Post: #1

Anyone else hear this on their TV minutes ago?

Typical broadcast alert system came on fox and proceeded to state that a nuclear weapon has been launched by North Korea headed for LA, advising people to seek fallout shelters.

Post: #2

Nope but I personally can't wait for North Korea's "leadership" to get what's coming to them.

Post: #3

Just 2 live tweets so far. NK wouldn't be that fucking stupid.

Also, they did just lose contact with a submarine.

Post: #4

Maybe I just got trolled by hulkusc. I was watching the live stream of Fox when it was interrupted by the message and now the stream just shows this.



Edit

Sorry for the false alarm, I found this video from 2014 which is exactly what came on. Hulkusc.com trolled me, still kind of odd with them having a submarine go missing and all the nuke talk lately.

Post: #5

North Korea does not possess ICBM technology capable of delivering a payload to North America to begin with. They might be able to blow a dirty bomb in South Korea or maybe even Japan but N.A. is completely out of the question. ICBM tech is pretty complex and is much more than just launching a rocket.

Post: #6

(03-11-2016 08:06 PM)aeroektar Wrote:  Anyone else hear this on their TV minutes ago?

Typical broadcast alert system came on fox and proceeded to state that a nuclear weapon has been launched by North Korea headed for LA, advising people to seek fallout shelters.

I was streaming the cancelled Trump rally coverage on my laptop and the Emergency Alert System broke in. They said a nuclear missile was en route to LA, for about 10 seconds I thought it was legit. Almost hopped up and grabbed the bug out bag. Almost.

ETA: I was on a hulkusc stream as well. Fuck those guys!

Post: #7

Can we redirect it to Chicago?

Once Trump leaves, of course.

Post: #8

Post: #9

A report of a nuke headed for LA and the first thing you do is start a thread about it?

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #10

Maybe you should read some books on North Korea then you wouldn't be so easily rused.

The complete ignorance of North Korea by everyone is incredibly irritating to me. If you understand their m.o you would understand why something like that isn't possible. I'm not saying they would never use nuclear weapons but the idea they would do a first strike is beyond retarded.

I could understand if you were watching TV and that came on but you were watching a goddamn illegal stream. Christ...

Post: #11

(03-11-2016 11:09 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  A report of a nuke headed for LA and the first thing you do is start a thread about it?

I live on the east coast

Post: #12

(03-11-2016 11:09 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  A report of a nuke headed for LA and the first thing you do is start a thread about it?

He's dedicated to the community.

Post: #13

(03-11-2016 11:58 PM)aeroektar Wrote:  

(03-11-2016 11:09 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  A report of a nuke headed for LA and the first thing you do is start a thread about it?

I live on the east coast

I was more alluding to the EMP effect of such weapons, i.e. if a nuclear war starts, not a lot of people are going to actually have the electricity to run their computers in order to get on the Internet and post about it - at least in the US.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #14

Well, thanks for the heart attack.

Post: #15

It's North Korea. At best it would land out in the Valley somewhere, and hey good riddance.

In all seriousness, NK does not have the capacity for an icbm across the ocean to Los Angeles. They would nuke South Korea or maybe Japan if they were going to nuke someone.

Post: #16

I wish North Korea would try that shit.

We'd shoot it down and then fuck their shit harder than any shit has ever been fucked.

And then think what kind of a poosy paradise North Korea would be after that government was gone. Beautiful.

When that regime finally collapses I'm going to be on the first flight over there with a Korean-English dictionary and about a billion condoms.

Post: #17

(03-12-2016 02:30 AM)iop890 Wrote:  I wish North Korea would try that shit.

We'd shoot it down and then fuck their shit harder than any shit has ever been fucked.

And then think what kind of a poosy paradise North Korea would be after that government was gone. Beautiful.

When that regime finally collapses I'm going to be on the first flight over there with a Korean-English dictionary and about a billion condoms.

