https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRnU0bqsyq0
I was under the impression that nuclear winter was a myth. I know OPpenheimer has said th8s, but are any points in this video valid?
Minute Physics is actually really mediocre because like most YouTube Science teachers, they go into a lot of 'what' and leave out most of the 'how' or 'why.' Rather he gives only very cursory glimpses into otherwise very complicated systems. But this particular video he seems to be shilling hard as fuck for some anti-nuclear campaign, rather than try to inform people.
tl;dr
Minute Physics sucks and you shouldn't watch his videos.
>>29426421
same applies to minute physics:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-Kmxvl0ICI
>>29426561
>>29426885
His understanding of the topic is, as we could say, "minute".
>>29426903
>>29426885
Precisely.
>>29426903
YYYYYEEEEAAAAAAAAAAHHH
>>29426421
>Nuclear Winter is a myth
>Most of the US and most countries wouldn't be heavily impacted by nukes directly
>EMP is a meme threat since they'd have to be OBSCENELY powerful to do anything in the first place, AND everything is already shielded anyway
The video sucks
>>29426421
>Let's count every nuclear weapon not dismantled* as ready for immediate launch, even though only ~1400 of that 7000 number could be fired right now
>Let's also ignore that in the feared accidental immediate launch scenario default targeting would be counterforce, exactly the opposite of the heavy focused urban targeting required for nuclear winter to be remotely plausible
>Let's just state as a fact that small nuclear arsenals are an effective deterrent against large ones by pointing to countries that are not deterring any large arsenals
*And if you're going to respond "oh well they could be readied really quickly!" why the fuck are you accepting the NNSA's definition of "dismantled" when many of the weapons that have dropped out of that 7K figure could be returned quickly to service? Oh yeah because they know jack shit about the topic and are just regurgitating figures other people have posted with no understanding of them,
I like how he doesn't count in the French or UK warheads on the 'number required for an effective deterrent' point. Since they are both have aprox 300~ and that doesn't fit his <100 deterrent narrative.
>>29426421
hello m'reddit
>>29427983
I am just subscribed to the minute physics youtube channel and didn't agree with what they said, thus posted it here really to just reaffirm my beliefs.
The OP is a question, not a statement.
holy shit for a second i thought that plane was within the same focal plane as the boat. nearly gave me a heart attack.
>>29428045
Is micro-destroyer da
>>29426968
In what world do we live in where the U.S.'s energy grid is shielded against EMP's?
>>29428219
The Western world? We've known about the 'threat' of EMPs for a long ass time, our entire grip IS shielded. Not perfectly, but enough for the VAST majority of threats. Fact of the matter is, the nature of the energy grid requires enough shielding for low-level incidents already. I'm not saying it wouldn't cause any issues ever, but essentially everything we use and own is neither now going to be affected in the first place, shielded for other reasons (which provides enough protection), or shielded expressly for protection from EMP-like effects.
>>29428304
Not saying you're lying, but do you have sauce on that? I was under the impression the vast majority of our energy grid was vulnerable.
>>29428337
Well the basic shielding is just from all the radiation and shit we're pumping in around it (wifi, radio, cell, basic electrical fields, etc). That should just be available in tech documents, like I had in college. But the more severe stuff I actually got from OPpenheimer, but again I never saved anything. I'd try around the various /k/ archives/storage sites and just read what he's said (where he provides sources).
>>29426421
good god that video is retarded. Completely ignoring all the issues with the science behind a nuclear winter scenario, the "expert" doesn't seem to understand how deterrence actually works, and that half the reason the arsenal is so big is to ensure that a critical mass of warheads will always be able to survive a first strike.
No surprise that an organization peddling pop-science would subscribe to retarded beliefs.
>>29428468
/thread
Minute physics hasn't been good for the last 2 years because he ran out of physics topics long ago.
>>29428337
Different anon here. You can shop around on Google and find a source to support just about any theory you'd care to name. It would appear that the various government sources aren't in agreement.
My opinion is that a large enough EMP could cook off 1/2 to 2/3 of our grid, mostly damaging transmission wires. I suspect that automatic safeties would open breakers before equipment received heavy damage from the surge. It would take months or years before all of the damaged wires could be replaced.
