Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Sunday January 07 2018, @04:43AM   Printer-friendly
from the hoped-we-were-past-all-this dept.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is holding a "public health grand round" at its Roybal campus in Atlanta, Georgia. The topic is "Public Health Response to a Nuclear Detonation":

The CDC is holding a session January 16 to discuss personal safety measures and the training of response teams "on a federal, state, and local level to prepare for nuclear detonation."

The meeting, part of the agency's monthly Public Health Grand Rounds, will include presentations like "Preparing for the Unthinkable" and "Roadmap to Radiation Preparedness," and it will be held at the CDC's headquarters in Atlanta. "Grand rounds" are a type of meeting or symposium in which members of a public health community come together to discuss topics of interest or public importance.

This isn't the first time in recent months that official entities have informed the public about the consequences of a possible nuclear strike. In August, amid escalating nuclear rhetoric from North Korea, Guam's Homeland Security and Office of Civil Defense released a two-page fact sheet about what to do in the case of a nuclear event. And in December, Hawaii started monthly testing of a nuclear warning siren system -- the first such tests since the end of the Cold War.

It had been planned in April and has nothing at all to do with any particular statements or tweets.

Also at Time.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by anubi on Sunday January 07 2018, @07:20AM (30 children)

    by anubi (2828) on Sunday January 07 2018, @07:20AM (#619043) Journal

    We get mixed up in a Thermonuclear War and Nobody's gonna win that one.

    --
    "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=1, Interesting=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 07 2018, @08:20AM (29 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 07 2018, @08:20AM (#619055)

    Face it, there is nothing that will prevent nuclear war forever. We can win or we can lose.

    It's a shame that most people are not emotionally fit to be prepared. Preparing for disasters of all types is just what sensible people do. The fact that we install sirens for tornadoes and tsunamis, and that we sometimes have drill and lessons, is no different. It seems people want to ignore the issue, or else they just panic about it. Clearheaded preparation is far better.

    We're also cheap and lazy.

    Switzerland has nuclear war shelter for 114% of the population. Residential buildings are required to have shelter that can withstand a 12 megaton blast at 700 meters. Modern warheads are typically much smaller than that.

    Lots of "we are all so doomed" thinking assumes worst-case results from a worst-case war. That needn't be what happens. It's an excuse to not even try. It's an excuse to panic or surrender.

    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 07 2018, @08:40AM (5 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 07 2018, @08:40AM (#619058)

      Face it, there is nothing that will prevent nuclear war forever. We can win or we can lose.

      When that day comes, there will be no winners.

      Maybe survivors. In various states of survival.

      Most of the infrastructure that provides our creature comforts will most certainly be severely impacted.

      Duck and surrender? Absolutely not. War if it comes to that.

      My own consensus is it would be a helluva lot less risk to ALL of us to take out the combatants, rather than entire populations.

      I see constant stories on the police channels of people who "disappear".

      With all our highly trained forces and intelligence, it seems odd that one particular person is still wagging his weewee in public.

      If it comes to it, I'd rather see this whole thing settled amongst the upper levels of leadership ( by elimination, if it comes to that ) instead of releasing nuclear contamination onto the entire planet.

      Fukushima is bad enough. Ask the Japanese. Nuclear is messy - leaving a mess for generations to come.

      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday January 07 2018, @02:11PM (2 children)

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday January 07 2018, @02:11PM (#619150) Journal

        Ahhhh, the old assassination policy. I'm in favor of that. Kim and his security entourage can't be difficult to spot from orbit. So, we watch for him, and watch for him, for however long it takes. Then, we drop one of those space crowbars on his head. No amount of security will save his ass from that. Kinetic weapons are beautiful, in a way. You can get all the destructive power of a nuclear weapon, without any of the radiation hazard. We can drop ten kinetic weapons in a circle around Kim, making certain that he didn't zig when we expected him to zag. And, place two of them right up his ass, to be certain. And, the country remains clean and radiation free for the survivors.

