I could see that in the few days after, millions would leave the centre of large cities in USA, Canada, Aus and Europe. The suburbs might become more popular in Europe and I could see the green belt being repealed in the UK as more people don't want to live in the centre of cities. Could see genuine white flight in the UK
Nuclear detonation in US city -secondary effects
- Thread starter Umbral
- Start date
Alex Richards
Donor
Well, the Greenbelt's there to prevent cities getting two big, so they might be more widely instituted to prevent large cities (and therefore targets) forming in the first place.
It depends entirely on the public's perception of the number of nukes that might be lurking in trucks and boats, waiting to be delivered.
We know that there are potential suicide bombers out there would gladly die to deliver a nuke. We also know that nukes are very difficult to get or build.
I do not think a single nuke would evoke a panic that would cause people to abandon large cities. For that to happen, bombers would need to hit multiple targets the same day.
The reason for the detonation is a primary factor, although I usnderstand why you want it out of consideration.
If it was an accident (in which case I'd like to know what a nuke was doing downtown) or stupidity (which could explaine the presence of a nuke downtown) the panic would be localized. Heads would roll and there might be lynch-mobs after the responsible party. The balance of the event would be somewhat Katrina-like.
If it was intentional, done by a known or unknown enemy, the chaos would be immense and national in scope. as mentioned, Air and rail transportation would shut down, and not for a day or two. Citizens would flee the cities where ever they were. The larger or more important the city, the greater the flight. If it was Chicago that was hit, San Francisco would empty. If it was Boston New Orleans would be a ghost town.
The flight from the cities would overwhelm smaller cities and towns and there would be refugee camps, official and non, nationwide.
The communication system would fail, overwhelmed as it was on 9/11. Huge logistical problems would arise as the powers that be tried to feed and care for people and at the same time try to get them to return home.
The Government would try to exercise authority and act, but, as is frequently the case, not be up to the task. the military would try to assist, with better results, but tactics that are understandably of dubious constitutionality. In any case, there are not enough of them to effectively calm the entire nation.
Wall street is sucking it's thumb in the corner.
If it is able, the nation would demand vengeance, If the culprit could be identified the government would have to take action in order to keep some semblance of control.
or maybe not...
If it was an accident (in which case I'd like to know what a nuke was doing downtown) or stupidity (which could explaine the presence of a nuke downtown) the panic would be localized. Heads would roll and there might be lynch-mobs after the responsible party. The balance of the event would be somewhat Katrina-like.
If it was intentional, done by a known or unknown enemy, the chaos would be immense and national in scope. as mentioned, Air and rail transportation would shut down, and not for a day or two. Citizens would flee the cities where ever they were. The larger or more important the city, the greater the flight. If it was Chicago that was hit, San Francisco would empty. If it was Boston New Orleans would be a ghost town.
The flight from the cities would overwhelm smaller cities and towns and there would be refugee camps, official and non, nationwide.
The communication system would fail, overwhelmed as it was on 9/11. Huge logistical problems would arise as the powers that be tried to feed and care for people and at the same time try to get them to return home.
The Government would try to exercise authority and act, but, as is frequently the case, not be up to the task. the military would try to assist, with better results, but tactics that are understandably of dubious constitutionality. In any case, there are not enough of them to effectively calm the entire nation.
Wall street is sucking it's thumb in the corner.
If it is able, the nation would demand vengeance, If the culprit could be identified the government would have to take action in order to keep some semblance of control.
or maybe not...
A nuke going off in a major city would scare the living crap out of everyone. The first reaction would be "WERE NEXT! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!" particularly if is was a city other than New York, DC or LA. That would mean that cities with less symbolism are being targeted.
cw1865
WWIII
It would trigger WWIII. The US will not let itself sink and not take the rest of the world with it, not in the face of a WMD. 3-4 billion dead, 'reparation annexations' quite possible if only a limited exchange occurs. Irrespective of whether the weapon is actually attributable, it will BE attributed. Foreign policy will be based on the assumption that co-existence is simply not attainable.
It would trigger WWIII. The US will not let itself sink and not take the rest of the world with it, not in the face of a WMD. 3-4 billion dead, 'reparation annexations' quite possible if only a limited exchange occurs. Irrespective of whether the weapon is actually attributable, it will BE attributed. Foreign policy will be based on the assumption that co-existence is simply not attainable.
Last edited by a moderator:
*blink* *blink*
Umm...how does the SAC lose a megaton-range warhead? Of the world's strategic forces, the only ones that I could possibly see losing any nukes at all, much less a city buster, are Strategic Rocket Forces and Artillery Guidance Bureau.
But anyways, assuming it is a SAC warhead...the blood in the Pentagon is going to be neck deep, starting with SecDef and the Joint Chiefs. Sort of like Stalin's purges, except with less executions.
