- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Nuclear War in South Louisiana
Posted on 3/26/24 at 12:12 pm to Shiftyplus1
Posted on 3/26/24 at 12:12 pm to Shiftyplus1
Don't forget Grand Gulf nuclear power plant in Port Gibson is just on the other side of the river!
0
Posted on 3/26/24 at 12:14 pm to dkreller
quote:
Crawfish sizes would be ridiculous
Teenage Mutant Ninja Crawfish
Posted on 3/26/24 at 12:27 pm to choupiquesushi
quote:
NOLA I don't believe is a target
There are nearly a million barrels per day of refining capacity in the NOLA area (from Norco to Chalmette) plus the port and the ability to shut down the nation’s most important waterway.
NOLA itself probably isn’t much of a target but you’d be close enough to legit targets that I’m not sure it matters.
Posted on 3/26/24 at 12:38 pm to lostinbr
quote:
IIRC, the 2,000 warhead scenario (black dots) is meant to represent a nuclear first strike
question about that.
why would they drop so many clustered together in some areas?
I get the huge clusters in the mountains where we store a lot of our weapons
but does NOLA really need 4 of them?
using this simulator, dropping just one of China's current ICBM on the dome will frick up a pretty large arse area (surface detonation).
NukeMap
all of downtown NOLA is Vaporized.
even sturdily built concrete buildings are destroyed from Holly Grove to Algiers.
Everything from Westwego to Gentilly is on fire (most homes are flattened).
drop another one near the airport and you cover the entire NOLA metro area.
so why would they send 2 more there?
those 2 can be used else where.
Posted on 3/26/24 at 1:06 pm to Nutriaitch
quote:
but does NOLA really need 4 of them?
It’s a little hard to tell, but I think what you’re seeing on that map is:
- One on Garyville (refinery)
- One on Norco (refineries)
- One on Chalmette (refineries)
- One on Belle Chasse (naval air station)
Remember, the 2,000 warhead scenario isn’t really about maximizing casualties. It’s about destroying the country’s ability to wage war. Dropping a bomb on the city itself might kill just as many people but allow some of that infrastructure to survive.
Posted on 3/26/24 at 1:11 pm to Hoodie
Wonder if the radiation would make dem mud bugs as big as lobsters…
Posted on 3/26/24 at 1:15 pm to Hoodie
You prob won’t have 30 min. Between Barksdale AFB in Bossier, to Refineries in BTR, Nola & Strategic Petroleum Reserves….we won’t feel a thing.
Only survivors would be the fine people of Bawcomville.
Only survivors would be the fine people of Bawcomville.
Posted on 3/26/24 at 2:56 pm to Nutriaitch
quote:you don't need nukes for that.
quote:
NOLA I don't believe is a target
fricking up river travel in and out would probably be somewhere on the list though.
Posted on 3/26/24 at 3:20 pm to White Bear
All you mouth breathers taking my comment literally even tho the thread title says “South Louisiana”
Posted on 3/26/24 at 3:45 pm to Nutriaitch
Don't most missiles now carry multiple warheads? Wouldn't it be a cluster of multiple impacts instead of just one?
Posted on 3/26/24 at 3:49 pm to Lonnie Utah
What’s the reason for different scenarios? If someone were willing to drop 500 nukes on us why wouldn’t they drop 2,000 if they have them available?
Posted on 3/26/24 at 4:03 pm to Hawgnsincebirth55
The first target in La. is Barksdale.
But there are so many warheads, at least in theory, in the Russian arsenal (less for China) that you get to some pretty uninteresting potential secondary targets.
It is highly likely the Russians can no longer deliver that many warheads, but they may not need to.
The radiation sickness and nuclear winter which would follow any attack would make commerce (the Miss. river, refineries, ports, even Ft. Polk) relatively insignificant.
But it is interesting that every community in the state thinks it must be a prime target!
But there are so many warheads, at least in theory, in the Russian arsenal (less for China) that you get to some pretty uninteresting potential secondary targets.
It is highly likely the Russians can no longer deliver that many warheads, but they may not need to.
The radiation sickness and nuclear winter which would follow any attack would make commerce (the Miss. river, refineries, ports, even Ft. Polk) relatively insignificant.
But it is interesting that every community in the state thinks it must be a prime target!
Posted on 3/26/24 at 4:13 pm to bee Rye
quote:
You are severely overestimating Russia’s capabilities
I wonder this also, after watching their war machine flounder in front of our faces.
What do yall think Russian capabilities are? Can they really hit specific targets from Mother Russia or would they just be lobbing as many over as they can? Have they made investments to their nuclear missle program to keep up? I do feel their subs could hit where they aim from shorter distances but I wonder about the ICBM's.
Does anybody know that Russian aging missle technology could hit Barksdale or would they miss and take out Many instead?
I do believe that we could definitely hit what we are aiming at with ICBM's but I'm curious if Russia could. Our subs and B-52's would wreck the hell out of Russia.
This post was edited on 3/26/24 at 4:22 pm
Posted on 3/26/24 at 4:15 pm to dstone12
quote:
Every 100k+ city has a guy that says his city would be the first to go because it’s a strategic city to a war effort.
Aiken has one.
Leesville has one.
Tricities has one.
Columbus ga has one.
Monroe has one.
Raleigh has one.
Every city has a guy that says it.
Not Jxn, MS. It's so effed up a nuke would do improvements.
Posted on 3/26/24 at 4:29 pm to Hawgnsincebirth55
quote:
What’s the reason for different scenarios? If someone were willing to drop 500 nukes on us why wouldn’t they drop 2,000 if they have them available?
2,000 warhead scenario is a first strike, targeting military installations and defense/industrial infrastructure. That’s why you see so many black dots around ND/MT/WY - trying to destroy our ICBMs.
500 warhead scenario assumes a retaliatory strike where our first strike would have (presumably) taken out a fair amount of their nuclear assets. So they have less missiles overall. And in that scenario it doesn’t make a whole hell of a lot of sense to target ICBM installations if we’ve already launched. So they’re targeted at population centers to maximize casualties instead.
It’s all kind of hypothetical and hinges on key assumptions about how exactly a nuclear war would play out, but it’s basically an illustration of MAD principles.
Posted on 3/26/24 at 4:40 pm to lostinbr
I wonder if these scenarios are why so many sooner/prepper/extreme libertarian types move to Wyoming and Idaho. Appears to be areas in both states that would be low chance of attack in both scenarios
Posted on 3/26/24 at 4:54 pm to Hoodie
It’s fricking Armageddon now down here
Posted on 3/26/24 at 4:59 pm to Hoodie
That was a pretty eye opening video every body worried about Russia, not saying don’t watch Russia but the people she references are scared of North Korea.
And if you ain’t got a bunker you just gonna die faster than those that do
And if you ain’t got a bunker you just gonna die faster than those that do
Posted on 3/26/24 at 6:08 pm to Hoodie
Nobody here will ever see it happen.
Posted on 3/26/24 at 7:42 pm to lostinbr
I’m just annoyed camp Shelby made it. My hunting property ain’t too far from there.
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News