If Nk gets seriously nuked where will the prevailing winds take the fallout?

Thanks! :) I'll check your link. Someone told me that Bohol, Philippines is a good place to be at such a time so if it comes to it maybe we'll do ok here. Hydro power generation, pretty far from anything worth nuking, plus I have a hookah dive system which I can run off a 12v battery and a solar charger for that which I can use to set fish traps. Also a couple of rice fields...that covers protein and carbs...

I wonder how bad a nuclear winter would be in the tropics?

Nuclear winter is probably a myth. A really large nuclear exchange (currently possible only if USA and Russia nuked each other) could produce some cooling effect, but nothing serious. It would have been much worse if there was a nuclear war in the late 1970, when the warheads had greater yield. There is a rule - the more accurate your nukes are, the lower yield they have. Early cold war nukes were so inaccurate, that they needed to have yield greater than 1 Megaton to actually destroy the target. Present-day nuclear weapons are much more accurate, so their yield is correspondingly lower, about 300 Kilotons (0.3 Megaton) in most US strategic nukes and about 500 Kilotons in Russian strategic nukes. Tactical nuclear warheads have much lower yield, comparable to the Hiroshima-Nagasaki bombs (~ 20 Kt and lower).

North Korea currently can't produce a working and usable nuclear weapon, and I heard their last test was around 20 Kt.


---

About the country you live in - well, if China doesn't decide to nuke you, you shouldn't worry. It's me who should be digging a shelter ;)

Yah, I wonder if we could hit their artillery fast enough to save Seoul. Huh, that sounds odd...save Seoul. Japan of course might be very screwed.

Patroklos has reasonably disproved the theory that NK could destroy Seoul in a short time just by using its artillery (in another thread). Most of the city is outside the range of most of their artillery pieces.

There would be plenty of time to destroy the rest, and I believe it could be done without using nukes at all (bad for PR).
 
We have a place in Oregon also, another good place to be I think.
 
Where are you from and at Winner?
 
Where are you from and at Winner?

See my profile - I am from the Czech Rep., so if NATO goes to nuclear war with Russia, we're screwed even if nobody nukes us directly. There are important targets in Germany, so the fallout would be carried by the prevailing westerly winds directly to us. Plus, there are some NATO facilities here, which might attract a warhead or two as well :)
 
Yah, I wasn't far from there in the mid '70s. 2d armored cav, we based in Bamberg and Hof which isn't too far from you I think. Passed through Prague once after visiting my ex Swiss gf I went to visit a Czech girl I met in Cali but it didn't work out. Took the train from Switzerland into Germany and then the Czech Rep. Amazed to see the change, buildings still damaged from WW2, train went from speedy to slow as it hit the tracks there. That was maybe 15 years ago though, sure you guys have it fixed up now.
 
Yah, I wasn't far from there in the mid '70s. 2d armored cav, we based in Bamberg and Hof which isn't too far from you I think. Passed through Prague once after visiting my ex Swiss gf I went to visit a Czech girl I met in Cali but it didn't work out. Took the train from Switzerland into Germany and then the Czech Rep. Amazed to see the change, buildings still damaged from WW2, train went from speedy to slow as it hit the tracks there. That was maybe 15 years ago though, sure you guys have it fixed up now.

There is a saying here that even a blind and deaf person can recognize it when he crosses the German-Czech border in a car - the roads get bumpier :lol:

Nah, most of the infrastructure is now up to Western European standards and the country looks very different today.

And as a bonus, we could get nuked by our former comrades, isn't that nice? ;)
 
Heck of a deal.

Still, they would have to be completely crazy to try it. I think they're trying any method other than a war nobody can win to regain their lost glory. Its what Russians always have done, yes? Its in their national character to push out their borders. Now, they can't use force so they use oil and gas. Europe of course played the sucker and got hooked so they have a tool. Anyway I'd say you are more safe there now than in the last decades unless you want to cook something or heat your home. Better not throw that old coal stove yet, eh? ;)
 
Heck of a deal.

Still, they would have to be completely crazy to try it. I think they're trying any method other than a war nobody can win to regain their lost glory. Its what Russians always have done, yes? Its in their national character to push out their borders. Now, they can't use force so they use oil and gas. Europe of course played the sucker and got hooked so they have a tool. Anyway I'd say you are more safe there now than in the last decades unless you want to cook something or heat your home. Better not throw that old coal stove yet, eh? ;)

When I was reading the book I linked, I was surprised how many things I would have omitted in case of nuclear war. I think nobody gives it much thought, after all if it didn't happen during the Cold War, it's much less likely to happen now, but still...

I live in a city, but my family owns a house in the countryside, so I'd head there, hide in the wine cellar and drink myself to oblivion ;)


BTW, an article you might find interesting:

NATO-Russia War: A Possible Scenario

Andreas Umland: In Russia, a virulent form of anti-Americanism is becoming a constituent part of public opinion and foreign policy thinking. Should the current dominant trend in political discourse continue, in the future the world may witness more than a new cold war.

A regularly employed analyst runs a certain risk when publicly speaking about the possibility of humanity being destroyed in the foreseeable future. "Professional myopia" or "immaturity in judgment" may be among the less denigrating - "unprofessional hysteria" or "irresponsible conduct" the more damning - reactions by colleagues. However, a plain extrapolation of recent political developments in Russia into the future should lead one to regard outright war with NATO as a still improbable, yet nonetheless possible scenario. It is not unlikely that Russian public discourse will, during the coming years, continue to move in the same direction in which it has been evolving since 2000. In such a scenario, what is in store for the world is not only a new "cold" but also possibly a "hot" and perhaps even nuclear war.

