda for example, you might see Nato using these battlefield weapons to destroy them in place.
Strategic Nuclear Weapons - These are your large warhead ICBMs. They're designed to strike at non moving targets like cities, military bases, naval ship yards, manufacturing facilities and of course Counter force. ICBM's on the whole are difficult to retarget, so you can't really use them effectively against a fleet. They are also more easy to detect so you can move assets. They aren't effective battlefield weapons because frankly by the time you re-target and fire your target has moved or its importance has changed.
Because you have a limited inventory of weapons, you usually pre plan far in advance what your weapons are going to be used for. This is called SIOP or Single Integrated Operational Plan.
So for example if your the president and you decide to nuke Russia, you have to decide on a plan that already has missiles aimed. So if you decide on a SIOP plan called lets say "Red Water" which is the destruction of Russian Naval Capabilities, you would fire missiles that are pre targeted at Russian Ship Yards and manufacturing facilities. Or if you wanted to remove Russia's capability to strike you for example, you as the President would select a plan called "Flat Lands", so all of your missiles that are tasked to taking out Russian bomber airfields, silos, rail way tunnels with mobile launchers etc. If you were a Russian you might want to kill the American leadership, you might select a plan called "Blackout" which means that you use a predetermined missile regiment with hardened missiles to take out Norad Headquarters, radar sites and Washington, but all of those plans and missiles are predetermined and aimed.
For North Korea, lets say that they have 12 missiles, those missiles probably represent one plan called "Frack everything" which means that those 12 missiles are likely pre targeted, so launching a missile into a harbor as a sign of strength doesn't make sense because you rip a hole in your targeting plan and you lose a missile that is better used elsewhere.
Nuclear Weapons are offense in nature even if you use them defensively as well, mainly because unless its an extreme circumstance you have to use them against someone else's territory because you really don't want to nuke your own and risk your civilian base in terms of immediate fallout or damage to a civilian population center.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
NK would be crazy to not try to become nuclear capable. The Kims have a played a mediocre hand really well. Having nukes is just a further deterrent to invasion. Letting the world know they have nukes is predictable as well - of course you want your adversaries to know you could drop a nuke on them if you wanted.
The difference now is Trump is an idiot and is actually ratcheting up the situation beyond where it should be. Every conversation about a war with NK should start and end with "are we willing to write-off Seoul?". Nobody in power in the USA has ever considered that as a reasonable outcome, but I honestly think Trump is incapable of basic empathy so wouldn't care if SK was leveled or not.
The only good that could come out of this is if Trump's idiocy accidentally makes NK back off, but that would just be dumb luck and not good diplomacy on Trump's part. Striking NK preemptively is absolutely unacceptable to anybody with half a brain. Let them saber-rattle, give a little response so they know we're listening, and move on like we always have.
What really sucks is Trump manufactured - or at least amplified - this problem. NK should not be on the forefront of the world's mind right now. This whole thing is stupid.
Not to be a true jerk, but I don't know if that type of strategy makes much sense.
Tactical Nuclear Weapons - Lets define these as aircraft and artillary and demolition charges. These are designed around smaller warheads and they are battlefield agile. What I mean by battlefield agile is that you can change your use and targeting on the fly based on how fluid your battlefield is. They are effective against things like Fleets, armored columns, logistical and fueling centers. During the cold war for exampled NATO had a stockpile of aircraft capable quick deployment weapons (Even Canadian Fighters were considered nuclear capable). If the Soviets broke through at Fulda for example, you might see Nato using these battlefield weapons to destroy them in place.
Strategic Nuclear Weapons - These are your large warhead ICBMs. They're designed to strike at non moving targets like cities, military bases, naval ship yards, manufacturing facilities and of course Counter force. ICBM's on the whole are difficult to retarget, so you can't really use them effectively against a fleet. They are also more easy to detect so you can move assets. They aren't effective battlefield weapons because frankly by the time you re-target and fire your target has moved or its importance has changed.
Because you have a limited inventory of weapons, you usually pre plan far in advance what your weapons are going to be used for. This is called SIOP or Single Integrated Operational Plan.
So for example if your the president and you decide to nuke Russia, you have to decide on a plan that already has missiles aimed. So if you decide on a SIOP plan called lets say "Red Water" which is the destruction of Russian Naval Capabilities, you would fire missiles that are pre targeted at Russian Ship Yards and manufacturing facilities. Or if you wanted to remove Russia's capability to strike you for example, you as the President would select a plan called "Flat Lands", so all of your missiles that are tasked to taking out Russian bomber airfields, silos, rail way tunnels with mobile launchers etc. If you were a Russian you might want to kill the American leadership, you might select a plan called "Blackout" which means that you use a predetermined missile regiment with hardened missiles to take out Norad Headquarters, radar sites and Washington, but all of those plans and missiles are predetermined and aimed.
