If Russia acts a fool. When to leave the DMV?

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Middleman

    Junior Member
    Sep 25, 2020
    87
    When people start talking about this kind of thing I tell them all the same thing. Depending on the size of the bombs between NYC and DC we pr won’t even see the flash.
     

    cantstop

    Active Member
    MDS Supporter
    Aug 10, 2012
    6,789
    MD
    Does anyone really want to survive a nuclear war?
    The aftermath would be horrific. The supply chain, energy distribution, clean water and sewage systems would all be targeted. Medicine will become unavailable and our most vulnerable elderly, weak, and ill folks won't stand a chance. I don't think this is Putin's idea.

    I've heard of certain nuclear devices that have a very short half life (neutron bombs?) that are effective against a standing army without the long term radiation of a conventional nuke. The US shut down ours during the Reagan administration. If Putin uses these against Ukraine it will be certainly considered a war crime across the world. I don't think China would stand for it either. Nonetheless, these devices may exist in the Russian arsenal.
     

    lazarus

    Active Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    10,794
    The aftermath would be horrific. The supply chain, energy distribution, clean water and sewage systems would all be targeted. Medicine will become unavailable and our most vulnerable elderly, weak, and ill folks won't stand a chance. I don't think this is Putin's idea.

    I've heard of certain nuclear devices that have a very short half life (neutron bombs?) that are effective against a standing army without the long term radiation of a conventional nuke. The US shut down ours during the Reagan administration. If Putin uses these against Ukraine it will be certainly considered a war crime across the world. I don't think China would stand for it either. Nonetheless, these devices may exist in the Russian arsenal.
    Enhanced radiation warheads. Yes, the US developed and had them in our stockpile. The last were retired in 1992.

    Basically it is a low yield tactical nuke, designed to NOT contain the neutral radiation of the warhead. Per the Wiki article, a 1KT nuke is going to be effective at destroyed unreinforced buildings out to about 600 meters. Armored vehicles at MUCH shorter ranges. Potentially as short as just a couple of hundred meters in the open for something like a main battle tank. Unprotected humans, if something doesn't get blown into them, or them into something could easily survive within 600 meters of the blast (let along in a foxhole/not in the open). Blast overpressure will knock down a building at a distance where it would merely knock a person off their feet and rupture their eardrums. So even personnel might need to be MUCH closer to be killed or incapacitated. Thermal effects are only good out to a couple of hundred meters also against personnel (less for vehicles).

    HOWEVER, that same enhanced radiation nuke can deliver "immediately" lethal radiation (dead in 24-48hrs, incapacitated much sooner) out to a distance of about 900 meters. Lethal radiation (dead from radiation sickness within a few weeks) to a distance of 1400 meters. And vehicles provide relatively little protection. Same with buildings. You really need several meters of concrete or dirt to block it. At best a vehicle would attenuate it some, so it might only be immediately lethal at 400-500 meters, much longer range than the thermal or blast effects are to that vehicle/vehicle crew.

    Also it is area denial, as neutron radiation will cause radioisotope activation of many metals, like steel (the neutron radiation knocks into the atom and creates a new isotope that is not stable). It is actually one of the issues we are working around on Fusion reactors is the lining of the reactor suffers radioisotope activation from the neutron radiation. So, it periodically needs to be replaced (because it becomes VERY radioactive, and also not the same thing it had been made out of start with. Congrats, you've transmuted your lining into something new you sly old alchemist you!)

    Anyway, even in a tactical nuke, they would be a VERY bad thing. They were designed to stop Soviet Columns of tanks. Not sure if the Soviets adopted them. They are not reduced fallout from what I am aware. Such things do exist, but I don't think Neutron bombs are designed as such, and because of activation, they can make an area radioactive if there is much metal in it.

    I don't know what we'd do. The leaks/intentional news drops sound a lot like the most likely would be horizontal escalation, not vertical. Ruskies use tactical nukes in Ukraine, US and Allies would likely full court press India, China, and Turkey to stop all economic activity with Russia as well as cut off the last bit of economic activity with them. That combined with conventional strikes in Russian occupied Ukranian territory at air bases, command and control, radar installation, air defense, probably take out the Kursk straight bridge, and possibly hit some Russian naval vanity targets.

    Some, most, all of the above. Probably depending on the scale of Russia's use. One "baby" tactical nuke used on the battlefield and it would probably be an economic full court world press, combined with maybe downing the Kursk bridge and attendant air defense for it. Several tactical nukes would likely result in wide spread conventional response. Especially repeated use.

    Strategic nukes in Ukraine, or tactical nukes used against cities would likely result in that full court press out of the gate, and might well involve NATO use of one or more tactical nuke against a Russian 100% military target as a demonstration (like used against a naval base).

    I can't read Indian and Chinese tea leaves, but I highly doubt either would continue supporting Russia in ANY way if they used nukes.

