
Survival of the Relocated Population of the U.S. After a Nuclear Attack (1976) [pdf] - benbreen
http://web.ornl.gov/info/reports/1976/3445600218921.pdf
======
farmfood
And co-authored by Eugene Wigner (Nobel Prize, Physics, 1963):
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Wigner](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Wigner).

------
neffy
Bear in mind that the Nuclear Winter estimates weren't published until 10
years later...

[http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_uranium15....](http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_uranium15.htm)

and it was after that they started getting a bit more serious about arms
reductions.

~~~
hga
The TTAPS study is bullshit (more details on request); if you do thorough 3D
atmospheric simulations, as was done later at LLNL, you get at worst a season
or two of cooler temperatures, but hardly the end of the world.

And I wouldn't really characterize the following period as "a bit more serious
about arms reduction", compared to the glory days of détente in the '70s. All
you really have for that period is the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces
Treaty, which returned Europe to the situation before the USSR started
deploying SS-20s in major quantities (per Wikipedia, eventually 405, each with
3 MIRVed warheads). After that, it's START I, which was signed a few months
before the USSR dissolved at the end of 1991.

~~~
neffy
Extra details would indeed be interesting.

There are known global climate impacts linked to single volcanic events e.g.
Tambora in the 19th century, Krakatoa, etc.

"All" you have is START 1, which resulted in an 80% reduction of nuclear
weapons. In addition there was a fair amount of behind the scenes assistance
from the US in helping clean up the somewhat precipitous situation the USSR
left itself in with the nuclear weapons - granted they started removing them
months before the collapse.

The public debate changed subtly after that report. The folks arguing - as you
appear to be - that a nuclear war wouldn't be that big a deal, got a lot
quieter.

"I’m not afraid of nuclear war. There are 2.7 billion people in the world; it
doesn’t matter if some are killed. China has a population of 600 million; even
if half of them are killed, there are still 300 million people left." Mao Tse
Tung, 1957

~~~
hga
In short, the study uses a 1 dimensional model of the atmosphere, a particle
of soot can go up or down, but there are no winds, no oceans, etc. These
models are said to be especially prone to failing hard when given extreme
inputs, and the second part is the soot they claimed would be lofted into the
air, sizes and quantities, which they did not justify, or justify well (can't
remember, it's been decades since I read the paper).

Their excuse for using such a model was a lack of computing resources, and
they were indeed dear back then. But that made their running a massive
propaganda campaign based on this inadequate at best "science" all the worse.

Anyway, LLNL, which had serious supercomputer resources for designing nuclear
warheads and such, ran 3D simulations with more plausible inputs, and indeed
found effects were possible, but they weren't a big deal. Certainly not on the
scale of some of the bigger volcanic events. (It's a bit arrogant to
automatically humans are so capable of changing the earth that much,
especially that quickly; compare, as you do, to events like Tambora.)

 _The folks arguing - as you appear to be - that a nuclear war wouldn 't be
that big a deal, got a lot quieter._

Not that I noticed. Especially since we never argued that, only that it
wouldn't be "the end of the world". Maybe we just got more thoroughly ignored
by the media, after all, the sainted Carl Sagan was wielding SCIENCE! and we
were nobodies. Note Sagan and Turco of the TTAPS team should have been a
little more modest when the prospect of Kuwait's oil wells getting set on fire
in the first Gulf War came up, their theorizing did not match the reality to
soon follow.

Of course, to the extent this might be an issue (and even modest effects would
be less than welcome in the aftermath of a major nuclear exchange), it made
SDI/BMD all the more important, to prevent city busting in the first place....

~~~
neffy
Ah, the infamous Goodyear Balloon Simulation mistake:

[http://www.gkstill.com/CV/PhD/Chapter4.html](http://www.gkstill.com/CV/PhD/Chapter4.html)

I go two ways on that one. As you point out, on the one hand it is hard to
beat Mother Earth when it comes to massive climate impacts, up to and
including two eras where the world was a complete snowball, and multiple wipe
out of anything bigger than a rodent by asteroids. On the other, the Russians
got up to 50Megatons before the test ban treaty kicked in - and while you may
wish to argue that a few of those flying around wouldn't be the end of the
world - I on the other hand would wonder what would happen if some evil
bastard targeted the north pole/greenland with them, thereby changing the
albedo of the entire planet. (Yes, I know you couldn't melt the entire
glacier, but dump enough soot on it, and I wouldn't want to predict the short
term consequences.)

