Check out the TB2K CHATROOM, open 24/7               Configuring Your Preferences for OPTIMAL Viewing
  To access our Email server, CLICK HERE

  If you are unfamiliar with the Guidelines for Posting on TB2K please read them.      ** LINKS PAGE **



*** Help Support TB2K ***
via mail, at TB2K Fund, P.O. Box 24, Coupland, TX, 78615
or


DISASTER What the Aftermath of a Nuclear War With North Korea Would Actually Look Like
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 53
  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Buffalo, NY
    Posts
    5,325

    What the Aftermath of a Nuclear War With North Korea Would Actually Look Like

    Well, this isn't the most opportunistic way of thinking. But it is ominous in some of his conclusions.

    I very much prefer to 'move on' without experiencing calamities which seems very pessimistic, in my humble opinion.

    A war with NK would be over fast, and provided it isn't the spark to create major conflicts around the World. It should be OK, if cooler heads prevail.

    We would minimally be impacted, the poor NK's, unfortunately, they would be doomed by their foolish Rulers.

    Let's all pray we never have to live through the authors viewpoint.

    Michael

    For fair use education/research purposes.

    The link: https://www.cheatsheet.com/culture/n...=yahoo&ref=yfp

    The article:

    What the Aftermath of a Nuclear War With North Korea Would Actually Look Like
    By Phillip Francis

    Though it appears North Korea is moving closer toward peace than war, it wasn’t long ago that Kim Jong Un recently in his annual New Year’s Day address that “the entire area of the U.S. mainland is within our nuclear strike range,” and that “a nuclear button is always on my desk.” Kim meant this idle threat as an effort to deter the U.S. from ever attacking North Korea.

    However, that made us wonder what would actually happen if the U.S. and North Korea went to nuclear war with one another. What would the aftermath be like? How long would it take to have those places go back to normal? As it turns out, a few researchers actually modeled the effects of what 100 Hiroshima-sized nuclear bombs would have on the planet. Those answers will terrify you.

    Week 1: 100 nuclear warheads are detonated

    There would be 5 megatons of black carbon launched into the air in the immediate fallout of a nuclear war with the detonation of 100 nuclear bombs. That black carbon is from everything burning in the combined blast areas. The upper atmosphere of the entire planet will be filled with black carbon by the end of the first week.

    Week 2: Blackout



    By week two, there is so much carbon in the atmosphere that sunlight can no longer reach the Earth. The Earth begins a rapid spiral of cooling that won’t stop for months. This also starts a chemical reaction inside the Earth’s ozone layer that will effectively eat the ozone layer away.

    2 months: Nuclear winter

    After a two month spiral of cooling, the average temperature of the Earth has fallen well below freezing. The amount of rainfall the planet receives also plummets because of the falling temperatures.

    With so much radiation from the initial blasts, plants were adversely affected. By two months plants stop growing and their DNA begins to stabilize. Without crops producing any new food supplies, starvation soon sets in planet-wide.

    2 years: A huge portion of the population may be dead or dying



    Roughly 2 billion people may have died at this point from starvation alone. With barely any crops being able to produce enough food, stability in any region is tedious at best. On top of that, most areas in the world are frozen wastelands and some are completely unlivable.

    5 years: Latent cancer pandemic

    By year five, the ozone has been depleted by about 20-25% since the bombs first dropped. This is when UV light is at its peak intensity. Couple that with significant levels of radiation and you have a wave of latent cancer deaths killing off about 16-18% of the population that survived the blasts. This will trigger the second major die off after the 2 billion that previously died of starvation.

    10 years: The first signs of hope



    Ten years after the blasts, the ozone layer will be the first to see significant improvement. The ozone will still be damaged by the black carbon in the atmosphere, but will only be about 8% thinner than it was before the bombs dropped.

    20 years: Gaining warmth, but there is still a long way to go

    At this point, the Earth’s temperature is beginning to stabilize. Although, the average temperature of the Earth is still well below modern day. This still affects crops and their growing seasons and they have not returned to levels before the blast.

    30-50 years: A relatively stabilized planet



    Plant growth begins to stabilize but is still pretty slow. Plants also eventually start taking over unpopulated areas, much like Pripyat next to Chernobyl.

    Radiation levels are still pretty significant in some areas which make them unlivable and will remain that way for hundreds, if not thousands of years.