This assessment sounds not only apocalyptic but also "unmodern," if not anachronistic. Aren't the real challenges of the 21st century global warming, financial regulation, the North-South divide, international migration etc.? Isn't that enough to worry about, and should we really be distracting ourselves from solving these real problems? Hasn't the age of East-West confrontation been over for several years now? Do we really want to go back to the nightmarish visions of the horrible 20th century? A sober look at Russia suggests that we better do just that: prudence may decrease the probability that a worst-case scenario ever materializes.

Such a scenario has become feasible again as Russian public opinion and elite discourse have - until August 2008, largely unnoticed in the West - made a fundamental shift, during the last years. The 1990s began with Russia's enthusiastic embrace of the Western value system and partnership; they ended with Russian scepticism and bitterness towards the West. This was less the result of NATO's expansion or bombing of Yugoslavia per se than an outcome of Moscow's peculiar interpretation of these actions.

In the early 1990s, Yeltsin failed to remove many of the Soviet Union's elites from their positions of power and influence. This gave the ancien régime's representatives an opportunity to impregnate post-Soviet political discourse with a reformulated, yet again fundamentally dualistic, world-view in which Russia and the US remain arch enemies fighting not only for control of the former Russian empire, but also deciding the future fate of humanity.

Initially marginal interpretations such as these were already making inroads into Russian mainstream discourse in the 1990s. With the beginning of Vladimir Putin's rise in 1999, however, they started to slowly but steadily move into the political center. Whereas Europe's recent scepticism towards the US has been, in many cases, an anti-Bushism, the Russian aversion towards America and NATO goes deeper. Today, the idea that the Western (or at least Anglo-Saxon) political leaders are virulently Russo-phobic is commonplace on TV talks show and in academic conferences. That events like the Orange Revolution in Ukraine or Georgian attack on South Ossetia were fundamentally inspired, if not directly organized by the CIA is, in Russia today, a truism. That the CIA or another Western secret service is behind 9/11 or the Beslan tragedy are respected assessments frequently discussed in mainstream Moscow mass media. That the current behaviour of the West and its puppets in Eastern Europe has much in common with Nazi Germany's policies is an opinion with which many Russians would readily agree.

Such collective paranoia is not only regrettable, but also dangerous. The nation that is beholden to these bizarre views still has a weapons arsenal large enough to eradicate humanity several times. Until August 2008, it appeared that Dmitry Medvedev's rise might usher in a new stage in Russian-Western relations -- a prospect that, after the Russian-Georgian war and the disciplining effect it had on the new President, has become unlikely again. Today, there is little ground for hope that the deep contamination of Russian public discourse could be reversed, or at least its further evolution be stopped, in the nearer future. Unless something fundamentally changes in Russian-Western relations, we will -- as the Russian-Georgian war illustrated -- continue to live on the brink of an armed confrontation between two nuclear super-powers.
 
They aren't having many kids so maybe the problem will just go away, the sons of guns.

Its the problem of someone else now. I did my time on the border and am working up to retirement in the happy land of the sun. The only way it comes to me is on the wind, hence this thread.

I like your plan for shelter. :) Any chance of escaping Europe?
 
They aren't having many kids so maybe the problem will just go away, the sons of guns.

Its the problem of someone else now. I did my time on the border and am working up to retirement in the happy land of the sun. The only way it comes to me is on the wind, hence this thread.

I like your plan for shelter. :) Any chance of escaping Europe?

Why would I want to do that? Europe is actually very hospitable place, more than most other parts of the world. Once the radiation fades away (it would take only few weeks for the most dangerous stuff to decay), there is a chance people could produce their own food. Southern Moravia (this is where I live) is a fertile region, plus there are vineyards, large reservoirs, forests, even some oil deposits. Not a bad place for a living once the radiation disappears.

Where else could I go? North Africa or the Middle East in the south don't strike me as a good alternative, Scandinavia is too cold and in the East there's Russia.

Anyway, I think that's enough OT for now :)
 
Yes ok, thanks for chatting. :)
 
It should make you realise how unlikely it is. The US dosen't want to destroy Japan...
 
It wouldn't, even if tac. nukes were used in NK - don't exaggerate.

I know that - I'm making the point that he needn't be worried, the US is not going to undertake any action in DPRK that would seriously damage Japan.
 
I know that - I'm making the point that he needn't be worried, the US is not going to undertake any action in DPRK that would seriously damage Japan.

So you know what exaggeration means, after all. Funny that you can't tell when I am doing it...

Anyway, this is why Japan invests so much into missile defense. If NK loses the ability to seriously threaten American allies, it will become much more vulnerable. Perhaps it will make them act in a more responsible manner.
 
Most of it would deposit in the Sea of Japan and Japan itself - heavier dust particles tend to come down quickly. The lighter, soft stuff would be carried by high-alt. winds and some of it would even reach the US, but by the time it would happen the natural decay and dispersal would have rendered it harmless.
.

I think annually 150 thousand Tons of pollution from China is scattered across the US. Mostly brought on by rain. This may seem a big number but a lot of it ends up in the pacific and scatted widely though the effect will increase as China industralisation put more pollution out into the air.

The effect on many parts of China also bares witness to unchecked pollution.
 
Back
Top Bottom