Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It won't matter where you run to in thr US if someone nukes us. It will be all out war and the US would launch massive nuclear strikes in retaliation. That would also cause more nukes to launched in response. The whole world would die of radiation posioning.

I’m not sure that’s true in the case of a terroist attack dirty bomb. Or a rogue attack by a country like Iran that only has limited weapons. Would Russia or any significant nuclear power jump in with its nukes to defend Iran? Probably not—they would just enjoy the benefits of our chaos. It’s not like the old mutually assured destruction of the Cold War. The civil disruption of having nearly the whole federal government wiped out would be significant however.

If Iran wants to set off a dirty bomb, sure, they can go right ahead and do it. They can enjoy being nuked into oblivion and the US can oblige them by carpet bombing their entire country with dirty bombs so that their entire civilization and peole will no longer be able to inhabit the entire lands of Iran for the next 2000+ years. Russia and China could try to defend, but they'd risk all put nuclear holocaust because the US would oblige Iran's stupidity + 100x more.

Most of the govt is outside of DC anyway. You can immediately tell where radioactive material comes from from a dirty bomb, so if any country wants to try a stupid move have fun with the response.

A dirty bomb from Iran doesn't make any sense. They have a very limited amount of uranium. "Wasting" that material instead of refining it into a more powerful fission/fusion bomb doesn't maximize their efforts.

More traditional terrorism or biological weapons would be much cheaper and just as effective on American morale as a dirty weapon.

I don't think a dirty bomb is a significant health/death concern, more of a property damage issue. If it's small enough to go undetected then there won't be much material to spread far - it would become quite diluted. It would be pretty hard to get enough material together with a high enough amount of radioactivity to do much that's beyond the risk of conventional explosives.
Cleanup would be a big deal to get it to the point that people would want to inhabit / work in the area again.

Also, uranium that they would use for a nuclear bomb is not sufficiently radioactive to make a dirty bomb. Two different things.

Anonymous wrote:I take heart in knowing that many liberals living in urban targets will be annihilated in the first few minutes of a significant nuclear exchange. That’s the only upside to a nuclear war that I can think of - knowing most DCUM posters will be transformed into dust and vapor within the first second.

Klassy

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It won't matter where you run to in thr US if someone nukes us. It will be all out war and the US would launch massive nuclear strikes in retaliation. That would also cause more nukes to launched in response. The whole world would die of radiation posioning.

+1
It's more a question of how you would like to die. In this situation I'd think the people who die immediately are the luckiest. Unless you are a billionaire with a bunker.

My fear is not being with my family. I live in Arlington but work in DC. If we get an alert there are only minutes left to live, I would want to be with my family. Worst case would be it happening during school hours. Those poor teachers trying to keep kids calm and not being with their own families.

And what if DH and I die immediately, but our young kids don’t. There won’t be reliable emergency services and it’s not like they’d have a clue what to do.

The reality though is there isn’t really much I can do to prep (I have no desire to live in a bunker for decades) and we face much bigger risks on a daily basis. We’re going on a road trip this weekend, which is a much bigger statistical danger than a nuke.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It won't matter where you run to in thr US if someone nukes us. It will be all out war and the US would launch massive nuclear strikes in retaliation. That would also cause more nukes to launched in response. The whole world would die of radiation posioning.

I’m not sure that’s true in the case of a terroist attack dirty bomb. Or a rogue attack by a country like Iran that only has limited weapons. Would Russia or any significant nuclear power jump in with its nukes to defend Iran? Probably not—they would just enjoy the benefits of our chaos. It’s not like the old mutually assured destruction of the Cold War. The civil disruption of having nearly the whole federal government wiped out would be significant however.

If Iran wants to set off a dirty bomb, sure, they can go right ahead and do it. They can enjoy being nuked into oblivion and the US can oblige them by carpet bombing their entire country with dirty bombs so that their entire civilization and peole will no longer be able to inhabit the entire lands of Iran for the next 2000+ years. Russia and China could try to defend, but they'd risk all put nuclear holocaust because the US would oblige Iran's stupidity + 100x more.

Most of the govt is outside of DC anyway. You can immediately tell where radioactive material comes from from a dirty bomb, so if any country wants to try a stupid move have fun with the response.

A dirty bomb from Iran doesn't make any sense. They have a very limited amount of uranium. "Wasting" that material instead of refining it into a more powerful fission/fusion bomb doesn't maximize their efforts.

More traditional terrorism or biological weapons would be much cheaper and just as effective on American morale as a dirty weapon.

There will be nobody left behind to grieve.

We will all go together when we go.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It won't matter where you run to in thr US if someone nukes us. It will be all out war and the US would launch massive nuclear strikes in retaliation. That would also cause more nukes to launched in response. The whole world would die of radiation posioning.