For North Korea, lets say that they have 12 missiles, those missiles probably represent one plan called "Frack everything" which means that those 12 missiles are likely pre targeted, so launching a missile into a harbor as a sign of strength doesn't make sense because you rip a hole in your targeting plan and you lose a missile that is better used elsewhere.
Nuclear Weapons are offense in nature even if you use them defensively as well, mainly because unless its an extreme circumstance you have to use them against someone else's territory because you really don't want to nuke your own and risk your civilian base in terms of immediate fallout or damage to a civilian population center.
I don't think you are a true jerk...more of a faux jerk
I think that NK is much more rational than is generally believed and that they know that they don't have the guns to play the mutually assured destruction game. They have the tools to blow up Seoul and make any invasion somewhat costly. Any offensive invasion would be a disaster, not only is their kit ancient but they have limited logistical capabilities. They want to make the US look lame and play a long game for reunification.
How they use their nukes is anyone's guess, but using them as I described is what some NK scholars think would make more sense for them (since the continuation of the Kim regime is job #1 for the DPRK).
__________________
"WHAT HAVE WE EVER DONE TO DESERVE THIS??? WHAT IS WRONG WITH US????" -Oiler Fan
"It was a debacle of monumental proportions." -MacT
The Following User Says Thank You to Fozzie_DeBear For This Useful Post:
Here Buck, lets get this out of the way. Just post your favorite echo-chamber videos from:
Gad Saad
PJW
Jordan Peterson
David Icke
Alex Jones
Tomi Lahren
Lauren Southern
Milo Yiannapolous
Richard Spencer
Paul Town
Ricky Vaughn
John Rivers
Joe Rogan interviewing any combination of the above
so we can ignore that post and move on.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm
Settle down there, Temple Grandin.
The Following User Says Thank You to PsYcNeT For This Useful Post:
Yeah, Gad Saad is pretty much the same guy as Alex Jones and Richard Spencer. Definitely falls into the same category. Good call there Psycnet. On top of it as always.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Yeah, Gad Saad is pretty much the same guy as Alex Jones and Richard Spencer. Definitely falls into the same category. Good call there Psycnet. On top of it as always.
Well you know he's just going to drop it in and not offer any commentary. If I wanted to be blasted with a bunch of "TRANSGENDER PEOPLE ARE MENTALLY ILL" YouTubes I would just go on Facebook.
Yeah, Gad Saad is pretty much the same guy as Alex Jones and Richard Spencer. Definitely falls into the same category. Good call there Psycnet. On top of it as always.
lol exactly, what a horrible comparison. Gad is a reasonable and thoughtful guy, but again if you don't EXACTLY conform to the new lefts ideological purity you are branded a bigot, racist, etc...
The entire main stream media is biased to the left, I am well aware of that perspective (just read a few pages of this thread as an example). Please give me other sources of conservative perspectives on current issues that you feel are better (after you insult me a few times of course). Very interested in your recommendations for better sources than the popular ones you listed.
Well you know he's just going to drop it in and not offer any commentary. If I wanted to be blasted with a bunch of "TRANSGENDER PEOPLE ARE MENTALLY ILL" YouTubes I would just go on Facebook.
I don't follow Gad Saad on Twitter anymore (and barely check twitter anyway, for mental health reasons). Has he said that transgender people are mentally ill? When and where?
EDIT: Actually on topic, in light of Trump comments about saving the USA money by kicking out diplomats:
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Last edited by CorsiHockeyLeague; 08-11-2017 at 12:46 PM.
The entire main stream media is biased to the left, I am well aware of that perspective (just read a few pages of this thread as an example). Please give me other sources of conservative perspectives on current issues that you feel are better (after you insult me a few times of course). Very interested in your recommendations for better sources than the popular ones you listed.
Basically anything that isn't Kek Army approved would be better.
Maajid Nawaz (though now that he's beefing with the SPLC he's an honorary Kekistani National)
Simon Kent is p good for a Brietbart bro
Haaretz is pretty right-leaning but a good reporting service
Ben Shapiro is certainly more palatable than that group
Sam Harris is, while currently getting shat on by TopKek Generals, still a right-leaning commentator with rational viewpoints
