Democracy's Last Legs: A US - UK DAIM AAR

You know the joke about Chernobyl? It wasn't an accident, the Politburo decided it was an X-ray examination for the whole nation

That being said, Sirveri, you have to consider that radiation poisoning is definitely not a process which starts only at the threshold you mentioned. It's a statistical process where at the mentioned threshold your likelihood to show symptoms gets higher than some imaginary number. If you expose enough people, you will get some with symptoms even before their exposure crosses the threshold. Considering that several million people were affected and then the dust was blown all across Europe, this means you can't extrapolate from the guidelines for individual exposure to the effects on large populations.

London will be rebuilt but all across Britain cancer rates and sickness will mushroom for decades.

You know the joke about Chernobyl? It wasn't an accident, the Politburo decided it was an X-ray examination for the whole nation

Click to expand...

The joke about Chernobyl is threefold:
1) It was built without a concrete dome in order to save money.
2) The powerplant staff at the time of the incident was new and inexperienced and failed to read its instruments correctly.
3) The same staff was tasked with carrying out a security experiment, testing the effectiveness of one single security measure in the event all others failed (which were shut off on purpose on that day). Turns out it didn't work if you failed to operate it correctly.

If one of these three things hadn't been the case, Chernobyl wouldn't have been the disaster it turned out to be. It's less a tale of the dangers of nuclear powerplants than a tale about the dangers of human incompetence.

And the joke is of course, that because of Chernobyl the entire western civilization now rather continues to pollute its climate with fossil powerplants instead of building more perfectly safe nuclear ones.

That being said, Sirveri, you have to consider that radiation poisoning is definitely not a process which starts only at the threshold you mentioned. It's a statistical process where at the mentioned threshold your likelihood to show symptoms gets higher than some imaginary number.

Click to expand...

The imaginery number being 50%.
Provided the initial data responsible for the treshold was correct to begin with. Which is a realistic concern since our overall knowledge about radiation poisoning isn't the most reliable for obvious reasons. Scientists in this timeline probably already know much more about it than we do.

Considering that several million people were affected and then the dust was blown all across Europe, this means you can't extrapolate from the guidelines for individual exposure to the effects on large populations.

Click to expand...

How so? The tresholds are the same for a whole population as they are for a single individual. If an entire population were given the same amount of radiation, 50% of it would show the appropriate symptoms, 50% not. Of course, the starving, sick, young and elderly are likely more affected than healty people.

If anything, the overwhelming difference would be the fear instilled into the population about a repeat of such an incident, which leads to the irrational scaremongering of today and ideological indoctrination against anything that has the label nuclear on it.

I dunno, people still go to and live in hiroshima and nagasaki, if anything the weapons exchange between you and the Axis probably used cleaner bombs. They're cleaner because they're more efficient, and thus burn more material upon detonation. That said, a major nuclear site would likely cause quite a bit of fallout due to production and refinement of Plutonium 239 and the resultant nuclear waste slurries created.

Click to expand...

It's basically up to Firestorm how much damage the nuclear attack on London really did.
1) Does a nuclear attack ingame, which destroys the productive capability of an entire province, represent just one or multiple nuclear explosions?
2) What technology did the Axis use at this point? Was the bomb already an efficient Cold War-design (and therefore cleaner)? Or was it something in between the first extremely dirty bombs and optimated later ones?
3) How was the bomb delivered? Was it a groundburst (very dirty due to fallout) or an airburst (basically clean)? Note that against expectations an airburst is the attack method that does more physical damage to the target, however that first had to be found out.
4) Did the bomb target London (the city) or the nuclear facility? If the city was attacked, was the containment of the nuclear facility even breached? Presumably it was provided with at least a minimal security against axis attacks and was located somewhere on the provincial outskirts of London.
5) How much material was even left in the nuclear facility after Britain had used up all avaibable material for nuclear attacks?

etc.

Sirveri said:

I dunno, people still go to and live in hiroshima and nagasaki, if anything the weapons exchange between you and the Axis probably used cleaner bombs. They're cleaner because they're more efficient, and thus burn more material upon detonation.

