h a l f b a k e r yBunned. James Bunned.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
I watched some show on the history channel some time ago, about what would happen to the people in a city after a single worst case terrorist nuclear attack. I've been thinking about it ever since.
The government would not send rescue personnel during the first 12 hours after the attack, this means
that anyone still alive has to fend for themselves and try and escape if they can. The reason why they won't send rescue people is because their effectiveness would be limited. They would most likely die while trying to save lives in the areas most heavily soaked with radiation.
This first response vehicle carries a few operators (or none and operates remotely). It has several stretchers on the back, for injured people. It comes equipped with a crane/arm for lifting heavy objects as well as mechanical "arms" for manipulating objects and injured people.
The crane would be for putting injured people onto the stretchers.
If the vehicle is manned by living people, they would be sealed inside the vehicle while in the zone completely protected from radiation by the thick radiation stopping walls.
Criticisms welcome, I usually post my ideas here to see if they're a good one and to see what others think of them. I keep my really good ones to myself. I just wanted to say that.
Gee I seem to make a lot of ideas for providing safety for people lately.
Nuclear artillery
http://en.wikipedia...i/Nuclear_artillery
SADM would be appropriate, and highly ironic. [8th of 7, Nov 08 2009]
[link]
|
| |
It's going to be a tough job to design an ROV that's strong yet gentle enough to move a casualty without causing further injury. |
|
| |
[+] for the intent behind the idea. |
|
| |
need a fleet of those... and who's gonna give this a [-]? Is anyone against saving lives? |
|
| |
Whats really sad is another part of the program I watched, it said that if just ten percent of the total population of a major city (Washington DC was the city in mind on the show) tried to escape the irradiated areas instead of staying in their homes, the roadways out of the city would still be clogged. That's 750,000 people all trying to escape in their cars. |
|
| |
Thanks for the crits guys, you always come up with something I didn't. |
|
| |
PS: I wrote: stretcher(S), plural. I imagine something with a flatbed for stretchers could carry more people. The crane/arms are also for moving debris out of the way and rescuing those trapped under collapsed buildings. |
|
| |
[-] Anything that makes survivability of nuclear warfare seem even remotely reasonable is counterproductive. |
|
| |
I think the best thing to do in this case is nothing. A nazi style 'human' touch - of shooting the remaining survivors to put them out of their misery - would not be favored by some survivors. If people wanted to take their own lives later, they could, in a more dignified manner. |
|
| |
Military nukes (not Tactical) are typically designed to be airburst for maximum effect. The area below Point Zero may be heavily irradiated but is not necessarily heavily contaminated; and the thermal effects are far more extensive than the radiation effects. |
|
| |
A low-yield terrorist device could be perhaps be deployed in a tall building, but that wouldn't be a true airburst. The thermal flash would be much more contained, as would the blast; the direct irradiation would be limited, but the contamination would be very extensive, and highly dependent on wind strength and direction. |
|
| |
Contamination is much slower acting than direct irradiation, and there are some treatments, of variable effectiveness. |
|
| |
"Blessed are the Paranoid Kooks, for they shall inherit what's left of the Earth ....." |
|
| |
Have you ever seriously asked yourself the question, "What if they're right ?" Maybe you should. |
|
| |
[8th of7] what's to keep the enemy from using the old fashioned kind? is" Military" the most likely kind of nuke to be used nowadays? vs. tactical ? If we are talking about a 3rd world country for example wouldn't their technology be pretty limited? |
|
| |
my first reaction to this is the people are badly burned and skin and limbs are falling off (read "Hiroshima" by John Hershey) Robots are not the way to go. |
|
| |
// the old fashioned kind? // |
|
| |
Even the smallest uranium fission weapon is pretty big and damned heavy. Plutonium based subcritical boosted implosion devices are pretty small but very sophisticated. |
|
| |
It depends on the route they take; buy a real one, or build their own. And then you have to get it to the target. Since there are 155mm tac-nuke artillery shells, weighing around 60Kg, you could put one in a quite modest light aircraft, which would be fine as an expendable delivery system capable of airbursting at 1000 ft with a 2 kT yield. |
|
| |
I like the concept behind this idea, it just seems kind of unworkable. Triage would be practically impossible, along with transportation and treatment, but I do prefer the idea of a robot ambulance over sitting around and wishing you had something that could do anything. |
|
| |
The other aspect is that this would be hard to sell. There have only been two nuclear bombings of cities in history, which does not make for a lot of demand, and the price for getting these for every potential target of a modern nuclear attack would be exorbitant. |
|
| |
Still, like I said before, better than nothing, along with some damn good intentions. |
|
| |
And it runs over the ones who don't run to save ammo. |
|
| |
What you need is a new type of stretcher that can daisy-chain onto a pull-away vehicle of some kind. |
|
| |
Maybe the real purpose of such a vehicle would be to record good-bye messages. |
|
| |
Didn't Hawkwind write a song about one of these?
/Damnation Alley? 8-wheelled Toolbox?
[bun], but only if I can drive |
|
| |