I agree the Gulf War thing was entertaining for anybody paying attention. It
is more than a little irritating that in so many areas of science, there's no
follow-up on prophecies like that. Some kind of this day last year, X
predicted Y, which didn't happen would make a fun end of the news item.

~~~
slv77
Salted bombs have always been the weapon of choice for evil bastards who
wanted extinction level events. Salted bombs are designed to maximize
radioactive fallout and render an area uninhabitable for 20+ years by "salting
the earth" so to speak.

Salted bombs were considered for use as a deterrent and were speculate to be
the doomsday weapons that was central to the plot in Dr. Strangelove due to
the potential to wipe out all terrestrial life on the planet bigger than a
rabbit. Smaller devices were also considers as a method to permanently close
an choke point to invading troops such as the Fulda gap. Russia "leaked" plans
last year for a drone controlled submarine that carried a large salted
(cobalt) bomb which would surface at a port and depopulate anything down wind.

I had a friend in college who's Dad worked who helped test or design nuclear
weapons. I guess the minimum number of weapons required for an extinction
level event had been calculated at some point. The weapons would need to be
positioned correctly but eight salted weapons were the minimum needed for an
extinction level event. My friend said her Dad was always proud that he knew
the exact number.

We've had the capability to wipe humanity off the planet since the late 50's.
Kind of warms your heart that we haven't done so.

------
rocky1138
This is really interesting, but if I was planning a nuclear attack on a
country, I would attack twice: once for the initial effect and secondly to
take out whatever support is built in its aftermath, which is what this
document talks about building.

I don't see this report tackling that. They assume only one large-scale
attack.

~~~
joshvm
You assume that you're not retaliated against. This is the essence of MAD, a
kind of bizarre gentleman's agreement. The general opinion was that as soon as
the nukes start flying, you can pretty much assume that your country is going
to get decimated as well. When you nuke someone, there's a good chance they'll
do exactly the same to you. Both sides planned for automatic counter strikes
even in the event that the command chain was broken, though whether the
capability was actually there is uncertain.

Not to mention that you will probably have allies. There is a good chance that
if Russia had bombed the US, most of NATO would have turned on Russia. The
Cold War wasn't exactly peacetime, but it wasn't open war either. An act of
such extreme aggression as a nuclear strike would have had far-reaching
consequences. You wouldn't have been able to sit on your hands, waiting for
the person you bombed to set up the field hospitals before bombing them again.

On the other hand if you'd just nuked a superpower, you'd have started a world
war. Odds are you're going to go back and bomb them some more anyway, and
they're going to try and bomb you back.

It's true though, these reports tend to assume that a nuclear strike is the
end of the conflict rather than the start of a protracted war. Although maybe
they tend to focus on the civilian side and assume that the military is going
to be off doing its thing.

------
hga
As discussed briefly in _Nuclear War Survival Skills_ , which also came from
Oak Ridge, the real trick is food starting not long after the event, but it's
not _that_ difficult.

------
dctoedt
The summary [1] is worth reading. Apart from protecting against fallout
radiation exposure, the most urgent need is transportation, to deliver food.

<excerpt>

... the location of people as planned with the current program and the
location of grain stocks indicates a possibility that millions may perish from
food shortages unless food shipments are begun within two or three weeks after
the attack.

Sufficient grain to feed the entire population of the U.S. for several months
to more than a year, depending on the season, exists in storage in the local
areas where it is produced.

When the quantity of grain in storage is less than a year's supply, there is
adequate grain growing in the fields, much of which can be harvested with
little radiation hazard to agricultural workers if appropriate precautions are
taken.

If the attack occurs in June, when crops are on the average most vulnerable to
fallout radiation, about one-third to one-half of the annual crop yield could
be destroyed. Additional crop failure could occur due to increased ultraviolet
radiation resulting from depletion of the ozone layer. ...

Citizens' Band radios will probably survive in numbers adequate for critical
civilian communications e In 1973, there were approximately 4 million CB
transmitters in the U.S., and this number may double by 1977.

Shipment of food and other crucial supplies wi.11 use primarily trucks and
trains, of which at least 60% may be expected to survive because of relocation
measures taken during the crisis period. Ships and barges may not be very
useful in the first few weeks after the attack because of fallen bridges and
destroyed locks and docks, although the vessels themselves may survive because
of crisis period action.

