The New York City office of emergency management released a nuclear attack prparedness video.
Completely laughable.
The last advice is moronic.
Make sure to sign up for alerts on your cellphone.
Can find the video in an article on halturnerradioshow.com.
IF a nuke were to detonate over NYC, game over, much less following that dumb advice.
And don't forget to wash behind the ears!
If you take this one step deeper and cite the folding money theory, there will come a great wave that will overcome NY. A nuke could be used like they did in Fukishima..... Spelling error I'm sure. Anyways a tactical placement of a nuke offshore would absolutely devastate any coastal cities like NY.
I truly pray nothing like that ever happens.
Carry On!!
Like the Poseiden torpedo the newly activated Russian sub carries...? The tsunami torpedo...? [Pinky to lip corner] Mu_ahahahah.
No...seriously....Russia has a tsunami nuclear torpedo.
I've read that in a few places. When the US was actively testing nukes they did come up with a tsunami bomb per say. I guess deployment is the major issue, in order to be effective the blast needs to happen at the right spot. I used to love watching the dam buster bombs they had. Not nuclear, basically a 55 gallon drum in back of a plane that was spun up to a high rpm then dropped, they would skip across the water like skipping a stone, pretty cool to watch.
Tip: The nukes will NOT be used on NYC. If there are any nukes it's to intimidate the cattle in WWE.
You're better off expecting them to be thrown on Portland and Las Vegas.
As a target why not. The nuclear power grid is enough to fuck up quite a few states.
Let's suggest ground zero was NYC. Using that nuclear ballistic denotation graph with all the World's nuke types on it.
Now match it into industry, energy, population. In a blast radius of 20 miles, fallout of another 50. It would take out at least 6-10 reactors. Now you've knocked out, how much energy in the other states? Not to mention supply lines. Plus there's the dust, blowing across, and survivors, straining any other services, and operations.
You'd be utterly naive to assume when they fly, some of the first targets aren't population centers. Just military. Nope, not the way to make them yield. At least not in WW2. Military you won't hit as easily, mobile launchers. Stealth planes. Submarines. Sure your hits might be on some military facilities, but these are often in the same blast radius.
It's called MAD. Mutually assured destruction. Why?
The other reason you'd hit NYC is communications, and the stock market. If they fly. It's an obvious target. Not speculation. Same with a lot of density and infrastructure.
Then what about all the control grids they take decades to set up? Yeah no. The goal isn't to blow them up. The goal of a nuclear attack is cower and control.
You choose a few less important states like Hiroshima, Las Vegas or Portland and not central control grids like NYC or London. Las Vegas in particular gives out a doomtastic "luxury and peace is over" message to the masses while the elite does not lose much.
Not on MAD. Mutually Assured Destruction. The goal is annihilation. They cannot prevent, submarines, supersonic bombers, dead man's switches, and mobile launchers. Sure there is some cover and assumed prevention. Guidance and increasing capability. Until it's outpaced by hypersonics. Instead it's density, and infrastructure. Or ideally such a zero, there is nothing left to be in command of. A restart resetting the planet. Making it a notion of strict deterrent. Except it is becoming out the window when ding ding ding they're faster popping up everywhere and becoming adopted. Is this deterrence, or essentially MAD?
The grid is the first thing launched at, communications and satellites. Then it's the command structure, capitals, and large population centers, disabling supply lines, and obviously large military installations, and airports, and ports. But in that spread it's sooner covering density and infrastructure. Where multiple warheads are fired from the same launch vehicles. Example there are single launched nukes which can host about 25 warheads, what is that radius, 500-1000 miles? What is the radius of let's suggest it hosting 5. They break off blasting an area. It's blanket damage. Give a flying fuck. The dust has hit your presumed green zone regardless. No, there is no, first thing. But there is speculation.
In MAD which is the current deterrence doctrine. It effectively is still a zero. Despite modern tactical debates of scenarios like proxies and specifically guided at direct installations. Effectively it is debating if victory is achievable. First strike, context, and definitions. Or if their use cascades into total annihilation.
You think they're stupid to sabotage themselves like that?
What are you babbling about? It's what supposedly deters nuclear war. Complete annihilation. You're thinking of tactical nukes. Not a nuclear exchange. Where okay. A tactical nuke seeks an achievable victory. A nuclear exchange seeks to destroy an enemy. Hence the deterrence doctrine is called, again that buzzword, or adopted phrase; Mutually assured destruction. It's also why no tactical nukes have been deployed in combat yet.
But we're talking about deep bunkers and access to locations which supposedly can survive nuclear war. The problem is there's nothing left to be in command of. They'll probably just become cannibals anyway. Love, Sex, and Robots.
You don't need to see farther that a Nuclear War is incredibly inefficient and borderline suicidal.
Precisely. You've understood it. MAD.
However there will always be tactical nukes. Because of the asteroids.
But there will always be the what if you have achieved victory. Let's suggest you're suicidal to achieve it. What is victory today. Profit. But what if. You have the resources and or location to ride out a planetary reset. Who needs population? You wanted to Georgia Guidestones. Ride out Nuclear winter. Or you're a crazy terrorist with a briefcase? Or just another rogue cunt willing to bring on some other prophecy?
With the increasing armament brings the increasing risk. Until they're almost becoming deployed, or soon could be.
Tactical EMP nukes. No mess to clean up. Buildings, people remain okay. Will take us all back to the stone age.
If used no radiation, or nuclear winters.
You know that they don't even need EMP right?
They have Russian and Chinese hackers.
Whole transformers can be DESTROYED in a few flickers of a keyboard.
(Also note that when they tested EMP on the island of Oahu in 1962 all it did is to shut down 300 streetlights and 1 radio transmitter. You want to burn out whole transformers/power plants and make sure they can no longer move.)
EMP tech is much stronger now than in the 60's. Both Russia and China are further advanced than the USA. Hell, we cannot even test fire a hypersonic without failure. Can't even successfully launch a new rocket for ICBM's.
Modern EMP bombs can take this whole nation down, or even select targets not yet struck. Per Vlad.
They don't need to go this complex.
Why fire a missile when all you need is a few strokes of the keyboard?
Good job! Exactly. This is serious shit.
The original MAD doctrine was fire on everything. Cold War, shit. Theory of would you even want another cunt emerging from that clash been technology and powers. Some other lost tribe from bongaboo, later ruling the planet. So how many nukes did they build. Enough to target the planet several times. Insuring almost complete annihilation. Or the theories of it, off the weapons prepared. Since improving targeting and guidance. Supposedly tactical and what not. Placing in greater debates, scenarios, and rules. Hiding deeper bunkers. But even so, density and infrastructure aren't off the table, nothing theoretically is. If it goes there.
An easier scenario could see them used to prevent further use. But it ain't happening yet. At this rate who knows.
Would a nuke in Ukraine see the entire planet kick off? Would a nuke on Taiwan? Or Iran? Or North Korea?
I bet there are people or programs who calculate it? Of course a person suggests alliances, and defense pacts. But when you're considering the original doctrine. Would it see MAD off any proxies? These questions are being asked. Easier to just propose MAD. In doing so how many more nukes are there today? And faster emerging programs adopting them. Until it becomes MAD, anyway. Or rather not.
Until today, even on this forum, they think they aren't for real. For fucks sake. Not a pretty calculation.