        Even better, no one downwind has to worry about radioactive fallout. Oh, some fallout, yes - but no radiation in it. Just good, clean dust - some of which used to be Kim!

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 08 2018, @05:16AM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 08 2018, @05:16AM (#619418)

          I guess I like Spock's take on it...about the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few, or the one.

          In this case, it sure looks like he's the one.

          From what I see from my chair, everyone over there is afraid of him.

          Same as what happens over here when a gang takes over a neighborhood.

          I am not pissed at the people of North Korea. They are just trying to "have a life". Just like everyone else.

          But their leader is putting them up to all sorts of no-good.

          It appears there is only one way to strip him of authority. Very similar to the way we strip gang leaders of authority.

          Cop-Assisted-Suicide

          • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday January 08 2018, @08:16AM

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday January 08 2018, @08:16AM (#619458) Journal

            Spot on! The people of North Korea are the same people that you find in South Korea. They are a lot of cousins, second cousins, third - etc, etc. One bunch are our friends, the other bunch are our enemies, because a self appointed demi-god says so. The government could remain a communist government, and we could "get along" with them. It's just Little Kim who makes things so very difficult. Well - Kim and some relatively small cadre of officials. At most, we would only have to remove a couple thousand people to turn their government upside down. The actual number is probably a lot closer to fifty people. Once it were demonstrated that we could reach their top officials any time we want, and start working down the chain of command, we would soon find a new Dear Leader who was more reasonable. I don't mean likable or friendly, just more reasonable.

      • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Sunday January 07 2018, @11:13PM (1 child)

        by Phoenix666 (552) on Sunday January 07 2018, @11:13PM (#619322) Journal

        I grew up during the Cold War and we were constantly terrified by the prospect of nuclear Armageddon. As an adult I have a more tempered view.

        A city struck by a nuclear bomb is not gone forever. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are thriving modern metropolises today. I have stood at absolute ground zero in the Nagasaki International Peace Park and touched the twisted remains of the radio mast that was there, and I'm still standing.

        Radioactive fallout does not mean the end of life as we know it. In the exclusion zone around Chernobyl life is thriving. Fukushima melted down, but Japan is fine and the Pacific Ocean did not die.

        Also, losing a major city does not mean the rest of the country stops. We lost New Orleans to a hurricane, but America didn't stop. And New Orleans is fine now.

        So a nuclear exchange would kill a lot of people quickly, but it's not the end of the world. I would die in NYC and everybody would not get their fix of movies and TV they love to hate, because LA would go, too. But regional hubs and everybody else would do OK.

        --
        Washington DC delenda est.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 08 2018, @09:35AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 08 2018, @09:35AM (#619465)

          No, not fine at all. Humanity would likely survive, just how badly depends on how many nukes are let off. We could kill nearly all life in the planet with enough radioactive dust. How about we avoid nuclear war? Simple policy, best all around.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Sunday January 07 2018, @01:49PM (20 children)

      by Thexalon (636) on Sunday January 07 2018, @01:49PM (#619135)

      Lots of "we are all so doomed" thinking assumes worst-case results from a worst-case war.

      How could it not be?

      Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the US decided to nuke NK. Now, NK is likely going to know that the missiles are on their way, because the radar technology to do that has been around for decades and both the Russians and Chinese have it. So now NK has absolutely nothing to lose, and will launch whatever it has, because there's absolutely no reason for them not to. So not only have you blown up NK, you've also done quite a lot of damage to SK, Japan, and possibly Guam and the Aleutians. So minimum, you're looking at somewhere around 30 million people killed. For reference, that's between 40-50% of the casualties of World War II in a matter of hours.

      Plus you now have a radiation cloud over NK, SK, and Japan, and depending on which way the wind is blowing it's likely the radiation will make its way to Russia and quite possibly parts of China. So now you're relying on the restraint of Russia and China to do nothing about hundreds of thousands of their citizens have been killed by the US. And somehow I don't think Vladimir Putin would go for the "Oh, whoopsie daisy, we just killed everyone in Vladivostok with horrific cancers, no big deal" argument. Plus, since using nukes this way is a major violation of the Geneva Conventions, you've got any countries with scruples about those sorts of things imposing sanctions or even considering war against the US.

