(March 21, 2015 at 11:48 pm)Chuck Wrote: The sort of nuclear disaster you describe would only occur if the working reactor core melts down. It is a foregone conclusion that the Containment around the reactor core would not be breached by either a massive flood, or an undermining of the foundation of the containment building. So the reactor melt down would not be the direct result of flooding. The only possible way a flooding could lead to core melt down is if it indirectly disrupts the power supply to coolant water pumps.

Are you sure?
My recollection of the sequence of events surrounding the Fukushima Daichi releases isn't comprehensive.
But I remember there being a serious threat of losing cooling water to the spent rod storage pools. These were specially noted in the case of reactor 4 where the rods had been most recently removed from the reactor and were most at risk of catching fire if the pool drained. I could see a flood undermining the building ->cracks in the storage pool -> coolant loss -> rod cladding fire -> airborne & waterborne contamination.
The reactor vessel could probably stay intact, remain cooled yet isotopes released.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_D...4,_5_and_6

Fukushima showed that the best planned and engineered systems have weaknesses. Some aren't even physical, but cultural or commercial, e.g. why did Fukushima Daichi not have a sufficient sea wall to protect its diesel fuel tanks from the tsunami? We learn, the question is how fast. I am still pro-nuclear as the best option to support civilization without unacceptable reduction in standards of living while reducing carbon emission to less than catastrophic levels. Fukushima Daichi was a 50 year old installation.

I'm not at all worried about nuclear war. It's the "conventional" means of waging wars, that are most barbaric, horrifying and de-humanizing. Nukes don't rape, imprison and torture people for years, decades, even centuries on end.
Sure - if it ever comes to it, it'll be the end of civilization as we know it, maybe the end of humanity, or even life on Earth. But at least it will be fairly quick.
The thing that truly scares me is the possibility of Russian, Chinese, or Islamic hordes slowly marching across the globe with AK-47's, knifes and petrol cans...

Honestly, except in, say, the Middle East (Israel has nukes) and India/Pakistan, nuclear war is, by this point, a largely academic topic, and not the terror it used to be. It kind of helps that the non-proliferation treaty nations aren't really waving their nuclear capabilities around like they were in the Cold War.

(March 22, 2015 at 12:48 am)Homeless Nutter Wrote: Sure - if it ever comes to it, it'll be the end of civilization as we know it, maybe the end of humanity, or even life on Earth. But at least it will be fairly quick.

If you live in the blast/firestorm zones, it'll be quick. For those in Butt-Fuck, Ks. or Middlanowhere, Id. not so much. Radiation poisoning's a slow painful way to die. Even if you're outside the blast/firestorm and fallout areas there will be massive disruption of all the infrastructure (natural gas, water, electricity, hospitals) we depend on to survive. Add in nuclear winter and possibly thinning of the ozone layer afterwards and you have a recipe for suffering rarely seen anywhere on this planet, all over the planet.

No, it won't be "fairly quick" except for those in immediate target areas.

(March 22, 2015 at 1:50 am)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote:

(March 22, 2015 at 12:48 am)Homeless Nutter Wrote: Sure - if it ever comes to it, it'll be the end of civilization as we know it, maybe the end of humanity, or even life on Earth. But at least it will be fairly quick.

If you live in the blast/firestorm zones, it'll be quick. For those in Butt-Fuck, Ks. or Middlanowhere, Id. not so much. Radiation poisoning's a slow painful way to die. Even if you're outside the blast/firestorm and fallout areas there will be massive disruption of all the infrastructure (natural gas, water, electricity, hospitals) we depend on to survive. Add in nuclear winter and possibly thinning of the ozone layer afterwards and you have a recipe for suffering rarely seen anywhere on this planet, all over the planet.

No, it won't be "fairly quick" except for those in immediate target areas.

... to say nothing of the massive amounts of mutations which will certainly put paid to most of the succeeding generations in the hot zones -- meaning that most if not all of the genetically viable human survivors will be isolated from one another, without an advanced transport network to connect with each other.

(March 22, 2015 at 1:50 am)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote: No, it won't be "fairly quick" except for those in immediate target areas.

That depends on what time-scale you're comparing it to. Radiation poisoning will kill you way faster and possibly with less pain, than a russian gulag, or decades/centuries of occupation and oppression.

Of course - in the aftermath of a nuclear war, there would most likely still be a war going on, because the remnants of humanity would be fighting for what habitable land and resources there would be left. So, no - it's not really a great scenario. Still - at this point I'd be quite "happy" to end my own life (and I probably wouldn't be the only one), since there would be no real chance of things getting back to the way they were before. With conventional WWIII - there would always be the tantalizing hope of "winning", which would make us give up a lot of our humanity in order to survive. Personally - I'd rather die.

(March 22, 2015 at 12:04 am)Parkers Tan Wrote: Admiral Lockwood should have been prosecuted for doing the same thing in the Pacific that Dönitz did in the Atlantic, executing unrestricted submarine warfare.

They dropped the charges on that one, since with Otto Kranzbühler Dönitz had a lawyer, who really knew his job and the anglosaxon system of case law, precedence and cross examination. He wrote to Chester Nimitz and got his client off.