The thing is, getting a device into the perfect location to achieve max damage would be nearly impossible. North Korea, Iran, and ISIS would have to seamlessly act in concert to pull it off.
A more realistic scenario would be attacking the grid by shooting up a bunch of substations, like what happened near San Jose a couple of years ago. Any number of actors could dump a truckload of cash on the cartels to launch 50 or 60 attacks on the grid within a 24 hour period. That's really all it would take.
>>29430060
https://desustorage.org/k/thread/25120119/#25124568
Also
>mostly damaging transmission wires
Not a specialist by any means, but how would the WIRES be affected? Wouldn't it be the tranformers and such?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_electromagnetic_pulse
Everybody do some quick reading, it's a fairly short read
It's hypothetical but then again we don't really want to test it in the real world do we?
Very likely it's real. See http://acd.ucar.edu/~mmills/pubs/2014_EarthsFuture_Mills_et_al.pdf
>>29430188
the wires are 1k mile long antennas for the EMP
the longer the antenna, the larger the pulse absorbed. transformers are basically giant coils of wire.
hence why most microelectronics contrary to popular belief are actually almost entirely unaffected by EMP; there's very little wire to actually absorb/conduct the pulse. the power grid will go down but you can still read your kindle on the shitter
>>29426968
>obscenely powerful
no
>everything in the US is shielded
no
while Im not a doomsdayer, we are not adequetly prepared for a problem that could potentially hurt us badly with very little effort
>>29431356
Transmission lines are cunt long, but I wouldn't exactly call them antennas. They are all isolated from each other, they also don't have a ground plane which is a hard requirement for an antenna to effectively radiate. Also, from a singular event, they would only grab enough of the power to pop whatever they were attached to, it's not like we're talking about emp pulse devices.
Disclaimer: I'm probably completely wrong on all this shit
>>29431422
i'm not talking about something like a radio antenna. it's an antenna in the sense that it receives the EM flux.
>they would only grab enough power to pop whatever they're attached to
yes, so they would down thousands of square miles of transformers, waystations, and consumer electronics connected to the grid
>not like we're talking about emp pulse devices
the easiest way to EMP is to use a nuclear weapon exoatmosphere.
>>29430188
long explination short...
a nuclear detonation above the atmosphere causes charged particles to fall out of the atmosphere towards the earths surface and like the other anon stated, the transmission lines act as huge antennas that would direct the massive amount of front-loaded electrical energy directly into the grid. The grid isnt designed to handle such a massive surge, so major components of the grid could fail in a way that makes them irrepairable, (welding components together, exploding transformers, electrical fires) and without a proper stock of replacement parts that are often built to order, the grid could remain unuseable for a long time.
>>29431422
>hey also don't have a ground plane which is a hard requirement for an antenna to effectively radiate
oh really now?
go and run an AM setup near some high voltage lines
>>29426421
Same mistakes as other nuclear winter positions.
Assuming that one target gets one warhead.
Assuming that targets will be mostly urban in nature.
Not understanding the difference between tactical nuclear weapons and strategic nuclear weapons.
Garbage in, garbage out.
>>29431259
>http://acd.ucar.edu/~mmills/pubs/2014_EarthsFuture_Mills_et_al.pdf
>each side using 50 Hiroshima-size weapons in megacities on the subcontinent
Total disregard for the actual nuclear postures of Pakistan and India.
Total ignorance of the actual nuclear capabilities of the two nations.
Again, if you start with flawed assumptions, your conclusions will be flawed as well.
>>29431736
He comes, the harbinger of the apocalypse
>>29431565
That anon was asking how the wires themselves would be damaged, not the equipment they are connected to like the transformers. The wires will be just fine.
>>29431736
Oppenheimer are you still here?
>>29431736
Like shouting bloody mary in the mirror you appear on call, cheers OPpy!
>>29431645
Yeah you're talking about line noise, that doesn't mean that the line itself it an antenna. You know that everything makes some type of noise right? Go sniff out LEDs and flourecent lights and see what you get
>>29431736
Holy shit you are back. I know you will not trip for long but while you are here I justed wanted to say you are the best trip on all of /k/
I hope those rotten apples did not cause any harm to you. Cheers!
>>29432001
depends on how much voltage goes thru it.
you get enough and the line will melt, or weld itself to something.