      --
      The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday January 07 2018, @02:18PM (19 children)

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday January 07 2018, @02:18PM (#619154) Journal

        You seem to be assuming a few things. First, that NK has an appreciable number of nuclear weapons. Second, that they all work as advertised. Third, that we can't knock some or all of them out of the sky. And, if we did nuke NK, what would China do? Would they sit by, and watch as NK launched some number of nukes? I suspect that they would knock down all of the inbound, AND outbound missiles that they could.

        • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 07 2018, @03:42PM (11 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 07 2018, @03:42PM (#619177)

          Fun question. How will the Chinese know incoming US ICBM's aren't aimed at them? And in a similar vein, how will Russia -- or any other country -- react when they detect ICBMs with a potential nuke on-board flying over? How can any of the parties involved know, or assume, the incoming missiles aren't part of a first strike at them?

          • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday January 07 2018, @05:50PM (4 children)

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday January 07 2018, @05:50PM (#619217) Journal

            The US has a lot of options. That is, we don't rely solely on ICBM's. We have submarines capable of putting a nuke up Little Kim's ass, if a satellite can report Kim's location. Low flying cruise missile, no one is alerted, until it goes "BOOM".

            • (Score: 2) by quietus on Sunday January 07 2018, @06:23PM (3 children)

              by quietus (6328) on Sunday January 07 2018, @06:23PM (#619233) Journal

              Nobody is alerted ... doesn't that undo the whole Mutual Assured Destruction thing?

              • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday January 07 2018, @09:03PM (2 children)

                by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday January 07 2018, @09:03PM (#619278) Journal

                You're referring to the Cold War, which ended decades ago. And, at the height of the Cold War, the submarine fleets were the "Assured" part of MAD. When all other options were depleted, when all the defenses had been fired at ICBM's and bombers, the subs would surface, and annihilate whatever was left. That was our side, as well as their side. MAD doesn't apply to any third parties, except maybe China. Korea cannot assure our destruction, nor can Pakistan, or Israel, or any of the other nuclear armed nations. If some combination of those nations were to sign on to treaties, they might be able to claim MAD against us. But, I don't really think so - only Russia and China have the resources to do so.

                Both of those nations know the score with North Korea. If we were to slip a task force of submarines into Korean waters, backed by a carrier group, then warn Russia and China just about zero hour minus five or ten minutes, there would be no return strike. Even without the warning, both would figure out on their own what was happening. Whether we fired one, or sixty missiles, both of those actors would realize immediately that all the targets were in North Korea, and not on their own land.

                Recriminations? Oh, sure, there would be plenty. But neither of them would fire on us. Of the two, China would be the more likely to fire, IMO, but why would they? Half of this country belongs to them, after all!

                • (Score: 2) by quietus on Sunday January 07 2018, @10:47PM (1 child)

                  by quietus (6328) on Sunday January 07 2018, @10:47PM (#619313) Journal

                  You make a number of optimistic assumptions, I think.

                  Firstly, you assume that all parties involved have an efficiently operating command-and-control system, with flawlessly working communications between e.g. Russian headquarters in Moscow and remote missile defense bases (say, somewhere in Kamchatka), in any and all atmospheric circumstances. (For a critical view of the United States' SAC system, I'd like to refer you to the Ellsberg book mentioned in an earlier post; suffice it to say that wasn't the case for SAC during at least a very, very long time since the start of the cold war, and in all likelihood still isn't the case).

                  Secondly, you assume that either the reply mechanism of the other parties is not fully automated, or -- if it is fully automated [e.g. Russia's dead-hand Perimeter system] -- that it is thoroughly tested and supplied with the best safeguards money can buy.

                  The third assumption, I think, might be the most dangerous one: that the other parties take the time to figure out what was happening on their own. How can any missile defense mechanism be certain that the missiles approaching are conventional ICBMs, with a predictable trajectory, and known nuclear warheads, and not accompanied by a wave of stealth bombers, targeted at them?