    Some of the point here is if Putin is crazy enough to use nukes against Ukraine, he is crazy enough to use them against anyone.

    BTW, we'd have strong standing to do any of the above. The US, UK and Russians were signatories on the Budapest memorandum guaranteeing Ukranian sovereignty if they gave their nukes to Russia. Heck, after that and what Russia is pulling, I can guarantee there is no chance any country will ever against willingly give up nuclear weapons unless there is basically no other choice (maybe DPRK will if Kim Jung Un kicks it and some vaguely benevolent person takes over and wants to mend fences)
     

    Alan3413

    Active Member
    MDS Supporter
    Mar 4, 2013
    13,779
    I think the key here is what would a rational person do.

    An irrational person on the other hand, would not be deterred by the consequences, if he considers them at all.
     

    njjr1989

    Junior Member
    May 29, 2017
    14
    Even the North Korean ******* knows a nuclear strike would end up with retaliation that would destroy them. I doubt there will ever be an attack of mass destruction in the future. It's a no win situation.
     

    5cary

    On the spreading edge of the butter knife.
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 30, 2007
    3,036
    Sykesville, MD
    Even the North Korean ******* knows a nuclear strike would end up with retaliation that would destroy them. I doubt there will ever be an attack of mass destruction in the future. It's a no win situation.
    Unless you have nothing to lose and your finger happens to be the one on the button. I think that's what people fear with Putin.
     

    Gadsden

    Junior Member
    Sep 2, 2022
    5
    maryland
    Are Nagasaki and Hiroshima inhabited? In a full scale nuclear exchange those that didn't perish by the direct effects of the bomb would die from starvation and disease. The worst of the radiation would decay within a few days but since the modern infrastructure that we all rely on would be gone famine would set in followed by disease from the rotting corpses and plague like population of rats feasting on those dead bodies. Those that stay hidden in a well fortified habitat with ample food and clean water would, obviously, fare the best. However, how many of us are that prepared? Sadly, those that are most likely to survive would be those responsible for unleashing hell on the rest of us. Biden, Putin, Xi, etc would all survive, comfortably, inside their bunkers.
     

    DehydratedPirate

    Junior Member
    Jun 15, 2021
    1
    Like most of you, I live within 20 radial miles of the biggest target on the planet.

    In the event of sabre rattling becomes a tripped trigger, when will you leave?

    Just provoking thoughts.

    Also have you figured out how to haul everything you have/need?

    You always think you are prepared until the time comes to act...
    That depends on where its launched from, if its on a hypersonic missile(mach5-10), and the yield. Lets say it’s launched from Moscow to DC (4857miles~) and its hypersonic (mach10: 7672mph~), 4857/7672=0.6330hrs. So 0.6330hrsX60min=37.98 minutes to get far enough away. If it is a 100mt Tsar Bomba with an air burst you’d have to go roughly 57 miles away from DC in that 37.98 minutes. Roughly 40 miles for the same nuke with a ground burst in that 37.98 minutes. If all this math checks out at least.

    Links:
    Nuke map: https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

    Hypersonic missile speed/info: https://www.sipri.org/commentary/to...peed-understanding-hypersonic-missile-systems
     

    Scan Monkey

    Junior Member
    Dec 29, 2021
    11
    Like most of you, I live within 20 radial miles of the biggest target on the planet.

    In the event of sabre rattling becomes a tripped trigger, when will you leave?

    Just provoking thoughts.

    Also have you figured out how to haul everything you have/need?

    You always think you are prepared until the time comes to act...
    I believe we have a greater chance of dying fighting the enemy within. If you're paying attention, we are witnessing the FBI become a politicized tool of this far left administration.
     

    Artfldgr

    Junior Member
    Sep 2, 2022
    6
    Maryland
    Like most of you, I live within 20 radial miles of the biggest target on the planet.

    In the event of sabre rattling becomes a tripped trigger, when will you leave?

    Just provoking thoughts.

    Also have you figured out how to haul everything you have/need?

    You always think you are prepared until the time comes to act...


    The biggest target is not Wash...
    probably someplace more than 200 miles out to see after the cliffs..
    or the west coast of Africa

    the cliffs in africa sliding into the sea is a force multiplier of huge proportions
    and you dont even have to get near a modern state.

    sigh
     

    Artfldgr

    Junior Member
    Sep 2, 2022
    6
    Maryland
    Where are you going? Last time I saw the maps for the expected results, you're going to have to go a very long way to live to see the nuclear winter.
    I wouldnt believe the nuclear winter stuff
    they said hiroshima and nagasaki would not start to be habitable for 75 years
    how did that turn out? [and the stuff we have is much cleaner than those arms]
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    262,854
    Messages
    6,728,425
    Members
    30,820
    Latest member
    82peterbilt

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom