Inbound ballistic missile to Hawaii, false alarm.

[ExtraSlow]

Dadsmarts

[OTown]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

What do you mean? The Dad?

Dude if Hawaii got nuked finding cover would do you absolutely zero good. Might as well enjoy your last few moments.

Yeah, the dad.

Pretty sure North Korean nukes aren't known for their accuracy. So it would likely hit the water nearby and possibly have a blast radius or shockwave that may hit the islands. Or it lands on another island. Or a tsunami is triggered.

So yes, getting into some type of cover may save his life.

The whole point of a warning system is for people to abide by the warning, not just do whatever they want and hope the warning itself was a mistake. This just gives people the wrong idea.

[ercchry]

Yeah! He should of got in a fridge! Then he’d be safe!

[ZenOps]

A nuke going off in water does not displace much water. There would be basically zero chance of a tsunami, as the water tends to absorb or let the radiation go through it instead of displacing it like it does with rock.

Much like how if you shoot a bullet into water, it basically takes all the energy out of it and you would be relatively bulletproof at about one foot distance.

However, the concussive force if you happen to be in the water would be lethal several times over and fairly large distances. If you had your chest in the water, your lungs would instantly scramble, if you happen to be above the water you would be perfectly safe. Every submarine in the area would suffer instant death of all crewmembers because of concussive force, but any ships above water may notice a few feet of surge. Guam for example, only stations 4 submarines on a permanent basis - none of which anyone knows the exact location of at any give time.

Having a nuke go off in the water would be an absolute waste of a good nuke. The best height is probably between 2 and 100 miles above the surface of the earth for detonation (high altitude nukes probably are the most effective use of a nuke in war)



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime

Starfish prime was about 250 miles up (which is considered high altitude) but many scientists did not condone it because any higher, and there was and still is a slight chance of global catastrophe if you start to go up into the 200 mile above the surface of the earth range - as the theory still holds that it is possible to ignite the upper atmosphere of the earth with a single small nuke, which would basically destroy all life on earth. A 33 pound super-cheap minimum yield nuke does have an outside chance of killing Billions of humans and most life on earth with a single detonation within a few decades anyhow.

Starfish Prime was an incredibly irresponsible nuke test. The greatest single threat to humanity is without doubt the USA. Risk the entire atmosphere of the earth for a peacetime test as a sabre-rattle?

https://qz.com/1140566/north-koreas-...-could-hit-us/

In many ways, a landmine nuke is more responsible, because if an ICBM ever accidentally explodes exactly mid-flight, it could technically destroy the entire atmosphere of the earth. Its why people who say that "star wars" defense system of shooting down nukes at their peak height with some laser guns, are complete retards. Has the USA already planted landmine nukes in South Korea without prior approval from South Korea? Now that's a conspiracy theory.

BTW: It is up to some debate as to what colour the sky would be if a nuke successfully ignited the upper atmosphere. There is no question the sky would no longer be blue, but many suggest it might be a more clearish black - I do not subscribe to the theory it would turn red or cloudy black. Would you be able to see some stars during the day? Very possibly. Distopian Hollywood movies where the sky is bright red after nuke damage? Nah, it will be blackish.

"As long as the sky is still blue, its all good" "Duck and cover" All quotes that have meaning to those of the era of the cold war.

[ZenOps]

BTW: A nuclear bomb detonated over the US would probably not come by bomber ever. Just for the simple idea that any airplane is far too low of an altitude to maximize the full nuke explosive damage. Although if someone figured out a way to put an opening on top of a bomber and have it launch further up, that would be doable.

Orbital nuke would be king, as you can control the height from where you would consider dropping it from. If the nuke was only 51 pounds like the Davy crockett, you could probably put it on a helium weather balloon and it would be more effective than a bomber (but also ridiculously easy to shoot down)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindenburg-class_airship



Although again, arguably you could simply attach a breakaway parachute and slowly inflating helium balloon to a nuke - drop it out conventionally wait for the windshear to pass, and simply have it rise to its optimal height. This would also give extra time for the airplane (assuming moving only at maybe slightly above speed of sound) to escape the blast.

It arguably would cost a few hundred thousand dollars to modify a conventional bomb type nuke to get that type of height, where as an ICBM would be half a trillion dollars.

http://get-urban-survival-skills.blo...mp-attack.html

[revelations]

Good Friday meds for Zenflops !!

Only thing thats missing from his soliloquy is a nickel-salted "dirty" bomb

[J-hop]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Yeah, the dad.

Pretty sure North Korean nukes aren't known for their accuracy. So it would likely hit the water nearby and possibly have a blast radius or shockwave that may hit the islands. Or it lands on another island. Or a tsunami is triggered.

So yes, getting into some type of cover may save his life.

The whole point of a warning system is for people to abide by the warning, not just do whatever they want and hope the warning itself was a mistake. This just gives people the wrong idea.

You realize nukes are detonated hundreds of meters above the ground right? So x,y accuracy doesn’t really matter that much the missile isn’t going to land in the ocean.

Sure if you ran down to some concrete enforced basement you might withstand the initial blast. But think about it. You are literally in the middle of nowhere surrounded by ocean. They aren’t going to be sending aircanada to pick you up with the massive amount of radiation and fallout.

Surviving the blast most likely would be worse....

Sure you may have a point if it’s just a standard bomb, but kinda silly to think NK would waste a surprise attack on the US with some conventional bomb.

[Swank]

Looks like HEMA IT could use some better password policies. Post-its can actually be easily hacked if you know how to look directly at them.

https://hotforsecurity.bitdefender.c...1.html#new_tab

[ZenOps]

Its worth noting that a small nuclear blast at 400 miles up should be viewable by both Los Angeles and New York and everything inbetween at the same time. The "aurora glow" is well documented to be visible through even thick cloud cover.

I've said it before, if North Korea aims for the smack dab center of the US and it detonates, it has a zero percent chance of "missing the target".

Disclaimer: I have not personally born witness to an atmospheric nuke. Its essentially been banned since LEO and geostationary satellites (late 1960's) because of the potential of one wiping out hundreds of them in 1/4 second. Immediate human deaths from radiation on a 400 mile high nuke would also be next to zero. But almost immediately you would start to have deaths because of power blackouts, tens of thousands of traffic accidents would probably be first.

I do partially blame the USA nuke testing. No doubt North Korea bore witness not only to the two surface Japan nukes (proximity) but also the atmospheric nukes that the USA (other than Hawaii) never got to see. Starfish Prime may have actually inspired them to build nukes, it supposedly was an awesome show of power - I mean you can literally light up nearly the hemisphere with a single nuke.

My guess? If North Korea wanted a show of power, they would detonate a nuke right inbetween Guam and Hawaii at about 250+ miles height, which would definitely be viewable by Los Angeles. It would hella piss of China though, because the geostationary satellites immediately above it would have a high chance of destruction (maybe 100 Billion damage, literally)

BTW: I don't think the millennial generation accurately understands the global implications of a singular low-yield (all nukes were extremely low yield back during Starfish Prime) cheap nuke detonation, even over open ocean. Is there an 80 year old Hawaiian that bore witness to the sky lighting up on a nuke detonated 900 miles away? I bet he is the guy who ordered the warning as a last request.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfi...:Starfish5.JPG

[asp integra]

I was in Maui when this happened, sitting on the patio of the condo enjoying a nice morning coffee. Alert comes in, my wife and i kinda look at each other like 'is this a joke; then we heard other people talking about the same thing. We figured we're on an island, theres nowhere to really escape to, lets just head to the beach and get a front row seat lol.

[Tik-Tok]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Sure if you ran down to some concrete enforced basement you might withstand the initial blast. But think about it. You are literally in the middle of nowhere surrounded by ocean. They aren’t going to be sending aircanada to pick you up with the massive amount of radiation and fallout.

That's why I signed up for the Vaultec premium membership. Guaranteed to have a space in whichever Vault is closest to us. I just hope it isn't Vault 68.

[bjstare]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

That's why I signed up for the Vaultec premium membership. Guaranteed to have a space in whichever Vault is closest to us. I just hope it isn't Vault 68.

I don't play the game, so no idea what this was til I googled it. I'd much prefer Vault 69 by the sounds of it.

[flipstah]

I have nothing to contribute but this awesome diagram.

[Darell_n]

I attribute a NK nuclear missile to have the same accuracy as letting a balloon go with the end open. Shoot for Florida, land in northern Manitoba.

[ZenOps]

On a much more theoretical note:

Its been suggested that North Koreas obsession with certain icons is actually situated in the visual impact that Starfish Prime had upon the populace. Double rainbows especially.

https://www.cbsnews.com/media/kim-jo...ts-propaganda/

Now, you can't *really* explain to the greater populace of North Korea that the most intense glowing object in the sky with the most intense rainbow ever created - was a nuke going off. People wouldn't even have had a frame of reference to know what a nuke was back then. So its probably just as well to use it to your advantage and say that your new leader was born from the skies from that double rainbow - that nuke that everyone saw that unfortunate day that they probably also received a healthy but completely non-lethal dose of gamma radiation.

If you want even a crazier theory: It has been suggested that if the USA never set off Starfish Prime, North Korea would never have pursued building nukes in the first place.

Unconfirmed tidbits: The actual intensity of brightness of Starfish prime was not at immediate detonation, it was three minutes later when the majority of atmosphere around it was ionized. Arguably, this single blast did more damage than all the ionizing ozone killing gases released from spray cans in the decades since then.

Yeah, pretty f'ed up situation, lol. And with that is the crash course in "End of World 101".

[95EagleAWD]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

A nuke going off in water does not displace much water. There would be basically zero chance of a tsunami, as the water tends to absorb or let the radiation go through it instead of displacing it like it does with rock.

Much like how if you shoot a bullet into water, it basically takes all the energy out of it and you would be relatively bulletproof at about one foot distance.

