Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This film was made in 1984. It takes place in Sheffield, England. Here is just the bombing scene.
The entire film sometimes shows up on YouTube.
Those of you smuggies who think your Montana dugout will see you through are sadly mistaken.
Those of you smuggies who think your Montana dugout will see you through are sadly mistaken.
While it is true that a nuclear blast will see heavy casualties among the prepared and non-prepared alike (and many of both will survive it), there are numerous other, more likely scenarios where preparedness would contribute significantly to someone's ability to survive. Among them are economic depression or dislocation, martial law, war/civil war, government coup, dictatorship, Zimbabwe-style inflation, pandemic, EMP, etc etc.
I know of no one here who is "smug" or who has a bunker ("dugout"), whether in MT or elsewhere. None of us are wishing for any of the above. You seem to be in need of an attitude adjustment.
... Those of you smuggies who think your Montana dugout will see you through are sadly mistaken.
I am not familiar with who a 'smuggie' is.
I served 20 years on Active Duty in the US Navy, mostly on FBM submarines. Strategic targeting is a fairly common discussion among the crews of nuclear missile launch platforms.
In WWII the carpet bombing of cities seemed to be effective over military targets. London, Dresden, Osaka, Kassel, Darmstadt, Pforzheim, Swinoujscie, Berlin, Hamburg, Tokyo, and of course Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It is not a settled debate. The largest city a nation has is not automatically the best place to bomb. There is no endless supply of bombs, so the selection process of targets is critical. Bombing a harbor has a huge effect on a nation. Power plants, dams, rail bridges, ... some would argue that bombing political centers would have a big effect. [Personally I do not think that losing DC would really be as crippling as losing our oil refineries]
There is no rationale for bombing rural forest land. None. Any large rural state would require at least a thousand nuclear bombs to affect the entire area hard enough to actually harm any bunkers there. The majority of our nation is rural. Committing many thousands of bombs to hammer all rural areas, would not cripple the nation's power grid, or shipping, or transportation, or political centers. It would not serve any purpose, strategic or tactical.
There are some rural areas that are big Ag producers. But dedicating one nuclear warhead to every 10 farms results in a very small effect per warhead. 100 nuclear warheads destroying 1,000 farms, would certainly be a bad day for those farmers. But our nation would not go hungry from that loss.
Yes it would reduce our food production some. But we produce a massive over-supply. A great deal of our grain production today is dedicated to automobile fuel, not food. We produce more food than the entire planet can eat. There is no true shortage of food here in the USA. There are problems in world-wide distribution of food, but we make way more food than our population can eat. We waste over 30% of the food we cook.
If someone has a cabin in Montana, they would be relatively safe from nuclear warheads bombing them. With the world's current supply of warheads, the process of targeting legitimate strategic targets will consume the entire stockpile long before any carpet bombing of rural areas.
Location: MA/ME (the way life should not be / the way it should be)
1,266 posts, read 1,389,312 times
Reputation: 735
Only definitions i can find of smuggie is on Urban Dictonary, so reader be warned....
smuggie - a self-satisfied person, sanctimonious, narrow minded, always on the lookout for a chance to impose their standards upon the rest of the world, offensively cheerful, has clever glib little reasons to justify their chastising
Based on its spelling im guessing it is close to smug, or would mean someone who is smug, or some variant of that (not sure on how to word this). Either way i take the context to mean it was used to be an insult, which that above definition does show.
And your right a dugout wont help, but im sure being 200+ miles from the nuke will help... alot.
I remember watching a documentary that said concrete was a good reflecter of fallout radiation, as well as cars, so maybe you can live in a car, surronded by concrete to protect from fallout if its closer
Any film re-enactment of urban bombardment [again: London, Dresden, Osaka, Kassel, Darmstadt, Pforzheim, Swinoujscie, Berlin, Hamburg, Tokyo, and of course Hiroshima and Nagasaki]; is going to show people screaming and running, explosions and fire, structures collapsing, etc. That is to be expected from urban bombardment.
I fail to see any connection between that and bomb shelters. Or rural scenes.
This sub-form is labeled: "Self-Sufficiency and Preparedness". Any connection between the OP film and 'Self-Sufficiency and Preparedness' is tenuous at best.