Click to expand...

But the material doenst just disappear when it is used during the detonation and because of that a more efficient bomb is actually dirtier than a cruder device. Instead of rather stable isotopes like U-235, U-238 and Pu-239 you have a wide array of fissionproducts an theyre daughter nuklids, most of them are highly radioactive.
Additional, it is rather safe to assume that at the point where Britain got nuked to hell most of the devices where thermonuclear with a U-238 coating, thus further increasing the amount of fallout even for air detonations. We can further assume that at this point in the war Britain had moved most of its critical assets to bunkers to protect them from conventional bombing an thus were attacked with grounddetonations.

But well, dont trust me, trust experts.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/AtomWeap20MHHBerlin.jpg
This picture shows the amount of radiation that people living in the affected arreas would recive in the days and weeks after a 20MT thermonuclear grounddetonation in Hamburg. At the boder of the arrea with is marked with 500 röntgen you have a 50% chance to survive the radiation sickness with proper medical aid, if you go further inward this quickly drops to 0.
As stated above, the nukes that destroyed Britain were probably thermonuclear so we can use the smallest cicle (500 röntgen for 2MT) as a rule of thumb for the amount of radiation that was set free.

However this was then, and this is now and i dont really see a point in a in depth calculation on who died in Britain because of radiation, compared to riots, famine and lack of medical threatment but what is interesting are the long term effects.
By now the activitie of the fallout has died down to bearrable levels in most parts of Britain with only the immidiate vincinity of the targets remaining contaminated enough to result in radiation sickness. Meanwhile the remaining isotopes with lower acitivity have spread all over the England and to a lower extent France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Wales and southern Scotland. They are no direct treat anymore but by now have entered the foodchain, leading to heavy metal poisonings when consuming fish from the Nortsea and the Channel or mushrooms and giving of radiation inside the body. This leads to more cases of cancer, mainly in the lungs, digestion tracts, the thyroid and the kidneys and signifcantly increases the chance of miscarriages and malformations during the pregnancy. Overall, the infant mortality will skyrocket due to the accumulation of heavy metals and radioaktive subtances in milk, independet of its source.
Overall i expect the infant mortality to rise due to this effects and malnutrition to somewhere between 5% and 10% while the amount of malformed and mentality handicapped childs while rise to a smiliar percentage.

A often missed part of the equation, since the idea of nuclear winter was denounced, is the amount of smoke and ash produced by a nuclear exchange. The worldwide meantemperature has probably dropped by nearly a full degree which has a negative impact on agriculture and will worsen the already raging famines in Britain, France, Germany, China, the Sowjetunion, India and the USA.

In the end, you can travel to London but dont expect it to be a nice vacation...

i have a question. i have read the aar until page 31 and i have noticed that your manpower goes up 75 in two days on page 31(I have noticed some other odd manpower ups). have you cheated ? (did you cheat, damn english)
sorry if that question has allready been answered.

sorry if i say that but i hope you will lose saying: this day is a good day to die and then attack.

Yes Sir !

* Readies Rifle
* Escorts the man out

In all seriousness though, I do enjoy this AAR.

Might I presume that (unless I have missed something and Venezuela is Communist or Axis = OR that I am overestimating your Armed Forces and capacity for a war), You would support Venezuela in a war against Argentina ?

Or if nothing else, 'intervene' by launching an invasion of your own ?

Well damn, the Soviet Union has probably one of the largest pools of manpower in the world to exploit now. China and India combined, not a pretty painting that's making for you.

Lord Braindead said:

But the material doenst just disappear when it is used during the detonation and because of that a more efficient bomb is actually dirtier than a cruder device. Instead of rather stable isotopes like U-235, U-238 and Pu-239 you have a wide array of fissionproducts an theyre daughter nuklids, most of them are highly radioactive.

Click to expand...