    This entire model is based on the assumption that 100 nuclear weapons were detonated at the same time. The current stockpile of nuclear weapons is estimated around 15,000 warheads. If the tipping point comes for the U.S. and North Korea, we could see something similar or far worse than this model suggests.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    NW Ohio
    Posts
    4,621
    I don't think we would need anywhere close to 100 nukes to ruin NK. One would rattle little kim to the core.
    A socialist will trample over one hundred poor people just for the chance to throw a rock at a rich man.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    OUT SIDE OF THE FALSE REALITY
    Posts
    10,333
    Just remember JESUS will come back to earth before that happens, that's my story and I'm sticking with it.
    JUST A FEW OF MY SIMPLE THOUGHTS
    LAY LOW WAIT LIKE A WOLF IN THE WILD UNTIL THE TIME IS RIGHT
    Never Pick A Fight With An Old Man He Will Just Shoot You He Can't Afford To Get Hurt

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    N. Minnesota
    Posts
    10,876
    Quote Originally Posted by Countrybumpkin View Post
    I don't think we would need anywhere close to 100 nukes to ruin NK. One would rattle little kim to the core.
    Yes, this.

    100 is ridiculous.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    State of confusion
    Posts
    2,726
    Sounds like the “nuclear winter” scenario scare tactic.
    I think my six month goal needs a little kick in the ass.
    "...Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the cats of war..."
    Razor sharpening while you wait - Occam
    If it works, it doesn't have enough features. - Windows 10 design philosophy.
    Forget the beer, I'm just here for the doom!
    Humans, just a tool for amino acids to make Swiss watches.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by michael teever
    We would minimally be impacted,
    Er... did you actually read anything you posted below your quote?! IF it was even 10% accurate (I believe the "Nuclear winter" scenario has been mostly discredited, but even if it would create a massive cooling trend, to say that "average temperatures have fallen well below freezing" is hyperbole and alarmism of the wildest sort)... "minimally impacted" isn't exactly how I'd describe the effects on anyone in the world!! For sure, you can't imagine that those effects would stay in North Korea!

    I do agree that it wouldn't take a hundred nukes... and I don't believe NK has more than a very few warheads to use themselves (even assuming they got more than one off before we wiped the entire peninsula off the map). The truly terrifying scenario would be if China, Russia, India, et al would step in...

    We all need to praying for President Trump's safety and for his mission to NK to be successful. He's already accomplished more than any other leader in the past 40 years in Korea...

    Summerthyme

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    USA, planning on a Move
    Posts
    2,715
    100 is way more than needed.

    Also, check out the atomic testing from the 40's till recent.
    Way more than 100 nukes, We are still here.

    But, I love a doom story as much as anyone.

    bob
    Less typing, more prepping.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    USA, planning on a Move
    Posts
    2,715
    You should read some of the anti war stuff the left has pushed, through the decades. Its amazing we are still alive.
    Less typing, more prepping.

  9. #9
    WTF!
    He lost me at 100 nuclear weapons on NK.

    Where do folks get off thinking that way?

  10. #10
    On the scale of civilization, 50 years is a drop in the bucket. 200 years after that nobody would even care that it happened.

  11. #11
    Came here to see N.Korea being rebuilt and growing like Japan did.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    South Central WA
    Posts
    1,672
    Completely overhyped, overblown and overdone. The science just doesn’t back this up.
    To most Christians, the Bible is like a software license. Nobody actually reads it. They just scroll to the bottom and click "I agree." - unknown

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    State of confusion
    Posts
    2,726
    Quote Originally Posted by bobfall2005 View Post
    100 is way more than needed.

    Also, check out the atomic testing from the 40's till recent.
    Way more than 100 nukes, We are still here.

    But, I love a doom story as much as anyone.

    bob
    Yes, we tested way more than 100 nukes, but it was mostly desert and very little “burning” of buildings and forests, which would be the carbon source that would cause the climate change envisioned here. Just to clarify, this would be actual carbon, or “soot”, which would block sunlight, as opposed to carbon dioxide, which will trap the heat from sunlight, as to how much, that is still up for debate. There would be carbon dioxide from the fires, maybe we’d get lucky and they would cancel out

    Agreed, an overblown scare piece.
    "...Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the cats of war..."
    Razor sharpening while you wait - Occam
    If it works, it doesn't have enough features. - Windows 10 design philosophy.
    Forget the beer, I'm just here for the doom!
    Humans, just a tool for amino acids to make Swiss watches.

  14. #14
    How much radiation did Chernobyl and Fukishima release?

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Southwest (enjoy it!)
    Posts
    2,833
    What a bogus article. The whole article is based on Nothing.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Casper, Wyoming
    Posts
    187
    Before the Test Ban Treaty was signed the total amount of atmospheric testing was way above five megatons and no nuclear winter happened. If I remember correctly the Russians tested some bombs that were much larger than five megatons.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Cow Hampshire
    Posts
    16,340
    Quote Originally Posted by Wyominglarry View Post
    Before the Test Ban Treaty was signed the total amount of atmospheric testing was way above five megatons and no nuclear winter happened. If I remember correctly the Russians tested some bombs that were much larger than five megatons.
    Nearest actual comparison. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer

    Here we are talking about a world-wide natural cataclysm, and a world ill prepared beyond the current growing season.