However, the concussive force if you happen to be in the water would be lethal several times over and fairly large distances. If you had your chest in the water, your lungs would instantly scramble, if you happen to be above the water you would be perfectly safe. Every submarine in the area would suffer instant death of all crewmembers because of concussive force, but any ships above water may notice a few feet of surge. Guam for example, only stations 4 submarines on a permanent basis - none of which anyone knows the exact location of at any give time.

Having a nuke go off in the water would be an absolute waste of a good nuke. The best height is probably between 2 and 100 miles above the surface of the earth for detonation (high altitude nukes probably are the most effective use of a nuke in war)



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime

Starfish prime was about 250 miles up (which is considered high altitude) but many scientists did not condone it because any higher, and there was and still is a slight chance of global catastrophe if you start to go up into the 200 mile above the surface of the earth range - as the theory still holds that it is possible to ignite the upper atmosphere of the earth with a single small nuke, which would basically destroy all life on earth. A 33 pound super-cheap minimum yield nuke does have an outside chance of killing Billions of humans and most life on earth with a single detonation within a few decades anyhow.

Starfish Prime was an incredibly irresponsible nuke test. The greatest single threat to humanity is without doubt the USA. Risk the entire atmosphere of the earth for a peacetime test as a sabre-rattle?

https://qz.com/1140566/north-koreas-...-could-hit-us/

In many ways, a landmine nuke is more responsible, because if an ICBM ever accidentally explodes exactly mid-flight, it could technically destroy the entire atmosphere of the earth. Its why people who say that "star wars" defense system of shooting down nukes at their peak height with some laser guns, are complete retards. Has the USA already planted landmine nukes in South Korea without prior approval from South Korea? Now that's a conspiracy theory.

BTW: It is up to some debate as to what colour the sky would be if a nuke successfully ignited the upper atmosphere. There is no question the sky would no longer be blue, but many suggest it might be a more clearish black - I do not subscribe to the theory it would turn red or cloudy black. Would you be able to see some stars during the day? Very possibly. Distopian Hollywood movies where the sky is bright red after nuke damage? Nah, it will be blackish.

"As long as the sky is still blue, its all good" "Duck and cover" All quotes that have meaning to those of the era of the cold war.

You're right, nukes detonating underwater don't displace much water.... /s

https://gizmodo.com/5942246/this-is-...des-underwater

No water displaced there at all... Just enough to absolutely swamp a ship two and a half miles away.


Also, just so people are aware, it is ABSOLUTELY worth taking cover in this kind of event. North Korean bombs aren't big, the biggest test so far is 250 KT or so. So even if they dropped it on Pearl Harbour (the navy base) and it airburst for maximum destructive power, you could watch from Waikiki beach and be just fine from the blast. NUKEMAP Radiation might be another question, but yes TAKE COVER. It could save your life.

[J-hop]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

You're right, nukes detonating underwater don't displace much water.... /s

https://gizmodo.com/5942246/this-is-...des-underwater

No water displaced there at all... Just enough to absolutely swamp a ship two and a half miles away.


Also, just so people are aware, it is ABSOLUTELY worth taking cover in this kind of event. North Korean bombs aren't big, the biggest test so far is 250 KT or so. So even if they dropped it on Pearl Harbour (the navy base) and it airburst for maximum destructive power, you could watch from Waikiki beach and be just fine from the blast. NUKEMAP Radiation might be another question, but yes TAKE COVER. It could save your life.

Some of those tests you’re referring to aren’t nuke tests though so careful what you infer from that. NK isn’t going to waste a first attack with a test sized missile

For reference Hiroshima was ~15KT nuke. It was considered very inefficient, 1.6km total destruction, fire destruction out to an 11km radius. The plane that dropped it felt some of the shockwave at an 18km radius from the blast point.

Not sure where that site is coming up with those numbers...

[ZenOps]

While most of the information of the 1962 tests is up for public viewing, some of the Palo Alto California data is being kept secret. Some say that the tests were designed to ensure that it would maximize the viewability in Island Asia region for maximum fear effect, but be far enough below the horizon to not be seen by California as they did not want to instill fear in Americans. The timing was done to coincide with the hours of darkness to maximize fear.

Fishbowl in general was on a scale of dickwad things to do, 11/10.

[ZenOps]

Fishbowl was without doubt the ultimate terror weapon. Nothing the middle east has ever done could even compare to the US atmospheric nuke tests.

I mean really, if North Korea detonated a high altitude nuke smack middle of the USA viewable by the entire continent including Mexico and Canada? Wow, it would put 9/11 to shame.

Would a rogue US general (like a crazier version of McCain, but maybe not as bloodthirsty) high altitude nuke the USA as a false flag to get a war started? Well, if you look at the history of how much the US has nuked its own soil at ground level - its definitely not beyond possibility. Would a Rogue US General nuke the communist welfare state of Hawaii? I'd say definitely greater than 50-50.

[kertejud2]

http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/


Would your house be safe, find out here!