Peace through practical, proved civil defence for credible war deterrence
  • Credible nuclear deterrence of invasions and conventional wars reduce the risk of large nuclear wars occurring through escalation of conventional wars. Contrary to irrational, pseudo-scientific propaganda, the number of nuclear weapons is smaller than the millions of conventional weapons used in large wars and the correct scaling shows that the overall effects are similar, not massively different as often claimed for political propaganda by enemies of peace. Furthermore, the greater time delay of effects from nuclear weapons over the damaged area increases the efficiency of cheap civil defence countermeasures, as compared to conventional weapons. In conclusion, credible nuclear deterrence of conventional war offers a beautiful opportunity to create a peaceful world, free from fear peddling, ranting dictators. The only oppositions you will meet will come from authoritarian obsessed fear peddling myth makers. If they can't tell the truth and face the facts, why listen to them? Please see our post on the need to deter not only direct threats from nuclear attacks but also conventional wars and invasions that can escalate into nuclear wars (as proved by the use of nuclear weapons in WWII, for example, after they were developed during the war itself and did not trigger or provoke the war), linked here, here, here, and here, here, here, and the true scaling law equivalence between a few thousand nuclear weapons and the several million tons of small conventional weapons in a non-nuclear world war as proved by our post summarising key points in Herman Kahn's much-abused call for credible deterrence, On Thermonuclear War, linked here. Peace comes through tested, proved and practical declassified countermeasures against the effects of nuclear weapons, chemical weapons and conventional weapons. Credible deterrence to end invasions and wars comes through simple, effective protection against invasions like low yield tactical weapons and walls, and civil defence against collateral damage. Peace comes through discussions of the facts as opposed to inaccurate, misleading lies of the "disarm or be annihilated" political dogma variety, which are designed to exploit fear to close down criticisms of errors in mainstream orthodoxy. In particular, please see the post linked here on EMP results from an actual Russian 300 kt test at 290 km altitude over unwarned civilian infrastructure in Kazakhstan on 22 October 1962, which caused no injuries or deaths whatsoever (contrary to all of Jeremy Corbyn and CND style lying propaganda that any use of nuclear weapons on civilians would automatically kill millions), but shut down the communications and power supply lines! This is not secret, but does not make newspaper headlines to debunk CND style dogmas on the alleged incredibility of nuclear deterrence.

  • Hiroshima's air raid shelters were unoccupied because Japanese Army officers were having breakfast when B29s were detected far away, says Yoshie Oka, the operator of the Hiroshima air raid sirens on 6 August 1945...

  • In a sample of 1,881 burns cases in Hiroshima, only 17 (or 0.9 percent) were due to ignited clothing and 15 (or 0.7%) were due to the firestorm flames...

  • Dr Harold L. Brode’s new book, Nuclear Weapons in ...

  • 800 war migrants drowned on 22 April by EU policy:...

  • Photographed fireball shielding by cloud cover in ...

  • Nuclear weapons effects "firestorm" and "nuclear w...

  • Proved 97.5% survival in completely demolished houses ...

  • Wednesday, March 29, 2006

    Checkmate detonation as seen from another camera


    Above: following on from the first post on this blog, here is another view (looking almost directly upward from near ground zero) of Checkmate, a 7 kilotons burst at 147 km altitude over Johnston Island on 20 October 1962.

    Dr Herman Hoerlin writes in Los Alamos National Laboratory report LA-6405, United States High Altitude Test Experiences, p. 1:

    'The prompt thermal effects on the ground were negligible, with the exception of those from the Orange event [this 3.8 Mt burst at only 43 km altitude produced 3.0 cal/cm2 of thermal radiation at ground zero, whereas 3.8 Mt Teak at 77 km altitude only produced 1.0 cal/cm2 at ground zero, and all of the other high altitude detonations produced merely 0.1 cal/cm2 or less at ground zero]. That event could have caused minor damage in the Johnston Island (JI) area in the absence of cloud cover.

    'The eyeburn problem at ground zero and up to large slant distances was severe [for people looking in the direction of the explosion, with a clear view] for all events except Starfish, Checkmate, and Argus. Adequate precautions, such as the selection of JI instead of Bikini as the base in the Pacific, were taken. Two military personnel suffered severe [eye retina] burns, however, due to inadvertent exposure [during the 410 kt Bluegill test at 48 km altitude]. ...

    'The degrading effects of increased ionospheric ionization on commercial and aircraft communications-mainly in the LF, MF, and HF frequency ranges—extended over the whole Pacific Ocean area. They lasted for many days after the three megaton-range [high altitude] explosions [Teak, Orange, and Starfish]. They were less severe—in some cases even beneficial-for VHF and VLF frequencies, thus providing guidance for emergency situations.

    'The formation of an artificial radiation belt of such high electron fluxes and long lifetimes as occurred after the Starfish event was unexpected; so were the damages sustained by three satellites in orbit [the Ariel, Traac, and Transit 4B satellites failed; Cosmos V, Injun I and Telstar suffered only minor degradation, moderate solar cell damage by electrons].

    'However, the vast amount of knowledge gained by the observations of the artificial belts generated by Starfish, Argus, and the Russian high-altitude explosions [notice that America had data on the Russian tests back in 1976, when this report was written] far outweighed the information which would have been gained otherwise. A few extrapolations are made to effects on manned space flight under hypothetical circumstances[page 26 says: 'for a satellite in a polar circular earth orbit, the daily dose would have been at the very least 60 rads in a heavily shielded vehicle at Starfish time plus four months']. Electromagnetic radiation in the radio-frequency portion of the spectrum (EMP) caused brief outages of a street lighting system in Oahu and of several input stages of electronic equipment, though during the Starfish event only. ...

    'The prompt fallout from high-altitude explosions was zero. The residence time in the stratosphere of special tracers—Rh-102 and Cd-109—incorporated into the Orange and Starfish devices was 14 years. The fallout of fission products was similarly delayed and was distributed over the whole globe; thus, the biological effects on humans were reduced per unit energy release in comparison with low-altitude atmospheric explosions. The worldwide observation of the tracers led to the development of matching models of global stratospheric air-mass motions and to a better understanding of mixing processes near the tropopause. In fact, the downward motion of the tracers was most pronounced in the polar areas during local winter. No effect on the natural ozone layer could be ascertained.'

    The burst altitudes and dates given in Table 1 of that report are useful in regard to current conflicting statements over the burst altitudes of Argus tests: three 1.7 kt weapons were detonated at altitudes of 200 km, 240 km, and 540 km, respectively, on 27 and 30 August and 6 September 1958. (These altitudes are taken from R. W. Klib's Mission Research Corporation reports about data from the tests, MRC-R-112 and -176, dated January 1974 and March 1975.)

    Page 16 mentions that research with rhesus monkeys since the tests shows the approximate range at which it would have been safe to watch the 77 km altitude 3.8 Mt Teak nuclear test from the ground in exceptionally clear weather:
    'irreversible [eye retina] damage occurs for a temperature increase of 20 °C, while a 5 °C temperature rise is safe. Applying these criteria to the Teak case, the threshold (20 °C) dose at ground zero would [be] 1 cal/cm2 on the retina and the safe dose 0.2 cal/cm2. Then, taking the postevent source data and assuming an exceptionally clear day, the safe slant distance would have been 450 statute miles.'

    0 Comments:

    Post a Comment

    << Home