    As in technology will save your butts. We are a much different world food wise because of technology and the ability to grow, can, freeze, freeze dry, irradiate, vacuum seal, and otherwise prepare food.

    I will probably be cold for a stretch - but it will not last.

    And you'll get to watch the glorious sunsets in your thermal underwear.

    Dobbin
    I hinnire propter hoc ecce ego

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    State of confusion
    Posts
    2,726
    I think they are talking 100-50 kiloton bombs, and I cannot see any way to justify as much carbon as the equivalent explosive power of the bombs, this alone will cause me to call bullshit on the math.
    "...Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the cats of war..."
    Razor sharpening while you wait - Occam
    If it works, it doesn't have enough features. - Windows 10 design philosophy.
    Forget the beer, I'm just here for the doom!
    Humans, just a tool for amino acids to make Swiss watches.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Riding my Harley
    Posts
    4,329
    We would never waste 100 nukes on fat little Kim
    Patriot Guard rider
    www.patriotguard.org

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    87,768
    The biggest atmospheric test was conducted by the Soviets on 30 October 1962 in their Novaya Zemlya test range above the Artic Circle where they air burst a 50 Mt weapon (which was down yielded from its designed 100 Mt yield, which by the way is only about 25% of the energy released by the 1883 eruption of Krakatoa).

    As I see it, the true concern would be of Beijing and Moscow (as well as Iran and other vassal states) getting into "the mix".

  21. #21
    I'm more concerned with a 150 -200 hitting here by our enemies as we unleash the same amount on them......then it's round two? How does that play out in regards to radiation and a dirty sky? What if they hit us with neutron bomb air bursts? Is there appreciably less fallout at that point? Less damage for the conquering nation to repair.

    I worry about S. Korea and our forces there if they just go all out non nuclear. That will be a horror, a day total chaos, in many ways worse than the nuke, as so many will be maimed and injured along side the dead. More so than a nuclear attack, initially. War is hell, and what's coming is going to be the worst, as the Bible makes clear.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    4,476
    All it takes is a single night's hard freeze to kill off a year's worth of crops. Look at 1816 in New England, the so called year without a summer.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Colorado, via People's Republic of New York
    Posts
    8,453
    I think the amount of carbon thrown into the atmosphere annually from forest fires is a bit more more than just 100 nukes.

    Everyone has this fear that a nuke is a death ray; the mere mention of it is deadly. Yes, it's a horrific weapon, but it's survivable if you're not at Ground Zero.

    And I believe Nuclear Winter Theory has been long discredited.
    " 'cause we'll put a boot up your ass, it's the American way".

    Preps = "Git 'r done"
    Preps = "Just do it"

  24. #24
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    3,245
    Yields are getting smaller since the RV's are much more accurate. To take out underground command and control centers they should be using ones designed to penetrate deep into the earth to take them out too. Doubtful it would take 100 though...

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    87,768
    Quote Originally Posted by MountainBiker View Post
    All it takes is a single night's hard freeze to kill off a year's worth of crops. Look at 1816 in New England, the so called year without a summer.
    And that was attributed to the 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora (VEI rating of 7 on the scale) in what today is Indonesia.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Eastern NE
    Posts
    1,271
    Quote Originally Posted by dogmanan View Post
    Just remember JESUS will come back to earth before that happens, that's my story and I'm sticking with it.
    Amen

  27. #27
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Behind Enemy Lines
    Posts
    149,705
    The OP essay is a total crock of bovine excrement.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    87,768
    Quote Originally Posted by Cruiser View Post
    Yields are getting smaller since the RV's are much more accurate. To take out underground command and control centers they should be using ones designed to penetrate deep into the earth to take them out too. Doubtful it would take 100 though...
    I'd guess less than 25 targets in North Korea would warrant such "attention", and a lot of their CBRN installations you wouldn't want to hit in that manner anyways because of the "mess" you'd make.

  29. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Pinecone View Post
    How much radiation did Chernobyl and Fukishima release?
    We don't know yet Fukishima is very much on going,and will be for the foreseeable future.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Where its wet alot
    Posts
    5,845
    michaelteever if you want to know about NUKES we have a member here that knows a lot more than the dip shit that wrote this CRAP.

    Shane has some reading for you....I've read everything his organization has published or supported and learned a lot. I even purchased an entire NUKE KIT...with Geiger counters and other detectors.

    http://www.ki4u.com/goodnews.htm
    Last edited by JF&P; 06-10-2018 at 05:57 PM.
    JOHN 3:16 / John 8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you FREE.

  31. #31
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Hill Country Texas
    Posts
    15,565
    Regardless of the article, 100 might be accurate because it won't stop with NK. You don't think China and Russia and the U.K. And everyone's allies aren't going to add to the chaos.