>>29432345
I didnt say its an antenna, but power lines have no problem acting as an antenna in given situations, regardless of ground plane or polarization.
further, the post I replied to specifically stated that power lines dont "effectively radiate" which is the part of the comment I was replying to specifically.
and fyi, but for the mitigation factors taken by american power companies, HV lines radiate a shit ton of interference.
go stick some flourescent lights in the ground near HV lines and see what happens
Could anyone link any articles/papers that state that nuclear winter is a myth? Just Curious.
>>29434758
There were some great articles in old threads from Oppenheimer if you want to search in the archive. He's a nuclear engineer somewhere or something and has been on /k/ for years giving advice and info.
But you can do some of your own research, unfortunately there is nothing that really pops out because the nuclear winter myth is propagated extremely heavily.
First and foremost, even at the height of the Cold War, there was not enough nukes availible to hit both civilian targets and military targets. Cities are just too large and the population is spread out for countries among many different cities.
Second, the first striking nation will take out the majority of nuclear weapons on one side, and the second strike capability is not great enough to propagate this winter. Nuclear silos are made to withstand everything but direct hits. The most destructive nuclear explosion (an air burst at around 500 meters to create the Mach stem) will not be used, and a direct hit will be incredibly small in size of devastation and creation of fallout. See pic.
The cities burning and forests burning simply will not happen. The first and second strikes must be made on military targets, lest the nuclear warfare accomplish nothing but reduce the military's need to stay at home and put energy towards their chaotic population. There's no need to enforce laws on skeletons and stop skeleton riots.
>>29434758
>>29435468
And finally when you compare a nuclear war to apocalyptic caldera explosions, the myth of nuclear winter is dispelled entirely.
Krakatoa, in the calculation of force even after throwing islands into the air, was 250 or so megatons. Of course nukes work differently, as they are not pure force. The detonation height must be perfect to create its maximum explosive power and destructive force. Despite this, and a particulate release that utterly dwarfs the spread out use of nukes during a war scenario, the skies turned red and the weather only got slightly colder.
The Tamboura eruption is calculated at 800-1000 megatons of pure force with particulate expulsion at a size which cannot be caused even if every single nuclear weapon was detonated on earth. It would have to be at a single point underground to reach that level of destruction, and might not even if we do so due to the Mach stem issue sapping explosive force. Every nuke on earth will not be launched in any war scenario, they will certainly not be in one place underground, they will certainly not cause firestorms in cities and forests unless an utter impossibility happened with them ignoring military targets, and even then the particulates released into the atmosphere will not reach the level of a tamboura explosion unless the forests burn down completely, something which cannot happen unless it's a global drought and suddenly the forests of the world all turn into California drought tier forests with no gaps, water, snow, and weather to prevent the fires from growing.
This tamboura event was smack dab in the middle of the little ice age, one of the coldest times in history, and produced a year without summer. This was before fertilizer, the populated farming population of the Midwest, before anti biotics, flight, worldwide cargo transport, and basically everything we have had since 45. It was a single year, and was less devastating than the Middle East wars.
>>29435737
It was also less devastating and costly on humanity than the Napoleon wars which had ended recently.
If we can barely reach an event that caused the year without summer with all of our nuclear weapons combined, live in the modern era with everything that they did not have in 1816, and that only encompasses the span of a single year at best, nuclear winter simply cannot happen.
The nuclear winter meme with decades long winter like multi gigaton asteroid events is simply a lie.
It's a well spirited lie created so people won't be in haste to go to nuclear war, but still a lie and a complete fabrication from the minds of scientists, especially Sagan.
Source: you can even find out this from reading the Wikipedia pages. They give the explosive force and the amount of particulates ejected into the atmosphere.
The math is easy from there.
>I remember when Wikipedia was absolute dogshit and full of non cited lies
>it's become encyclopedia britannica for history, chemistry, and geological events barring the 2010 era political crying articles people are still fighting over
What a world
>>29435468
>>29435737
>>29435782
This is why I still lurk around these boards. Fascinating, insightful vignettes of brilliant things I never knew. Thanks stranger.
>>29436320
Thank you.
I miss when Oppenheimer posted on the boards with a lot of frequency. I learned a lot from him.
You have to chant his name and sacrifice 5 pigeons, iodine, and 3 bottles of vodka just to get him to appear nowadays.