Hahaha, this is funny. I wouldn't count on that regime falling anytime soon, unfortunately - but I'll be right there with you if it happens.

Post: #18

I'd like to add that those emergency message things scare the fuck out of me, there are several on YouTube for a ton of different scenarios (nuke attack, zombie invasion, martial law, etc.) - it puts my body in "fight or flight" mode even though I know it's fake. I think my brain just gets tricked because if such a scenario were to actually occur that's probably what we'd all be seeing on our TVs and radios.

Post: #19

Let's say for a second that Russia actually launched a nuke at us, which would obviously lead to nuclear war. Would we actually be told about this? I'm not sure they would broadcast anything to the masses.

Post: #20

(03-12-2016 02:55 AM)captain_shane Wrote:  Let's say for a second that Russia actually launched a nuke at us, which would obviously lead to nuclear war. Would we actually be told about this? I'm not sure they would broadcast anything to the masses.

I actually think a thread about this would be great.

Say whoever - LA is an obvious target on the west coast.

What would happen ? EMP's for prep then tac nukes ?

How big would the blast radius be ? Then fallout wind patterns etc ?

Retaliation is a must, does anyone survive ? Does the world die ? etc.

This shit has always fascinated me as a kid - the scenarios of conventional and nuclear wars.

Post: #21

Then Russians and Cubans would air drop into Montana.
"Wolverines!!!"

Post: #22

(03-12-2016 03:42 AM)kaotic Wrote:  

(03-12-2016 02:55 AM)captain_shane Wrote:  Let's say for a second that Russia actually launched a nuke at us, which would obviously lead to nuclear war. Would we actually be told about this? I'm not sure they would broadcast anything to the masses.

I actually think a thread about this would be great.

Say whoever - LA is an obvious target on the west coast.

What would happen ? EMP's for prep then tac nukes ?

How big would the blast radius be ? Then fallout wind patterns etc ?

Retaliation is a must, does anyone survive ? Does the world die ? etc.

This shit has always fascinated me as a kid - the scenarios of conventional and nuclear wars.

See that's the thing that puzzles me. Why attack a place that so obvious as LA or NYC? Why not drop a nuke on Yellowstone, or the fault lines? It's like terrorists, I don't really get why they just blow themselves up and kill 5-10 people, it's pointless. Why don't they ever actually do anything like poison water supplies, or blow up dams?

I've just always figured that if you want to incite a shit load of fear, there are better things you could do than strap a bomb to your chest and kill some random people on the streets.
------------------------------------------------------
Too morbid.

Bleach needed.

Post: #23

But seriously...

(03-12-2016 04:02 AM)captain_shane Wrote:  See that's the thing that puzzles me. Why attack a place that so obvious as LA or NYC? Why not drop a nuke on Yellowstone, or the fault lines? It's like terrorists, I don't really get why they just blow themselves up and kill 5-10 people, it's pointless. Why don't they ever actually do anything like poison water supplies, or blow up dams?

They're the first places you think about when someone mentions the US.

Quote:I've just always figured that if you want to incite a shit load of fear, there are better things you could do than strap a bomb to your chest and kill some random people on the streets.

It's the random stuff that scares people the most. Or pretty much anything that breaks the normal day-to-day schedule...



Have some more bleach.

Post: #24

North Korea's Nuclear Threat





Interesting quotes:

"For North Korea the escalation ladder is only artillery, and then nuclear weapons. That's very scary. That's very frightening"

"We always tend to underestimate their capability. Just to give you a parallel example . . . "

Post: #25

(03-12-2016 03:42 AM)kaotic Wrote:  

(03-12-2016 02:55 AM)captain_shane Wrote:  Let's say for a second that Russia actually launched a nuke at us, which would obviously lead to nuclear war. Would we actually be told about this? I'm not sure they would broadcast anything to the masses.

I actually think a thread about this would be great.

Say whoever - LA is an obvious target on the west coast.