Quote:Dönitz produced an affidavit from Admiral Chester Nimitz who testified that the United States had used unrestricted warfare as a tactic in the Pacific and that American submarines did not rescue survivors in situations where their own safety was in question. In view of all the facts proved and in particular of an order of the British Admiralty announced on the 8th May, 1940, according to which all vessels should be sunk at sight in the Skagerrak, and the answers to interrogatories by Admiral Nimitz stating that unrestricted submarine warfare was carried on in the Pacific Ocean by the United States from the first day that nation entered the war, the sentence of Doenitz was not assessed on the ground of his breaches of the international law of submarine warfare.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/w...oenitz.htm

Btw, to move this back to nuclear disaster. Does anyone remember the hype surrounding the neutron bomb around 1981? It was one of the first military brainfarts of the Reagan years and kill people but leave the infrastructure intact for future use. Donovan even wrote a song about it back then and being 18 and pretty peace moved, we used to sing it around our campfires.

(March 22, 2015 at 1:55 am)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(March 22, 2015 at 1:50 am)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote: If you live in the blast/firestorm zones, it'll be quick. For those in Butt-Fuck, Ks. or Middlanowhere, Id. not so much. Radiation poisoning's a slow painful way to die. Even if you're outside the blast/firestorm and fallout areas there will be massive disruption of all the infrastructure (natural gas, water, electricity, hospitals) we depend on to survive. Add in nuclear winter and possibly thinning of the ozone layer afterwards and you have a recipe for suffering rarely seen anywhere on this planet, all over the planet.

No, it won't be "fairly quick" except for those in immediate target areas.

... to say nothing of the massive amounts of mutations which will certainly put paid to most of the succeeding generations in the hot zones -- meaning that most if not all of the genetically viable human survivors will be isolated from one another, without an advanced transport network to connect with each other.

I think mutation conveys the wrong popular perception. There won't be X-men or a different specie running around. Notably Elevated rate of cancers and congenital genetic defect with wide spread unhealthful consequences better convey the likely result.

It is also difficult to see why population would be more isolated than in pre-industrial Europe of 17-18th century.

All this depends on the scale of nuclear exchange, of course. Lengthy and widespread failure of modern infrastructure leaving little in the way of major, undamaged industrial and economic centers that can quickly (within a decade or two) reestablish much of world wide network of trade and commerce is almost inconceivable without a full on nuclear exchange between big blocks of allied nuclear powers, a situation which has not existed since 1989, does not exist and has no foreseeable potential to exist. Even if Russia and the U.S. were to unload their entire arsenals at each other today, over 70% of the world's industrial and economic capacity would not be directly effected, and even absorbing the impact from drifting fallout, global connectedness, one still expect the world outside the U.S. and Russia would make good the loss of Russia and the U.S. in 1-2 decades.

---

(March 22, 2015 at 5:01 am)abaris Wrote:

(March 22, 2015 at 12:04 am)Parkers Tan Wrote: Admiral Lockwood should have been prosecuted for doing the same thing in the Pacific that Dönitz did in the Atlantic, executing unrestricted submarine warfare.

They dropped the charges on that one, since with Otto Kranzbühler Dönitz had a lawyer, who really knew his job and the anglosaxon system of case law, precedence and cross examination. He wrote to Chester Nimitz and got his client off.

Quote:Dönitz produced an affidavit from Admiral Chester Nimitz who testified that the United States had used unrestricted warfare as a tactic in the Pacific and that American submarines did not rescue survivors in situations where their own safety was in question. In view of all the facts proved and in particular of an order of the British Admiralty announced on the 8th May, 1940, according to which all vessels should be sunk at sight in the Skagerrak, and the answers to interrogatories by Admiral Nimitz stating that unrestricted submarine warfare was carried on in the Pacific Ocean by the United States from the first day that nation entered the war, the sentence of Doenitz was not assessed on the ground of his breaches of the international law of submarine warfare.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/w...oenitz.htm

Btw, to move this back to nuclear disaster. Does anyone remember the hype surrounding the neutron bomb around 1981? It was one of the first military brainfarts of the Reagan years and kill people but leave the infrastructure intact for future use. Donovan even wrote a song about it back then and being 18 and pretty peace moved, we used to sing it around our campfires.

Neutron bombs are heavily overhyped. Neutron bombs are designed to discharge abnormally high level of radiation, so it would have an abnormally large lethal radius from direct radiation effect, but it is still basically a normal hydrogen bomb, generally with middle level explosive yield. It is not likely to leave many Unhardened structures intact within the lethal range of its radiation. The only major difference is it is likely to be more lethal against the crew of highly hardened military targets, like main battle tanks, which otherwise would survive being within 1500 feet of nuclear epicenter.

So as a civilian without access to extremely hardened shelters, whether the bomb is a normal hydrogen bomb or a neutron bomb of comparable yield would make almost no difference. Only if you are ensconced in a missile silo or a NBC protected main battle tank would you have cause to see whether you are on the receiving end of a neutron bomb or a mere normal nuke.