This is true, however the majority of those nuclides are fairly short lived. The end result being that the long term radiological consequences are lessened with a short term increase in dosage. The big issue being cancer rates, you could take 500 REM and never get cancer, or you could get a single ionisation event from naturally occuring radon and get cancer. It's really a crap shoot either way. That said, low doses and maintaining exposure as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) seem to not have a serious effect on cancer rates. At least according to the UN study of 2000 rad workers. pregnancy is a concern because that is fast growing tissue, same as a wound in many ways, or someone who suffered burns and is healing. Tissue repair and growth is most suceptible to damage from ionising radiation due to replication rate and probability for error therein.

That said, I sure as heck wouldn't want to live there, and it would probably suck a whole bunch. I know I wouldn't walk around the most contaminated areas of the Chernobyl area without a radiac, that said aside from certain high dose pockets most of that area is probably perfectly safe at this point. The real danger is from people wandering into the random hot spots where the dust pools and settles. I don't really want to live in the Ukraine either, let alone Chernobyl.

Solution to the Axis predicament!
(I mean the fact that they are in one whole big alliance and declaring war would result in another world war)

There could be some sort of political fall-out between Germany and Britain/other nations in the Axis, similar to the Russia-China crisis after the 1956 "Secret Speech" by Khrushchev on the crimes of Stalinism!
This could be portrayed in-game as removing those nations from the Axis alliance, but give Germany a Guarantee Independence on it: in our timeline, Mao refused a military cooperation in 1958, and in 1959 the Soviets cancelled their Atomic aid to China.

Juan_de_Marco said:

Solution to the Axis predicament!
(I mean the fact that they are in one whole big alliance and declaring war would result in another world war)

There could be some sort of political fall-out between Germany and Britain/other nations in the Axis, similar to the Russia-China crisis after the 1956 "Secret Speech" by Khrushchev on the crimes of Stalinism!
This could be portrayed in-game as removing those nations from the Axis alliance, but give Germany a Guarantee Independence on it: in our timeline, Mao refused a military cooperation in 1958, and in 1959 the Soviets cancelled their Atomic aid to China.

Click to expand...

Eh, its a bit too soon IMO.

But the material doenst just disappear when it is used during the detonation and because of that a more efficient bomb is actually dirtier than a cruder device. Instead of rather stable isotopes like U-235, U-238 and Pu-239 you have a wide array of fissionproducts an theyre daughter nuklids, most of them are highly radioactive.

Click to expand...

While this is true, this still means that a more advanced bomb produces less fallout (and can therefore be called cleaner). All these highly radioactive particles produced by the fission reaction are, unsurprisingly, highly radioactive, which means that they decay within minutes or even seconds of their creation. They won't contribute to the bomb's fallout and it is unlikely that a human being will be in range of their radiation anyway since they only exist immediately after the nuclear explosion on ground zero.

By now the activitie of the fallout has died down to bearrable levels in most parts of Britain with only the immidiate vincinity of the targets remaining contaminated enough to result in radiation sickness.

Click to expand...

After what, over 4 years, you won't be able to measure any elevated radiation levels on the blast sides of Cold War type nuclear bombs. Most of the radioactive isotopes produced are very shortlived. Even after a groundburst, it's safe to go outside after about one month.

Fallout from attacked nuclear reactors is another matter, though. Those isotopes decay much slower and will remain a danger for years. So London (and Berlin, depending on the damage done there by the Allies) may be the only places were fallout-sticken land areas are still contanimated enough to be hazardous.
Still, the dosage received from travelling there is only dangerous if you were exposed to the radiation for more than a short trip. 4 years after the nuclear exchange, you'd probably have to stay there for 2 weeks or more to suffer from radiation sickness.

A often missed part of the equation, since the idea of nuclear winter was denounced, is the amount of smoke and ash produced by a nuclear exchange. The worldwide meantemperature has probably dropped by nearly a full degree which has a negative impact on agriculture and will worsen the already raging famines in Britain, France, Germany, China, the Sowjetunion, India and the USA.

Click to expand...

This wouldn't be the case in this timeline, however, since this drop in temperature was predicted for a global exchange between NATO and Soviets as a result of the millions of tons of dust hurled into the atmosphere from over a thousand nuclear explosions. In this timeline, there were only a dozen or so bombs dropped so far, that's less than there were nuclear tests during the Cold War. They won't have any effect on the climate.