                  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Monday January 08 2018, @09:17AM

                    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday January 08 2018, @09:17AM (#619463) Journal

                    Well, I've already addressed that, elsewhere in the discussion. Those Russian defense systems that might spot the missiles are most likely to assume that the missiles are coming from North Korea. Drive a submarine into the north eastern portion of Korea Bay, launch the cruise missiles, and most likely, China spots them first, then North Korea, and finally Russia. The missiles should be on target and detonating about the time that Russia sees them, but if not, they're likely to assume that they are North Korean missiles. Any retaliation would be against N. Korea.

                    Not to worry about China. All of my missiles are vectored AWAY FROM China.

                    The biggest worry is Japan. My missiles will be pointed in the direction of Japan. They might retaliate against North Korea.

          • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Sunday January 07 2018, @08:46PM (5 children)

            by Thexalon (636) on Sunday January 07 2018, @08:46PM (#619271)

            Good point. And even if we called them up to tell the Chinese or Russians "Don't worry, those nukes aren't aimed at you, they're aimed at a country that borders you", why would they believe us?

            --
            The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
            • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday January 07 2018, @09:06PM (4 children)

              by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday January 07 2018, @09:06PM (#619280) Journal

              They don't believe us. They look at their own instruments. Each has their own versions of our DEW (Defensive Early Warning) line, as well as satellites in orbit. The instruments verify that none of the incoming is targeted on their land.

              • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Thexalon on Sunday January 07 2018, @09:36PM (3 children)

                by Thexalon (636) on Sunday January 07 2018, @09:36PM (#619288)

                Each has their own versions of our DEW (Defensive Early Warning) line, as well as satellites in orbit. The instruments verify that none of the incoming is targeted on their land.

                Do they in fact see that?
                1. Our missiles can steer a bit in mid-air, so even if the Russians and Chinese see that right now they're headed to NK, it's not much of an adjustment to send it to Vladivostok or Dalian or other targets in their country.
                2. To be sure the missiles are going to land on NK and not on themselves, they have to know not just the horizontal trajectory but also the vertical of the missile, because it's pretty much impossible to draw a line through NK that doesn't hit their countries. That's harder to do. I'm not saying they can't do it, but it's more work.
                3. The missiles are moving quickly enough that they have only a few minutes to figure all this out. If they have to guess, what guess are they likely to make?
                4. Do all of the DEW systems work properly? How do they know? Bear in mind that one of the very close calls during the Cold War (where the USSR had reason to think they were under nuclear attack) was due to a malfunctioning early warning system.

                --
                The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
                • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday January 07 2018, @10:40PM

                  by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday January 07 2018, @10:40PM (#619310) Journal

                  A little geography lesson seems to be in order. Please, take a quick look at this map. https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/south-north-korea-map-highly-detailed-vector-korean-peninsula-administrative-regions-main-cities-roads-30430812.jpg [dreamstime.com] You drive northward, from the Yellow Sea, into Korea Bay. It is a simple matter to position your submarine so that any missiles launched are headed AWAY FROM any point on mainland Asia. There may be repercussions from Japan, because those missiles may be pointed toward Japan - but they impact long before they even become visible to Japanese radars.

                  And, I'm not to proud to admit that I need to take another look. Where are the Korean nuclear tests taking place? Ahh yes, it's Punggye-ri. I can't locate that on this particular map - it appears that firing a missily at Korea's nuclear test site from Korea Bay would appear to be pointed at Russia.

                • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday January 08 2018, @05:12AM (1 child)

                  by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday January 08 2018, @05:12AM (#619417) Journal

                  Ohkay, Google Maps doesn't want to work for me, so I looked at it. Seems that my hardware doesn't support the newest version of the web-based Google maps, and I downloaded an old version, and installed it. We can drive a submarine into the northeast portion of Korea Bay, target Punggye-ri with a missile, and the apparent track of the missile will cross North Korea on an east by northeast heading, which will extend out over Peter the Great Gulf, and then thinly slice the coast in Russia. To be more specific, that extended track seems to endanger a few towns, Veselyy Yar, and Rakushka, Nord Ost, Timofeevka, Olga, Margaritovo, Moryak-Rybolov, Milogradovo, Valentin, Preobrazheniye, Kiyevka, none of which appear to be more than villages. Zooming out to get a better perspective, three larger towns remain visible Vladivostock, Nakhodka, and Artem. Those villages and towns, along with tens of thousands of square miles of forest, and barren land that doesn't even support forest.

                  I'm pretty confident that the Russians wouldn't mistake this firing mission for an attack on their homeland. It wouldn't even begin to make sense for the US to attack Russia from this angle.

                  • (Score: 2) by Aiwendil on Monday January 08 2018, @11:00AM

                    by Aiwendil (531) on Monday January 08 2018, @11:00AM (#619471) Journal

                    One city there should make you take caution, Vladivostok is the home to the russian pacific fleet, basically think their version of pearl harbour. It also is their main east coast harbour.

        • (Score: 3, Informative) by Thexalon on Sunday January 07 2018, @03:53PM (6 children)

          by Thexalon (636) on Sunday January 07 2018, @03:53PM (#619181)

          How I arrived at the 30 million number:
          1. There are 25 million North Koreans. Now, not quite all of them are going to get killed, but a lot will. I figured about 5 million lucky ones. So 20 million casualties on the NK side.
          2. Shooting down missiles is hard. As in, the best systems the US has probably take out 1/2 to 2/3 of incoming missiles. Oh, and when you hit them, they still explode, so depending on where you hit them that might not help. The North Koreans have anywhere between 15 and 60 nuclear missiles, depending on whose analysis you read. So, based on that math, I figured at least 5 would hit something. Targets in range of those missiles include Seoul (population 9.5 million), Busan (population 3 million), and Tokyo (population 9 million). Based on that, 10 million deaths outside of NK seems entirely plausible.
          3. Seoul, Busan, Tokyo, and several other targets are well within range of NK's conventional weapons as well. So even if the nukes aren't as advertised, they could still do a lot of damage and kill a lot of people.

          As for the radiation cloud getting into China and Russia, that's a result of the American nukes, not the NK's, so how good NK's nukes are is not relevant for that portion of the scenario.

          --
          The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
          • (Score: 2) by Aiwendil on Sunday January 07 2018, @04:37PM (5 children)

            by Aiwendil (531) on Sunday January 07 2018, @04:37PM (#619195) Journal

            As for the radiation cloud getting into China and Russia, that's a result of the American nukes

            Only if they intended to do that, one of the reasons why USA blew up so many nukes was to figure out how to control the fallout - modern nukes (ok, since the 60s) has fallout in an area not much bigger (about twice the radius iirc) of the blast.

            Also - the more fallout the less bang per unit of radioactive material (one of the nicer things with hydrogen bombs is btw that they are insanely clean for the level of bang)

            • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Bobs on Sunday January 07 2018, @05:33PM (4 children)

              by Bobs (1462) on Sunday January 07 2018, @05:33PM (#619211)

              Fallout is is hard to manage.

              - Where fallout lands depends upon the wind.

              - One of the issues with planning for a strike on multiple targets, is the prevailing winds can be different in different areas.

              - Do you optimize military/nuclear strikes by waiting for just the right weather conditions? Or something else?

              - If waiting for right wind conditions, what are looking for?
                  - Blow out to sea (-> Japan)
                  - Blow North (China, Russia)
                  - Blow East (China, India)
                  - Blow South (South Korea)

              - Since it was US decision if/when to strike, US bears responsibility for fallout.

              - And the stuff can be airborne for a long time, and travel far.
                  - American West coast routinely getting air pollution / particles from China. So radioactive cloud hits the US?

              The Radioactive cloud / fallout from multiple nuclear strikes is a significant issue.

