do you think there were in the US, according to the air force commander at the start of the attack (or retaliation) there were 300 ICMBs headed for the US
assuming all of those had MIRVs that would be about 1500 targets
When there's no more room in hell, The dead will walk the earth...
Depends on the targets. Were they civilian? Military? Industrial? Very hard to predict casualties. There were so many different scenarios possible in a nuclear exchange. Some were very limited... others weren't. 300 ICBMs may have been a LOW number.
A good report to read from the era is the 1979 publication, "The Effects of Nuclear War," which includes a scenario pretty similar to what appears to happen in TDA (massive exchange). I think it's online somewhere.
If I remember correctly, in a full on nuclear exchange between the USSR and the US, the casualty rate on the US side was something like 88%. Soviet casualties were lower due to a much more advanced Civil Defense program...
"It's people..."
The report you mentioned, published by the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), contained several "attack cases" (scenarios) that all assumed that the USSR struck first and the USA retaliated with what weapons it had left, but in the movie, the USA obviously launches its land-based missiles (ICBMs) before they're hit in their silos.
shareA good report to read from the era is the 1979 publication, "The Effects of Nuclear War," which includes a scenario pretty similar to what appears to happen in TDA (massive exchange). I think it's online somewhere.
When there's no more room in hell, The dead will walk the earth...share
If you recall the Air Force Captain advised the AF Major of the incoming ICBMs against the US was during the INITIAL attack and he was just advising of the missiles that had yet to MIRV.
shareI once read a fictional timeline of a nuclear war set in 1988, the year there were the most active nuclear weapons in the world (about 70 000). It said that 24 hours after the exchange there would be around 130 million US casualties and 40 million deaths in the Soviet Union. That's a fatality rate of over 50% for the US and about 15% for the Soviet Union. Deaths on the first day for the whole world would be about 400 million. Tens of millions of survivors in the US and everywhere would also have serious injuries and/or severe burns over most of their bodies.
The report detailed the effects up to 50 years after the war but only provided casualty estimated up to one year after. It said there would be 45 million survivors by the summer of 1989 (1 year after the war) and that world population would be reduced about 40%. The study assumed that after the initial nuclear winter, climate and ozone levels would be pretty much normal by 3 years after the war. I don't know how accurate their models are, but I've read elsewhere that a nuclear winter would actually last for decades or centuries. If that were the case, humanity would probably go extinct.
Extremely interesting and absorbing website published about the effects of nuclear war. I must caution all who visit not to do so on a night before having to work in the morning, because you will get lost in it. It also has a link to a couple of studies and timelines that tell different stories. It also discusses numerous myths and misconceptions about nuclear weapons.
You will find the website at www.ki4u.com/nuclearsurvival/survival/books/doomsday/index.htm#myth_01
That site appears to be down at the moment.
shareTry web archives
https://web.archive.org/web/20160304065232/http://www.ki4u.com/nuclearsurvival/survival/books/doomsday/index.htm
You can also download the pdf here:
http://documents.mx/documents/you-will-survive-doomsday-bruce-beach.html
Interesting site, thanksWhen there's no more room in hell, The dead will walk the earth...
Assume all 300 reached their targets, with an average yield of 500kt, I would estimate on the order of 30-50 million directly (remember, most of the MIRVs are tactical, and would have been aimed at military targets, where the population would be lower). Another 10-20 million due to radiation sickness and blast/fire effects, and another 3-5 million due to starvation/disease/violence/weather, etc.
You make a distinction between those lost directly and those lost indirectly due to radiation, blast, and fire effects.
Question? You consider the blast to be indirect? LMAO!!!!!
Go back and learn about Nukes... PLEASE!
Oh yes... and that makes 3.
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!
I already answered the "directly" question, and then followed up with the indirect mortalities.
Answer: No, as I said "blast/fire effects". "Direct" would be immediate death due to the detonation. A person dying after some time being burned or injured may fall under "direct" for your definition. YMMV. Don't be so pedantic. These are back-of-envelope figures.
I am familiar enough with two-stage thermonuclear implosion devices and their general effects, thank you very much.
I am not talking about the figures themselves. I am talking about your separating Blast from Immediate death due to detonation. Blast IS one of the effects immediately upon detonation that causes the vast majority of the deaths. Therefore Deaths due to blast should be a part of the first figure (Immediate deaths) not the second (Secondary deaths)
That's what I was laughing at.
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!
It's only a movie. Why don't you have a stress pill, and have a lie-down?
shareNot stressing. I was laughing at your error.
Trying to claim I am stressing out over something is a disingenuous way to try and turn the tables back at me. Fail.
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!
nope. You're insecure.
suzycreamcheese RIP Heath Ledger 1979-2008
And you've been stalking me for for the past three posts now.
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!
bump for and old thread.Liberate tu temet ex inferis.
pro ego sum diabolus, pro ego sum nex.
Bumping an old played out thread with no real additional value is poor form.
But if you want to bump it, reply to your OP. Don't reply to me.
I have no need of an email alert stating someone has replied to MY post only to find it's someone bumping their own thread.
Again... poor form.
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!
To the other posters, don't feed the troll, he needs to find his dick first.
shareYou're the troll,
Besides, if I really was a troll you failed to follow your own advice by posting to me rather than your purported recipients.
Because you intended the message for me to see you calling me a troll. Thus YOU are trolling.
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!
Just put him on your ignore user list as I have, then you won't have to endure his obnoxious unpleasantness.
shareAnchors Aweigh CG Sailor!! Former Tin Can Sailor here!!
It's funny seeing you get ganged up on constantly by the uninformed. I guess it's to be expected. Nevertheless, your posts on here are, by far, the most accurate regarding the effects of nuclear weapons. While The Day After has a bunch of goofy oversights, I know all too well what the real thing would entail, and how screwed we would be.