Dáin said:

While this is true, this still means that a more advanced bomb produces less fallout (and can therefore be called cleaner). All these highly radioactive particles produced by the fission reaction are, unsurprisingly, highly radioactive, which means that they decay within minutes or even seconds of their creation. They won't contribute to the bomb's fallout and it is unlikely that a human being will be in range of their radiation anyway since they only exist immediately after the nuclear explosion on ground zero.

Click to expand...

Maybe we have different opinions on what a advanced bomb means. For me, it means a thermonuclear device. Unlike pure fission, bombs with a fusion stage produce high amounts of neutron radiation which in turn produces new, radioactive isotopes. The halflife of these isotopes varies greatly and this is main reason why the difference between ground and airburst are slim for fission devices and huge for bombs with a fusion stage. A grounddetonation with a thermonuclear bomb means that less neutrons are absorbed by the gasses and other elements in the athmosphere which results overall in more active and more dangerous isotopes.

After what, over 4 years, you won't be able to measure any elevated radiation levels on the blast sides of Cold War type nuclear bombs. Most of the radioactive isotopes produced are very shortlived. Even after a groundburst, it's safe to go outside after about one month.

Fallout from attacked nuclear reactors is another matter, though. Those isotopes decay much slower and will remain a danger for years. So London (and Berlin, depending on the damage done there by the Allies) may be the only places were fallout-sticken land areas are still contanimated enough to be hazardous.
Still, the dosage received from travelling there is only dangerous if you were exposed to the radiation for more than a short trip. 4 years after the nuclear exchange, you'd probably have to stay there for 2 weeks or more to suffer from radiation sickness.

Click to expand...

Lake Chagan, a lake that was artificial createt by a soviet nuclear test in 1965 is still radioactive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chagan_(nuclear_test)
On the other hand, the Sedan Crater is today safe enough for tourists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedan_(nuclear_test)

The main difference between the two test sites is that Chagan is filled with water, which prevents the remaining radionuklids to be dispersed by the wind.
An other good example for this difference between dispersed and concentrated fallout is Lake Karachay. (The sovjets really had some issues with theyre nuclear waste...) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Karachay

I agree with you that most of the land is by now nearly on prewar levels of radiation but every lake that doenst drains into the ocean will have a much higher concentration of isotopes with long half life.

This wouldn't be the case in this timeline, however, since this drop in temperature was predicted for a global exchange between NATO and Soviets as a result of the millions of tons of dust hurled into the atmosphere from over a thousand nuclear explosions. In this timeline, there were only a dozen or so bombs dropped so far, that's less than there were nuclear tests during the Cold War. They won't have any effect on the climate.

Click to expand...

Nope, the 1°C drop was not predicted for an exchange between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. I have this number from a recent study on the climate effects of an small exchange between Pakistan and India with 100 10-20kt nukes. Unlike nuclear tests, the actual usage in a war results in widespread fires in the vincinity of the target and produces much more smoke and ash then blowing up a patch of dirt in a desert.

Edit: This will be my last post to this topic before we completly hijack this AAR.

What a nice Christmas present..Chinese controlled Vietnam

{LD}Firestorm said:

This kind of information allows me to plot the non-game related plot lines of the AAR. So many of you have such great information to contribute, I learn something new everytime a mini-discussion starts! As long as you keep it respectable, I have no qualms with it. Hopefully, we never have a multi-thousand nuclear exchange by 1964 :rofl:

Click to expand...

This is the first time someone thinks my rambling about nuclear warfare is usefull.

I think we will have such an exchange sooner or later. After all that has happened during this AAR most worst-case scenarios seem optimistic in comparisson to what the AI pulls every five minutes.

Perhaps coding events for ussr victory, german victory, and US victory in the perhaps immenant WWIII

Soviet Nukes? Is this confirmed? I suppose maybe they were German? China was puppet of the US. So they must be at war with Germany, too. If the Wunderwaffen could reach North America, why they should not make it to Asia?