>>29426421
Listen to /k/ anon,
Nuclear war is still a very viable way to win a conflict. It does not even hurt anyone that much. Fallout is a myth anyway.
Thinking the US would have to give up a nuke is totally unpatriotic and clearly shows you are a goddamn commie.
>>29435468
>The cities burning and forests burning simply will not happen
Hol' up
Forests won't burn but there would definitely be major conflagrations in large cities that have government/military/industrial targets. It wouldn't be 100% casualties or even as bad as Hiroshima (per unit of explosive force) but there there definitely would be large fires in urban areas as a result of flash ignition and electrical/gas infrastructure malfunction, water pressure failure and casualties among first responders.
There are plenty of nuke-worthy targets in significantly populated areas. They probably won't nuke Manhattan, for example. But let's look at, just to pick two, LA and San Francisco. Both of them have important military logistical facilities, maritime freight infrastructure, oil/gas refinery and storage smack dab in the middle of heavily populated areas. When hit, there would be major flash ignitions for miles around.
>>29434758
You can't prove a negative. The issue is that none of the nuclear winter studies have taken into account the realities of nuclear warfare. They all make the same mistakes.
Nuclear winter depends on widespread urban firestorms to produce particulate matter that causes a cooling of the Earth. The studies assume that each urban area will receive one warhead and that the warhead will be delivered with the intention of maximizing thermal effects.
This is simply not the case.
Most targets are far from urban areas, and even the ones that are, are often not situated perfectly in the middle of the area to allow for convenient firestorms to begin.
>>29437338
>definitely would be large fires in urban areas as a result of flash ignition and electrical/gas infrastructure malfunction,
This is incorrect. Post war testing showed that most building materials are difficult to ignite in a sustained fashion.
Consider the house in this pic.
The first effects of the thermal pulse have caused charring and smoke from the material, but as time increases, the thermal effects on the material become less effective. The smoke provides some protection, and the charring causes even more.
The thermal effects of a given burst become less effective over time, until the blast wave arrives.
>But let's look at, just to pick two, LA and San Francisco. Both of them have important military logistical facilities, maritime freight infrastructure, oil/gas refinery and storage smack dab in the middle of heavily populated areas. When hit, there would be major flash ignitions for miles around.
Those are not high priority nuclear targets, and both cities have building codes designed to specifically mitigate the effects of widespread fires.
It would be difficult to pick any cities less likely to be affected by a firestorm than those two.
>>29430188
My understanding is that the E3 pulse of an EMP event couples to the miles-long lines of the grid, induces overheating and line failures. Picture a few miles of overhead wire suddenly becoming incandescent. This would cause the insulation to melt and fail, although I doubt it would sustain combustion. However, it might retain enough heat to ignite roofing materials or start a wildfire. The most likely area of effect would be about the size of a Midwest state. Cascading failures would ripple out from there, but their duration of effect is measured in hours or days. Affected area increases with size of device. One of the Soviet tests, 300 kt at 290 km AGL, apparently caused effects throughout Kazakhstan. That's slightly larger than 1/4 the size of the US.
All of those thousands of miles of damaged transmission line would have to be replaced before power could be restored to the affected area. That would take time.
>>29438508
I was a little unclear regarding size of the affected area. Area of worst effect would be roughly state sized, detectable effects would be Kazakhstan sized. Provided, of course, that it's a 300 kt device at 290 km altitude. It's anybody's guess what a Nork bomb, strapped to an Iranian Scud, launched by an ISIS crew of a Mexican cartel freighter in the Gulf of Mexico would do. That's got committment to excellence spraypainted all over it.
>>29438421
I fucking love you Op. And I mean in an Oppenheimer-Jean Tatlock kind of way.
>>29438421
So you're basically saying that Russia will
Nuke only the important military bases and stuff like and will never nuke a city lile newyork
>>29438831
They dont have the warheads to do much more than that.
>>29439217
How true was this in the early 60s? During the Cuban Missile Crisis what was the Russian nuclear strategy? Would they have launched on American cities because of accuracy issues, or blown it all on bomber bases?
Just starting to read Command and Control btw, thanks for the recommendation.
>>29439217
Would make sense. Maintaining rocket systems is expensive after all.