              • (Score: 2) by Aiwendil on Sunday January 07 2018, @08:38PM (3 children)

                by Aiwendil (531) on Sunday January 07 2018, @08:38PM (#619270) Journal

                - Where fallout lands also heavily depends on at which altitude you chose to detonate, and what yield(s) used.

                - Yup, they differ, but if this matters someone screwed up planning anyways.

                - Optimize the strikes by chosing the yields and altitudes needed to hit the intended targets with minimum mobile fallout (camouflet strikes are better than airbursts at hardend target for instance, and has a nice minimal mobile fallout).

                - Not having fallout of significance leaving NK?
                  - Blow out to (eastern) sea - great, nuke Pyongyang with up to about 8Mt with impunity
                  - Blow North - 6Mt Pyongyang
                  - Blow West (assume you meant that here) - The east cost, stay below 4Mt. Use multiple multi-kt nukes for pyongyang.
                  - Blow South - Stay below 2Mt for pyongyang, increase for further north.
                  The trick is to just make sure you detonate it on the right altitude to not get too much reflection from the ground and not high enough to get into different airflows (the reverse of how you optimize where to detonate a cobalt-bomb), oh, and stay away from dial-a-yield bombs and if possible use multiple warheads (better area coverage and flatter blast for same yield).

                - Agreed

                - Unless the bomb was a true rushjob the fallout will be remarkably (in terms of radioactivity) clean if if travels far.
                  - Japan managed to botch a few active nuclear plants, that radioactivity is worse than the ones from bombs in terms of mobility, just how much even reached hawaii? (Also, heck, I'd welcome if it reach USA, especially if someone points out that a pack of cigarettes would give them a higher radioactive dose. To get a sense of just how much of a non-issue this is, this is where Tsar Bomba (google maps) [goo.gl] was detonated, that was a 50Mt nuke, note that stuff closer to that area than NK-US (picked Chuginadak Island for sake of getting a round number and where people start to care) is stuff like everything of mainland europe all the way to spain, moscow, svalbard, uk, the arctic, turkey, kazakhstan, mongolia, greenland, the coast of new foundland (canada) and most of alaska). (Google maps takes actual distance into account, which matters at great distance [wikipedia.org]), as far as I know USA doesn't even have 50Mt nukes, and since fallout wasn't that much of an issue in alaska or new foundland when the tsar bomba detonated...)

                The cloud/fallout is a local issue unless you fail to learn from all that atmospheric testing or fail to consult charts.

                • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Sunday January 07 2018, @09:05PM (2 children)

                  by Thexalon (636) on Sunday January 07 2018, @09:05PM (#619279)

                  - Not having fallout of significance leaving NK?
                      The trick is to just make sure you detonate it on the right altitude to not get too much reflection from the ground and not high enough to get into different airflows (the reverse of how you optimize where to detonate a cobalt-bomb), oh, and stay away from dial-a-yield bombs and if possible use multiple warheads (better area coverage and flatter blast for same yield).

                  No, the trick here is that:
                  - using technology that probably hasn't been maintained perfectly or tested recently
                  - built by government contract
                  - being handled by people who are in a high-stress situation (yes, I know, trained military and all that, but even military guys aren't going to be thinking "ho-hum, we're about to start a nuclear war") and have never actually done the real thing before
                  - with minimal margin for error
                  All works perfectly as designed.

                  Part of the problem is that North Korea just isn't very big, which means that it doesn't require much of a mistake to hit SK, China, or Russia.

                  And again, you're talking about actions that will kill millions of civilians. That's a no-no for a reason.

                  --
                  The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 07 2018, @09:29PM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 07 2018, @09:29PM (#619287)

                    Nukes are maintained. We are constantly rebuilding them. On a regular schedule, each warhead gets shipped back to a national laboratory to be disassembled and have old components replaced.

                    Accuracy is very high now. Granted, it would be higher without democrat obstruction, but it is pretty good. This is why we are no longer much into 20 megaton warheads.

                    Killing millions of civilians is how war works. We haven't really had a war since Japan surrendered. Some folks need killing. Many lives, all around the world, are a negative value for us.