What would happen ? EMP's for prep then tac nukes ?

How big would the blast radius be ? Then fallout wind patterns etc ?

Retaliation is a must, does anyone survive ? Does the world die ? etc.

This shit has always fascinated me as a kid - the scenarios of conventional and nuclear wars.

It depends on the size and yield and location(I would think downtown new york city is the most densely populated area in the USA, Los Angeles is pretty spread out.)

Also, depends on how strong the wind is that day. A strong wind would cause the radiation to spread faster than it normally would.

The immediate location would be inhabitable, the fallout in the surrounding area, depends. The biggest problem that I would think of would be water contamination. As soon as the radiation gets in the ground water, people would be getting sick from drinking water and eating food.

Consider Chernobyl, which will be habitable in 600 years, but feel the lingering effects of radiation for 48000 years.

Also consider Hiroshima and Nagasaki

http://www.rerf.jp/general/qa_e/qa12.html

Quote:Are Hiroshima and Nagasaki still radioactive?
12
The practical answer is, "No."

There are two ways residual radioactivity is produced from an atomic blast. The first is due to fallout of the fission products or the nuclear material itself--uranium or plutonium (uranium was used for the Hiroshima bomb whereas plutonium was used for the Nagasaki bomb)--that contaminate the ground. Similar ground contamination occurred as a consequence of the Chernobyl accident, but on a much larger scale (click here for more-detailed explanation). The second way residual radioactivity is produced is by neutron irradiation of soil or buildings (neutron activation), causing non-radioactive materials to become radioactive.

Fallout. The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs exploded at altitudes of 600 meters and 503 meters, respectively, then formed huge fireballs that rose with the ascending air currents. About 10% of the nuclear material in the bombs underwent fission; the remaining 90% rose in the stratosphere with the fireball.

Subsequently, the material cooled down and some of it started to fall with rain (black rain) in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki areas, but probably most of the remaining uranium or plutonium was dispersed widely in the atmosphere. Because of the wind, the rain did not fall directly on the hypocenters but rather in the northwest region (Koi, Takasu area) of Hiroshima and the eastern region (Nishiyama area) of Nagasaki.

The maximum estimates of dose due to fallout are 0.01-0.03 Gy in Hiroshima and 0.2-0.4 Gy in Nagasaki. The corresponding doses at the hypocenters are believed to be only about 1/10 of these values.

Nowadays, the radioactivity is so miniscule that it is difficult to distinguish from trace amounts (including plutonium) of radioactivity caused by worldwide fallout from atmospheric (as opposed to underground) atomic-bomb tests that were conducted around the world in past decades, particularly in the 1950s and 1960s.

Neutron activation. Neutrons comprised 10% or less of the A-bomb radiation, whereas gamma rays comprised the majority of A-bomb radiation. Neutrons cause ordinary, non-radioactive materials to become radioactive, but gamma rays do not. The bombs were detonated far above ground, so neutron induction of radioactivity on the ground did not produce the degree of contamination people associate with nuclear test sites (Nevada test site in Southwest U.S., Maralinga test site in South Australia, Bikini and Mururoa Atolls, etc.).

Past investigations suggested that the maximum cumulative dose at the hypocenter from immediately after the bombing until today is 0.8 Gy in Hiroshima and 0.3-0.4 Gy in Nagasaki. When the distance is 0.5 km or 1.0 km from the hypocenter, the estimates are about 1/10 and 1/100 of the value at the hypocenter, respectively. The induced radioactivity decayed very quickly with time. In fact, nearly 80% of the above-mentioned doses were released within a day, about 10% between days 2 and 5, and the remaining 10% from day 6 afterward. Considering the extensive fires near the hypocenters that prevented people from entering until the following day, it seems unlikely that any person received over 20% of the above-mentioned dose, i.e., 0.16 Gy in Hiroshima and 0.06-0.08 Gy in Nagasaki.