Umm...how does the SAC lose a megaton-range warhead? Of the world's strategic forces, the only ones that I could possibly see losing any nukes at all, much less a city buster, are Strategic Rocket Forces and Artillery Guidance Bureau.
But anyways, assuming it is a SAC warhead...the blood in the Pentagon is going to be neck deep, starting with SecDef and the Joint Chiefs. Sort of like Stalin's purges, except with less executions.
Macragge1
Banned
I don't really see how this would happen - what with the strike being only a single weapon, it would be pretty clear pretty quickly that this wasn't another nation's doing ; the whole notion of MAD would demand an all-out decapitation strike. This aside, there's no nuclear-armed nation on Earth that would want to do this - even Kim-Jung Il, if he had the missiles, would realise the sheer folly of attacking the strongest nuclear power on the planet - it's this desire for self-preservation that stops him trying anything across the 38th parallel.
There is no doubt that this one bomb would be devastating and traumatic to the nation, but I personally believe that enough cool heads would prevail that no Minutemen would leave Omaha or Iowa, especially against countries which cannot be proven to have done anything wrong. Certainly, there will be a thorough investigation and search for those responsible, and doubtlessly, military action will be taken in order to take them to task. Given that the US has just seen what one bomb has done to one of their cities, however, I fail to see why they would doom millions more Americans to the same fate.
I agree. Additionally, no nuclear armed nation would allow a bomb to get away. So, the president declares a state of emergency and the emergency broadcast system (EBS) is activated. For those not familiar with American EBS, it is a protocol whereby conventional commercial radio and TV programs stop, and selected stations in each market stand by to deliver emergency information. The president would go on the air and assure the people that the explosion was singular and there is no evidence of a threat of additional bombs. He then assures the people that all nuclear armed nations have agreed to check their resources and confirm that nothing has been stolen, and commit to an investigation as to how a terrorist might have secured nuclear material.
This is why a nuke would not lead to people moving out of urban areas. If Chicago gets nuked, who has it worse: (a) the downtowner who dies instantly, (b) the person in Skokie who dies of radiation poisoning 3 days later, or (c) the person in rural Indiana who spends the next 3 months slowly dying of incurable cancer? I would want to be A, thank you very much.
cw1865
Disagree
This is the same country that invaded Iraq in 2003....From what I've read, they can determine the source of the fissile material and the design of the weapon by isotopic analysis of the fallout.
This is the same country that invaded Iraq in 2003....From what I've read, they can determine the source of the fissile material and the design of the weapon by isotopic analysis of the fallout.
Yes, and in the weeks (if not months) it takes to verify the source of the material, the US must assume a recovery/business stance. Most of the infrastructure outside the nuke zone still works. Any reprisal to a nuke supplier happens later, after much deliberation.
The scenario of a singular hit-bad-guy (on a non-MAD nation) is far more likely than WWIII.
cw1865
Policy
Check out this paper here, interesting in the abstract and let's hope it remains the abstract:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/policy/dod/jp3_12fc2.pdf
"The US does not make positive statements defining the circumstances under which it would use nuclear weapons."
So, really what we're talking about is subjective.
If you get a free moment, take a peek at some of the UN's rules of war with respect to collective punishment. Collective punishment is prohibited of course. And while its clearly unlawful and unable to be justified, the motive behind it is easily explainable on a small scale - a unit takes fire and suffers losses (those losses are of course people that you can be friendly with), the unit looks for a legitimate military target and over the course of time is frustrated by simply not being able to graple with an illusive antagonist. Of course, the frustration boils over and the unit takes out their revenge on whomever happens to be within their reach. I'm essentially describing Calley at My Lai. The point is that the inability to pinpoint and eliminate the specific threat will lead to an effort to destroy all potential threats.
This is why the nuclear genie has to stay in the bottle. The infrastructure in the rest of the country may work, but the country automatically becomes a basket case; its an automatic Great Depression on steroids. So, if they can't pinpoint where this came from, the thinking will be that the rest of the world will be held jointly and severally responsible. Perhaps this is the 'wrong' thinking but doing nothing gives no assurance that Chicago won't be targetted the following week.
There is 'think tank' thinking along this basis:
http://www.foreignpolicysociety.org/workingpapers/WP7--Corr.pdf
"If the US cannot find evidence [of who did it], we should retaliate against a pre-determined list of proliferators and states that accept the risk of sub-standard securitiy at their [nuclear] facilities."
Essentially, according to this paper, the US would respond in the absence of proximate cause but on a theory of negligence.
The whole thing is kind've bizarre and to be honest with you, I hope neither of our thesis ever get put to the test.
