Nuke Map

View Latest Activity

Viewing 5 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #82572
      Corvette
      Participant

        Thought this was interesting.
        http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/
        What do you experts (F and GWNS in particular) think of this? Somewhat accurate? Bullshit? It doesn’t seem to take wind drift into account.

      • #82573
        Joe (G.W.N.S.)
        Moderator

          Thought this was interesting.

          http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

          I had seen the original version of this, didn’t realize they had updated to NUKEMAP 2.42 and NUKEMAP 3D versions.

          What do you experts (F and GWNS in particular) think of this? Somewhat accurate? Bullshit?

          Well it seems reasonably accurate and could be useful for IPB’s and AO threat assessment predictions. Remember you would have to account for multiple seasons considering different prevailing winds etc…

          It doesn’t seem to take wind drift into account.

          There is a windsock icon that can be moved to change wind direction, however there is no way to adjust wind speed which is set at a default of 15 mph. Obviously it doesn’t take varying WX conditions or true terrain analysis into account.

          This is not at the level of METOC modeling/preduction software from NEMOC at Stennis Space Center, but I know of no other options readily available to civilians. We’ll see if F has any information.

        • #82574
          Roadkill
          Participant

            I was a Haz Mat tech for many years. We used two programs one was Cameo, the other marplot. You could plug in wind speed and direction to get plume models with time frames for distance. This looks similar, although I didn’t see a plume plotting mechanism. Could be just another tool for the tool box.

          • #82575
            Corvette
            Participant

              I think you got some good answers here.

              The models are not USELESS but they have some underlying assumptions that really limit them, especially for casualties if you fully want to understand the output.

              And that is that everyone is out in the open.
              we know most people are indoors most of the time and the casualty figures are vastly overstated for that reason.

              Also a good model includes atmospheric effects (which lower Nuke effects) this example of a model does not.

              Also it ignores the presence of buildings for pressure wave progress which is yet another attenuating factor.
              Same goes for hills

              So the results you get are really for the population density in a given map standing in the open on a flat field.

              A pretty simple model really:

              Plot your overpressure lines in the open , overlay them on any map and use the avg population density to base your casualties on irregardless whether they are all inside or not or what the terrain features are.

              There are some better models out there that are not open source, that allow you to adjust those parameters (but not nearly enough IMO)

            • #82576
              Joe (G.W.N.S.)
              Moderator

                …especially for casualties if you fully want to understand the output.

                And that is that everyone is out in the open.
                we know most people are indoors most of the time and the casualty figures are vastly overstated for that reason.

                Casualty predictions are always kind of guesstimated in my opinion, there are just too many variables to consider for an accurate estimate.

                There are some better models out there that are not open source, that allow you to adjust those parameters (but not nearly enough IMO)

                We’ll have to keep an eye out for something better, but there really isn’t much of a demand to justify it.

                I really believe the biggest Nuclear threat is Nuclear Power plants in a loss of Grid power scenario.

                Not really sure how to relate that to this software. If we could come up with a rough comparison for a low yield device surface detonation to say a Fukushima release maybe?

              • #82577
                Corvette
                Participant

                  There are modleing software you cna use for fallout (or bio clouds or chem clouds)

                  HPAC, ALOHA and such where you cna really vary the parameters :yes:

              Viewing 5 reply threads
              • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.