Oil pipeline terminals will be damaged or destroyed in crucial locations, and
most of the refineries will be destroyed. However, about two billion gallons
of diesel and about three billion gallons of gasoline would survive in tank
storage outside of the major risk areas, which would be more than adequate for
the trains and trucks to carry out survival missions during the first few
weeks after the attack.

At least 20 million gallons of aircraft fuel will survive in tanks at lesser
airports, which may be available to light aircraft of the Civil Air Patrol.
First priorities should be given for reconnaissance of transportation routes,
surveying blockages by debris and fallen bridges, and monitoring radiological
hazard with aerial survey meters.

Very few large interconnected power plants are expected to be operating in the
first few weeks after an attack because of disruption of the transmission grid
by blast and fire. It is anticipated that electrical power will not be
essential :for basic survival in the first few weeks after the attack and will
gradually be restored during the recovery period.

</excerpt>

(Extra paragraphing added.)

[1]
[http://web.ornl.gov/info/reports/1976/3445600218921.pdf#page...](http://web.ornl.gov/info/reports/1976/3445600218921.pdf#page=23)

~~~
njharman
A lot has changed in 50years. Number, size, accuracy of weapon impacts.
Farming's reliance on mechanization, pesticides, fertilizer. Way more food is
manufactured/processed. How many people even know what to do with a sack of
flour and a firepit. Transportation changes, trucking vs rail. I'm not sure
but the general push for efficiency, JIT warehousing, I wonder if our food
stocks on hand is the same. Also, I'm guessing the fall of USSR, rise of
Terrorism as new bugaboo. I wonder how much study, effort, and prepardness USA
government has put into full scale nuclear war "defense" of late.

Population increase.

~~~
hga
Well, we're also turning a substantial fraction of our corn output into
ethanol to burn for fuel. Stop that, and the feed used for animals, factor in
a much reduced population, and the numbers probably work out.

 _How many people even know what to do with a sack of flour and a firepit._

That's where things start getting really sticky. _Nuclear War Survival Skills_
has a simple design for a pestle made out of three pipes bound together, in
this scenario people are not likely to get anything as refined as flour. Then
boil it into porridge.

~~~
lostlogin
If you get fallout into my sough dough starter I'm going to to be pissed.
There is a small amount of evidence that brewers yeast may be helpful - mostly
from sites like the link below. Simultaneously awful design and alarming
advice. Check these highlights.

"Apple Pectin Capsules This can force strontium through the body, without its
being absorbed.

Sunflower Seeds Eat for radiaiton[sic] poisoning. Source of pectin to attract,
bind and eliminate radiation from the system."

[http://www.newfoundationspubl.org/shepherdspurse/archiv10.ht...](http://www.newfoundationspubl.org/shepherdspurse/archiv10.htm)

------
briancarnell
The report seems to rely on the then-widespread usage of CB radios to preserve
post-attack civilian communications, but that technology seems to have largely
been abandoned except by truckers.

Would we have a harder time today in a post-attack scenario maintaining
communications as compared to the late 1970s and the CB craze?

~~~
jcrawfordor
That's a question that I'm pretty fascinated with personally. When it comes to
communications after a major disaster, we continue to plan to rely primarily
on 'conventional' radio via e.g. clear-channel AM radio stations and other
major commercial broadcasters which have worked with the government to prepare
solid contingency plans. For this reason, it's a good idea to own a portable
radio or two even though you wouldn't normally use them, and to familiarize
yourself with an AM news station (e.g. KCBS 740 KHz in the bay area).

Of course, for two-way communication we are all quite dependent on our
cellphones. The cellular networks own mobile equipment and other provisions
for providing service in a contingency situation, and ideally there could be
no interruption in service (as the generators at many cell sites could hold
them until service crews arrive, in the case of loss of electricity, for
example). But in practice it's easy to imagine a few scenarios that would have
the cellular network significantly deteriorated in a region for days, such as
a major earthquake that damaged infrastructure and made it difficult to get
equipment and fuel to the area. In the short term, I wouldn't count on it. In
the long term, the effort involved in restoring cellular service could be
enormous but it would be a reasonably high priority.

It'd be a good idea for more people to own accessible point-to-point radio
equipment with a decent range. I don't know how to achieve this though. CB
equipment is bulky and now relegated to its own particular subculture. The
amateur radio industry has produced a lot of high-quality handhelds but
they're designed to be the opposite of accessible. There have been some ideas
based on peer-to-peer relay between mobile phones but the range remains very
limited. Maybe someone could come up with a good product in this space.