I’m not sure that’s true in the case of a terroist attack dirty bomb. Or a rogue attack by a country like Iran that only has limited weapons. Would Russia or any significant nuclear power jump in with its nukes to defend Iran? Probably not—they would just enjoy the benefits of our chaos. It’s not like the old mutually assured destruction of the Cold War. The civil disruption of having nearly the whole federal government wiped out would be significant however.

If Iran wants to set off a dirty bomb, sure, they can go right ahead and do it. They can enjoy being nuked into oblivion and the US can oblige them by carpet bombing their entire country with dirty bombs so that their entire civilization and peole will no longer be able to inhabit the entire lands of Iran for the next 2000+ years. Russia and China could try to defend, but they'd risk all put nuclear holocaust because the US would oblige Iran's stupidity + 100x more.

Most of the govt is outside of DC anyway. You can immediately tell where radioactive material comes from from a dirty bomb, so if any country wants to try a stupid move have fun with the response.

Anonymous wrote:That article was complete clickbait.
An ICBM to Washington won't happen.
However, a dirty bomb set off by a terrorist cell... that seems more likely.

You have critical thinking skills and logic that is lost here on dcum and the wider world. I appreciate your post.

Anonymous wrote:It won't matter where you run to in thr US if someone nukes us. It will be all out war and the US would launch massive nuclear strikes in retaliation. That would also cause more nukes to launched in response. The whole world would die of radiation posioning.

I’m not sure that’s true in the case of a terroist attack dirty bomb. Or a rogue attack by a country like Iran that only has limited weapons. Would Russia or any significant nuclear power jump in with its nukes to defend Iran? Probably not—they would just enjoy the benefits of our chaos. It’s not like the old mutually assured destruction of the Cold War. The civil disruption of having nearly the whole federal government wiped out would be significant however.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It won't matter where you run to in thr US if someone nukes us. It will be all out war and the US would launch massive nuclear strikes in retaliation. That would also cause more nukes to launched in response. The whole world would die of radiation posioning.

Nope.

That’s not how it would work.

Y not

If we ever have an all out thermonuclear war, I'm painting a bullseye on my roof. I have no desire to live through an aftermath.

Anonymous wrote:I take heart in knowing that many liberals living in urban targets will be annihilated in the first few minutes of a significant nuclear exchange. That’s the only upside to a nuclear war that I can think of - knowing most DCUM posters will be transformed into dust and vapor within the first second.

Glad you'll have an opportunity to dine on the emaciated cancer-ridden bodies of your loved ones. Enjoy!

Anonymous wrote:It won't matter where you run to in thr US if someone nukes us. It will be all out war and the US would launch massive nuclear strikes in retaliation. That would also cause more nukes to launched in response. The whole world would die of radiation posioning.

Nope.

That’s not how it would work.

I take heart in knowing that many liberals living in urban targets will be annihilated in the first few minutes of a significant nuclear exchange. That’s the only upside to a nuclear war that I can think of - knowing most DCUM posters will be transformed into dust and vapor within the first second.

Anonymous wrote:It won't matter where you run to in thr US if someone nukes us. It will be all out war and the US would launch massive nuclear strikes in retaliation. That would also cause more nukes to launched in response. The whole world would die of radiation posioning.

+1
It's more a question of how you would like to die. In this situation I'd think the people who die immediately are the luckiest. Unless you are a billionaire with a bunker.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read it in today’s paper. Terrifying and wish I hadn’t seen it given the current imbecile in charge.

OP here, that's how I feel! Also, there was NOTHING at the end of the article about the likelihood of this happening, what to do to protect yourself, etc. It was just "Devastation, if you live in the DMV you're dead. The end." That's not an opinion piece, it's something else. What, exactly, I'm not sure.

There is a vanishingly minuscule probability that this will ever happen. You have more risk of dying from a car accident, falling down the stairs or being struck by lightning.

This is true only under the condition that the risk continually decreases. If the annual chance of a nuclear exchange were to remain at, say, a steady 1%, or increases, then the risk of such an apocalypse would be scarily high, and, in the long run, a virtual certainty.

However scary, this is completely accurate for the conditions stated, of course. Nonetheless, the contributor embedded a remedy (i.e., work to decrease risk).

Regarding the math itself, I don't think many people would be interested in aspects such as distinctions between independent and interdependent events, although in a complete analysis, an understanding of such aspects would be essential.

Is about the reliability of statistical analysis of "black swan" events. They are real things to consider. But "assuming" 1% annual probability doesn't help anyone understand the risk or react in a logical manner.

I do agree with you that many people are not interested in those kinds of distinctions.