(March 22, 2015 at 5:01 am)abaris Wrote: They dropped the charges on that one, since with Otto Kranzbühler Dönitz had a lawyer, who really knew his job and the anglosaxon system of case law, precedence and cross examination. He wrote to Chester Nimitz and got his client off.

Doh! The ending completely slipped my mind, thanks for the correction.

(March 22, 2015 at 9:47 am)Chuck Wrote: I think mutation conveys the wrong popular perception. There won't be X-men or a different specie running around. Notably Elevated rate of cancers and congenital genetic defect with wide spread unhealthful consequences better convey the likely result.

Indeed, those would be the results. I certainly didn't mean "mutation" in the comic-book sense of the word; it is apt in its original sense.

(March 22, 2015 at 9:47 am)Chuck Wrote: It is also difficult to see why population would be more isolated than in pre-industrial Europe of 17-18th century.

A fair point.

(March 22, 2015 at 9:47 am)Chuck Wrote: All this depends on the scale of nuclear exchange, of course. Lengthy and widespread failure of modern infrastructure leaving little in the way of major, undamaged industrial and economic centers that can quickly (within a decade or two) reestablish much of world wide network of trade and commerce is almost inconceivable without a full on nuclear exchange between big blocks of allied nuclear powers, a situation which has not existed since 1989, does not exist and has no foreseeable potential to exist. Even if Russia and the U.S. were to unload their entire arsenals at each other today, over 70% of the world's industrial and economic capacity would not be directly effected, and even absorbing the impact from drifting fallout, global connectedness, one still expect the world outside the U.S. and Russia would make good the loss of Russia and the U.S. in 1-2 decades.

I suppose I'm not so sanguine about the upshot. 17,000 warheads will put a hell of a lot of dust and soot into the atmosphere, and the effect on both ecology and agriculture don't seem all that rosy, to my eyes.

(March 22, 2015 at 11:19 am)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(March 22, 2015 at 5:01 am)abaris Wrote: They dropped the charges on that one, since with Otto Kranzbühler Dönitz had a lawyer, who really knew his job and the anglosaxon system of case law, precedence and cross examination. He wrote to Chester Nimitz and got his client off.

Doh! The ending completely slipped my mind, thanks for the correction.

(March 22, 2015 at 9:47 am)Chuck Wrote: I think mutation conveys the wrong popular perception. There won't be X-men or a different specie running around. Notably Elevated rate of cancers and congenital genetic defect with wide spread unhealthful consequences better convey the likely result.

Indeed, those would be the results. I certainly didn't mean "mutation" in the comic-book sense of the word; it is apt in its original sense.

(March 22, 2015 at 9:47 am)Chuck Wrote: It is also difficult to see why population would be more isolated than in pre-industrial Europe of 17-18th century.

A fair point.

(March 22, 2015 at 9:47 am)Chuck Wrote: All this depends on the scale of nuclear exchange, of course. Lengthy and widespread failure of modern infrastructure leaving little in the way of major, undamaged industrial and economic centers that can quickly (within a decade or two) reestablish much of world wide network of trade and commerce is almost inconceivable without a full on nuclear exchange between big blocks of allied nuclear powers, a situation which has not existed since 1989, does not exist and has no foreseeable potential to exist. Even if Russia and the U.S. were to unload their entire arsenals at each other today, over 70% of the world's industrial and economic capacity would not be directly effected, and even absorbing the impact from drifting fallout, global connectedness, one still expect the world outside the U.S. and Russia would make good the loss of Russia and the U.S. in 1-2 decades.

I suppose I'm not so sanguine about the upshot. 17,000 warheads will put a hell of a lot of dust and soot into the atmosphere, and the effect on both ecology and agriculture don't seem all that rosy, to my eyes.

I agree in the worst case of a all out nuclear exchange between the U.S. and Russia, there would likely be some degree of nuclear winter, resulting into tens of millions of additional causalties from agricultural failure in the 1-2 years after the exchange. But I think on the whole that would be a short term effect, and it's effects will moderate within 1-2 years. The main questions is how much instability the short term femine would generate. I suspect it would generate a lot of instability in less developed parts of Africa and certain parts of Asia and South America. But I think it would not have too much effect in those ares in Euroasia untouched by the nuclear exchange where the bulk of the world's capital and productive potential is comcentrated. Those would be western and Central Europe, some of of near east, china, Japan and Australia. So long as these remaining centers of wealth and productivity don't than go to war against each other, I don't think disturbance in less developed parts of the world, catastrophic humanitarian diseaster as they would be, would likely have too much impact on the overall productive capacity of the world and by extension the world's ability to weather the storm resulting from the removal from the scene of the U.S. and Russia.

In the best case scenario, other developed parts of the world is chastened at least for a couple of decades by the nuclear exchange and more or less coopoerate in building global recovery. Maybe I am an optimist, but if a nuclear war does break out that wipes out its leading power, I think there is 50/50 chance at least that the imindof the other powers would be temporarily focused on avoiding conflict with those who can really hurt them.

Of course in the worst case scenario the remaining nuclear powers, scrambling to fill the vacume left by the destruction of the U.S. and collapse of russian authority over 1/4 of the Euroasia, gets in each other's way and fights additional nuclear battles against each other.