Cities try to have Civil Defense plans, so metro bomb shelters do exist. That fits into the idea of 'preparedness' for those city managers. Ideally those shelters are stocked with food, water, and supplies. [though I wager most are not properly supplied]. Metro bomb shelters are not exactly a step toward Self-Sufficiency for anyone.
But I am just an off-grid organic farmer who has a background in nuclear strategy, so what do I know? Enjoy your Sunday.
... I remember watching a documentary that said concrete was a good reflecter of fallout radiation, as well as cars, so maybe you can live in a car, surronded by concrete to protect from fallout if its closer
Time, Distance, Shielding; those are what you need.
Concrete, earth berms, or water will work as shielding. I would not consider it reflecting. Some radiation will hit and stick to the surface, some will penetrate a little, some will penetrate a lot. But I do not believe that much of it will be reflected exactly.
Time, Distance, Shielding; those are what you need.
Concrete, earth berms, or water will work as shielding. I would not consider it reflecting. Some radiation will hit and stick to the surface, some will penetrate a little, some will penetrate a lot. But I do not believe that much of it will be reflected exactly.
The key to shielding is mass. A ton of dirt is as good as a ton of lead, the ton of lead is just smaller. Some materials are better at absorbing some kinds of radiation. Water is a pretty good neutron moderator, so wet dirt is better than dry dirt. The Juno spacecraft electronics are inside a vault of titanium. You are correct that the radiation is absorbed, not reflected.
In a nuclear event, wind patterns will do as much as anything to define safe areas. A HEPA filtered respirator will be essential safety gear for going outside, but as long as you don't inhale particles, your skin will stop alpha radiation. If you can survive 3 to 6 months, there will probably be defined "safe" areas. You will be a starving refugee, but that's better than being a dead one.
I served 20 years on Active Duty in the US Navy, mostly on FBM submarines. Strategic targeting is a fairly common discussion among the crews of nuclear missile launch platforms.
In WWII the carpet bombing of cities seemed to be effective over military targets. London, Dresden, Osaka, Kassel, Darmstadt, Pforzheim, Swinoujscie, Berlin, Hamburg, Tokyo, and of course Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It is not a settled debate. The largest city a nation has is not automatically the best place to bomb. There is no endless supply of bombs, so the selection process of targets is critical. Bombing a harbor has a huge effect on a nation. Power plants, dams, rail bridges, ... some would argue that bombing political centers would have a big effect. [Personally I do not think that losing DC would really be as crippling as losing our oil refineries]
There is no rationale for bombing rural forest land. None. Any large rural state would require at least a thousand nuclear bombs to affect the entire area hard enough to actually harm any bunkers there. The majority of our nation is rural. Committing many thousands of bombs to hammer all rural areas, would not cripple the nation's power grid, or shipping, or transportation, or political centers. It would not serve any purpose, strategic or tactical.
There are some rural areas that are big Ag producers. But dedicating one nuclear warhead to every 10 farms results in a very small effect per warhead. 100 nuclear warheads destroying 1,000 farms, would certainly be a bad day for those farmers. But our nation would not go hungry from that loss.
Yes it would reduce our food production some. But we produce a massive over-supply. A great deal of our grain production today is dedicated to automobile fuel, not food. We produce more food than the entire planet can eat. There is no true shortage of food here in the USA. There are problems in world-wide distribution of food, but we make way more food than our population can eat. We waste over 30% of the food we cook.
If someone has a cabin in Montana, they would be relatively safe from nuclear warheads bombing them. With the world's current supply of warheads, the process of targeting legitimate strategic targets will consume the entire stockpile long before any carpet bombing of rural areas.
It depends on the weather. One nuke in the dry season would start a firestorm that would obliterate thousands of square miles. Your bunker better have its own air supply, because there would be nothing breathable at ground level. In the rainy season, a nuke wouldn't do much.
It depends on the weather. One nuke in the dry season would start a firestorm that would obliterate thousands of square miles. Your bunker better have its own air supply, because there would be nothing breathable at ground level. In the rainy season, a nuke wouldn't do much.
So the justification for dropping a nuclear warhead becomes starting forest fires in the hope that forest fires will make smoke and choke out people hiding in bunkers?
Wouldn't a lit match do the same?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Juno spacecraft electronics are inside a vault of titanium. You are correct that the radiation is absorbed, not reflected. 