    And ironically, the liberals like Bill Maher would still opt to have a hundred nukes if it meant they could oust Trump.
    Would someone please let me know how we have spun out of control?
    Has the captain let go of the wheel?
    Or could we please try to find a way to be a bit more kind?
    I see the road to tomorrow in the haze - Queensryche

  32. #32
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    OK
    Posts
    25,199
    Everybody knows that the civilization ending component of those nukes would be the EMP.
    Proud Infidel...............and Cracker

    Member: Nowski Brigade

    Deplorable


  33. #33
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    State of confusion
    Posts
    2,726
    Quote Originally Posted by Cruiser View Post
    Yields are getting smaller since the RV's are much more accurate. To take out underground command and control centers they should be using ones designed to penetrate deep into the earth to take them out too. Doubtful it would take 100 though...
    Some years back they were talking about nukes that would go deep and explode, with the earth trapping the explosion and fallout, therefore safer. Don’t think it would really work like that. You can only penetrate so far without crumpling the physics package.
    "...Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the cats of war..."
    Razor sharpening while you wait - Occam
    If it works, it doesn't have enough features. - Windows 10 design philosophy.
    Forget the beer, I'm just here for the doom!
    Humans, just a tool for amino acids to make Swiss watches.

  34. #34
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Behind Enemy Lines
    Posts
    149,705
    Quote Originally Posted by Millwright View Post
    Everybody knows that the civilization ending component of those nukes would be the EMP.


  35. #35
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Purdy area, Western WA
    Posts
    28,411
    Quote Originally Posted by Dennis Olson View Post
    The OP essay is a total crock of bovine excrement.
    I agree.
    You who SEEK revenge,or JUSTICE for the wrongs, crimes and sins done to you, will find it in the same place that God is freely handing out Mercy, At the Cross, where Christ died taking the punishment not only for your sins, but also for the sins committed against you by others!

  36. #36
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    87,768
    Quote Originally Posted by Profit of Doom View Post
    Some years back they were talking about nukes that would go deep and explode, with the earth trapping the explosion and fallout, therefore safer. Don’t think it would really work like that. You can only penetrate so far without crumpling the physics package.
    Depends upon the type of physics package as well as yield and target. The original "bunker busters" were "gun type" weapons, like the US Marks 8, 11 and 91, specifically to handle the shock of impact and delay long enough to get under the ground before detonating.

  37. #37
    I thought Carl Sagan's Nuclear Winter was debunked back in the 1980's.

  38. #38
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Behind Enemy Lines
    Posts
    149,705
    Quote Originally Posted by Seer View Post
    I thought Carl Sagan's Nuclear Winter was debunked back in the 1980's.
    The OP appears to have been written during that period.


    Just sayin...

  39. #39
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    State of confusion
    Posts
    2,726
    Quote Originally Posted by Housecarl View Post
    Depends upon the type of physics package as well as yield and target. The original "bunker busters" were "gun type" weapons specifically to handle the shock of impact and delay long enough to get under the ground before detonating.
    I was referring to the concept that the depth and earth cover would supposedly trap the radiation and fallout, but I think the mere fact that the warhead made a hole going in would give the blast an easy way out. Even if the warhead has been buried that deep in concrete, like an underground test, I’m pretty sure the blast would get out.
    "...Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the cats of war..."
    Razor sharpening while you wait - Occam
    If it works, it doesn't have enough features. - Windows 10 design philosophy.
    Forget the beer, I'm just here for the doom!
    Humans, just a tool for amino acids to make Swiss watches.

  40. #40
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    87,768
    Quote Originally Posted by Seer View Post
    I thought Carl Sagan's Nuclear Winter was debunked back in the 1980's.
    A big part of the problem with the model Sagan used was the modeling assumed a "billiard ball" planet for the atmosphere to interact with, which is not how the weather and the terrain of the Earth behave. For example, with the model Sagan was using you don't have the monsoon rains caused by the Himalayas, also the solar radiation interactions with the planet's atmosphere isn't uniform either.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts


NOTICE: Timebomb2000 is an Internet forum for discussion of world events and personal disaster preparation. Membership is by request only. The opinions posted do not necessarily represent those of TB2K Incorporated (the owner of this website), the staff or site host. Responsibility for the content of all posts rests solely with the Member making them. Neither TB2K Inc, the Staff nor the site host shall be liable for any content.

All original member content posted on this forum becomes the property of TB2K Inc. for archival and display purposes on the Timebomb2000 website venue. Said content may be removed or edited at staff discretion. The original authors retain all rights to their material outside of the Timebomb2000.com website venue. Publication of any original material from Timebomb2000.com on other websites or venues without permission from TB2K Inc. or the original author is expressly forbidden.



"Timebomb2000", "TB2K" and "Watching the World Tick Away" are Service Mark℠ TB2K, Inc. All Rights Reserved.