Check out this paper here, interesting in the abstract and let's hope it remains the abstract:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/policy/dod/jp3_12fc2.pdf
"The US does not make positive statements defining the circumstances under which it would use nuclear weapons."
So, really what we're talking about is subjective.
If you get a free moment, take a peek at some of the UN's rules of war with respect to collective punishment. Collective punishment is prohibited of course. And while its clearly unlawful and unable to be justified, the motive behind it is easily explainable on a small scale - a unit takes fire and suffers losses (those losses are of course people that you can be friendly with), the unit looks for a legitimate military target and over the course of time is frustrated by simply not being able to graple with an illusive antagonist. Of course, the frustration boils over and the unit takes out their revenge on whomever happens to be within their reach. I'm essentially describing Calley at My Lai. The point is that the inability to pinpoint and eliminate the specific threat will lead to an effort to destroy all potential threats.
This is why the nuclear genie has to stay in the bottle. The infrastructure in the rest of the country may work, but the country automatically becomes a basket case; its an automatic Great Depression on steroids. So, if they can't pinpoint where this came from, the thinking will be that the rest of the world will be held jointly and severally responsible. Perhaps this is the 'wrong' thinking but doing nothing gives no assurance that Chicago won't be targetted the following week.
There is 'think tank' thinking along this basis:
http://www.foreignpolicysociety.org/workingpapers/WP7--Corr.pdf
"If the US cannot find evidence [of who did it], we should retaliate against a pre-determined list of proliferators and states that accept the risk of sub-standard securitiy at their [nuclear] facilities."
Essentially, according to this paper, the US would respond in the absence of proximate cause but on a theory of negligence.
The whole thing is kind've bizarre and to be honest with you, I hope neither of our thesis ever get put to the test.
PipBoy2999
Banned
Thanks, I won't be sleeping tonight now. That was the most brutal description, merely by being technical and bloodless about it.
Pip,
I think that's a compliment, so thanks.
At School in the mid/late 80's, we had to watch a BBC Docu-drama called Threads. If you get a chance, watch that as well. It's based around WWIII but centres on Sheffield and is pretty graphic about the after effects.
I have to say, looking back on the cold war, I am thoroughly greatful that somehow, despite everything cooler heads prevailed and we're looking at the estimated effects of a 300kt warhead detonating in New York instead of a historical study on the after effects of a Soviet 500kt warhead detonating over NYC/London/Washington/Toronto/Bonn/Strasbourg etc.
I think that's a compliment, so thanks.
At School in the mid/late 80's, we had to watch a BBC Docu-drama called Threads. If you get a chance, watch that as well. It's based around WWIII but centres on Sheffield and is pretty graphic about the after effects.
I have to say, looking back on the cold war, I am thoroughly greatful that somehow, despite everything cooler heads prevailed and we're looking at the estimated effects of a 300kt warhead detonating in New York instead of a historical study on the after effects of a Soviet 500kt warhead detonating over NYC/London/Washington/Toronto/Bonn/Strasbourg etc.
Hendryk
Banned
I doubt that. Look at cities that have been destroyed by earthquakes. What happened afterwards? They were rebuilt on the exact same spot, even though it's a geological certainty that a place once hit by an earthquake will be hit again some time in the future.
Normally yes. But this would be happening at a time when populations were already moving out to suburbs. Events like that doesn't reverse trends, but can easily accelerate them.
OK, lets say you are D, none of the above. The balloon goes up in Chicago and you are in...San Diego or Dallas or Atlanta. You know there was one bomb. You don't know if there are 2 or more sitting out there somewhere waiting for their moment. Having hit a city other than the center of power, money or culture (DC, NYC, LA) you know that the baddies are a not that interested in symbolism, so you can't easily project where they would hit next.
I think you try to head for the hills and do it quickly, before you have time to think coolly, rationally or logically. You don't take 2 weeks to decide your course of action, you take about 20 minutes if you are leisurely about it.
You are headed across the mountains to the valley, off to Marfa or on the quickest route to Valdosta.
Of course I do not mean you personally. You, like me, would be far more collected than the majority of people and patiently wait for things to play out.
I don't think the use of a single bomb is going to cause the cities to empty... for economic reasons, if nothing else. First, you don't give up your home and career out of panic from a possible "it may be us next" attitude. A lot of people who live in the dense center of the big cities are poor/middle class who simply can't afford to pack up and leave everything behind. There might be a short term panic where people leave for a day or two and then come back... but not a huge number of permanent moves. If we had several detonations in our largest cities, then you might see that. But when it becomes clear that this is an attack involving a single bomb and no others, the vast majority of people are going to stay where they are...
Hendryk
Banned
Would it? I'd like to see some statistics. I keep hearing about this but, every time I look, the cities have got bigger.