                  • (Score: 2) by Aiwendil on Monday January 08 2018, @01:11AM

                    by Aiwendil (531) on Monday January 08 2018, @01:11AM (#619349) Journal

                    As already pointed out by AC they undergo regular rebuilds (also - is this issue about age of explosives (affects both efficency and shape, either of which can cause a fizzle), rust on cabling and such (which also can cause fizzles) - the timings of implosion bombs are insane).

                    Regarding testing everything but the warhead gets tested regularly, and the warhead is replaced with dummies of same weight and weightdistribution for such.

                    I agree that humans are the weak link, but hopefully the nuke will be delivered via ICBM from someone with presence of mind and not some PTSD'd frontline-assignee.

                    Regarding degree of error - let me google that - oh, seems like 50% chance for an ICBM to hit within 200m of target, with never versions down to about 90m. And we are talking about munitions where you count the blast in kilometers. I'd say they are well within close enough. (btw, if you aim at pyongyang you need to miss by more than 80km/50mi to hit outside of NK)

                    I agree that the deathtoll would be high (then again, the initial _conventional_ NK counterstrike at SK would probably exceed it - unless SK got a heads up from US), but the fallout wouldn't really be that much of an issue (especially not in the grand scheme of tihings)
                    (Nuking a city would be a war crime, but not because of the nuke but because you are targetting civilians. So using nukes isn't a no-no, but the choice of targets discussed are)

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Bobs on Sunday January 07 2018, @02:39PM

      by Bobs (1462) on Sunday January 07 2018, @02:39PM (#619164)

      Face it, there is nothing that will prevent nuclear war forever. We can win or we can lose.

      Personally, I am quite pleased with how the USA’s nuclear war with the Soviet Union turned out.

      Tens of thousands of nukes on both sides, there were some close calls, but we muddled through.

      I think the same approach with North Korea is our best option.

    • (Score: 1) by anubi on Monday January 08 2018, @06:23AM

      by anubi (2828) on Monday January 08 2018, @06:23AM (#619431) Journal

      I am just about as prepared as I feel I can be, given my financial and intellectual means.

      Financial... I do not have enough to invest in an underground bunker, or ten year's of dehydrated food.

      But I do have an old school mechanical vehicle, that is not dependent on any way, on the operation of solid-state electronics ( except the diodes in my alternator. Note to self... stock spare alternator diodes and regulator assemblies, wrapped in foil ).

      Its all hard-wired, with switches and electromechanical relays. EMI will NOT faze this thing.

      Intellectual... I have books and tools, and the knowledge of how to use them.

      I also have the parts around, stored in EMI-resistant boxes, to begin reconstruction of Arduino-compatible things. As well as my older laptops that run the Arduino development systems, wrapped in tinfoil, in footlockers. They run from 12 volts.

      Actually, most of my tools now run from 12 volts.

      ( I am aware that power-tool lithium battery packs contain internal solid-state charge-balance and protection circuitry that is likely to be fried with EMP, rendering the pack either on flames, or useless. )

      I think I will be able to save a lot of small critical stuff just in case of an EMI strike. The bigger it is, the harder it is to save, as there is just that much more antenna surface to pick up the voltage pulse. An isolated USB stick, wrapped in foil, may well survive, but one plugged into a PC will likely not.

      I even have several file-cabinet drawers full of old-school vacuum tubes should the EMP be stronger than I think, and I need to build a radio or transmitter. I know how those tubes work, and I have plenty of old-school tube manuals with their tech specs.

      In that scenario, I have to bank on the fact there will likely be very few of us who know how to rebuild a lot of stuff from the ground up running around. And those with other resources will be incentivized to share to keep me alive.

      Totally prepared, uh no, nor can I even think of anyone else who is either.

      Even if the rich survive for a decade in an underground bunker, eventually they will run out of supplies, and when they do, the infrastructure we all used to produce those supplies no longer exists. And most of the minions who made their stuff won't be around anymore either.

      --
      "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]