HAWAII FALSE ALERT: Chilling ballistic missile warning issued to residents in ERROR

Status
Not open for further replies.

WBahn

Joined Mar 31, 2012
29,976
And unless you have a fallout shelter with proper ventilation and amble food an water you will get sick eventually. If you are lucky enough to have those things then there will be plenty of people that are going to want it. And that is where the ugliness sets in. Are you prepared to kill your neighbors? You will likely have to to survive.
The survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki didn't have fallout shelters with proper ventilation. Many got sick and died and many got sick and recovered and many didn't get sick at all. This despite not know anything about what to do in the aftermath of a nuclear strike and despite being in a country whose infrastructure was thoroughly crushed even before the bombings. About 150,000 of them are still alive more than 70 years later.
 

spinnaker

Joined Oct 29, 2009
7,830
The survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki didn't have fallout shelters with proper ventilation. Many got sick and died and many got sick and recovered and many didn't get sick at all. This despite not know anything about what to do in the aftermath of a nuclear strike and despite being in a country whose infrastructure was thoroughly crushed even before the bombings. About 150,000 of them are still alive more than 70 years later.
The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were tiny by comparison to the weapons of today. And the survivors had a place to get help, safe food and safe water. That is why they survived. There will be no such help left in a nuclear war.
 

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
13,079
If I was in Hawaii and a nuke did hit, the last thing I would assume, given today's political landscape, is that it was a large scale nuclear war. There's no reason NOT to hope that there wouldn't be lots of help coming in very soon.
I would assume it's a trigger event to something bigger due to the history about the last time Hawaii was hit.

A nuke on Hawaii would set off a chain of events that would lead to an effort to reduce the level of the attacker nation(s) to a radioactive stone-age in retaliation. Our missile and planes would fly and we have no idea what the other major nuclear powers would do in reaction even if they were told in advance the targets were another nation. There is plenty of reason to assume the worst once the genie is out of the bottle given today's political landscape if nukes start flying.
 

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
13,079
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/01/the-internet-broke-emergency-alerts/550520/
https://www.wired.com/story/hawaii-nuclear-missile-alert-false-explanation/
"This was probably a state-run emergency exercise that doesn't have the strong controls that DoD has learned the hard way from 50 years of screwing up," Simpson says.[
...
Perhaps the most critical issue this false alarm highlights is the need for a firewall between the test mode and live mode in the emergency response interface. In the DoD's version of the system, Simpson says, that separation exists. It appears that was not the case in Hawaii. The Hawaii emergency management officials also noted the obvious need for a better way to recall accidental messages.
 

WBahn

Joined Mar 31, 2012
29,976
The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were tiny by comparison to the weapons of today. And the survivors had a place to get help, safe food and safe water. That is why they survived. There will be no such help left in a nuclear war.
Again, what is the most likely scenario whereby a nuke goes off in Hawaii? Or even the most likely couple of scenarios? Any bomb that goes off in today's climate would most likely be isolated and small, leaving even the nearby infrastructure intact to render aid quickly.

Plus, the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki ate and drank what was around and took no precautions to avoid the fallout. They didn't know they needed to. Many thousands continued to live with a kilometer of ground zero. Many thousands came from neighboring towns to assist and worked in amidst the ruin and rubble just like they did at the sites of other large scale non-nuclear bombings.
 

WBahn

Joined Mar 31, 2012
29,976
I would assume it's a trigger event to something bigger due to the history about the last time Hawaii was hit.

A nuke on Hawaii would set off a chain of events that would lead to an effort to reduce the level of the attacker nation(s) to a radioactive stone-age in retaliation. Our missile and planes would fly and we have no idea what the other major nuclear powers would do in reaction even if they were told in advance the targets were another nation. There is plenty of reason to assume the worst once the genie is out of the bottle given today's political landscape if nukes start flying.
And there's plenty of reason to not assume that that's the only road things can go down. I'm just saying that I, for one, would prefer to survive it and at least have the opportunity to come out the other side. Those people that don't -- fine, that's their right to have their desire. It sure would be a shame, though, for a bunch of folks to go rushing to what they hope is going to be ground zero and get their wish and not survive what turns out to be a one-off strike with a small nuke by some rogue terrorist group or nation and in which, ten years later, most of Hawaii is largely back to normal and preparing for the ten-year memorial ceremonies and remembrances.
 

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
13,079
And there's plenty of reason to not assume that that's the only road things can go down.
It's not the only road but look at the probabilities in terms of human nature and history. We would declare Total war instantaneously on the attacking nation and would threaten the use of nuclear war on any nation that tried to stop us from retaliation. The world would be on a hair trigger watching real nukes flying with the odds for a miscalculation extremely high in places already on high alert. Nations like Israel would likely neutralize future nuclear states like Iran with preemptive attacks after a US attack. The world is a tinderbox of hates and revenges just waiting to be released. To me it's a coin toss the way it could go down.
 

tcmtech

Joined Nov 4, 2013
2,867
I would assume it's a trigger event to something bigger due to the history about the last time Hawaii was hit.

A nuke on Hawaii would set off a chain of events that would lead to an effort to reduce the level of the attacker nation(s) to a radioactive stone-age in retaliation. Our missile and planes would fly and we have no idea what the other major nuclear powers would do in reaction even if they were told in advance the targets were another nation. There is plenty of reason to assume the worst once the genie is out of the bottle given today's political landscape if nukes start flying.
A while back when the big NK nuke testing thing started there were a number of fairly midline speculation stories and the like that talked about what would be most likely to happen and by far the general consensus was not much on the global level would come about.

Given that the US, China, Russia and SK are all have vested interests plus do work on high levels of trade and general mutual well being as friends or at least cooperative frenemies statuses with each other, the general consensus was that if NK tried to give the US a black eye with one of their nukes everyone else would more than likely just sit back and let us wipe them off the face of the earth then we would all go into negotiations on who gets the ashes of which most likely SK would be the new governing body with the US's help along with a fairly good level of vested cooperative interests and assistance with China and Russia as well.

There was a fair amount of speculation on who would take things over in NK's rehabilitation of whomever was left (a surprisingly large part of the population given our ability to strike with surgical precision) but the overwhelming view was the WWIII apocalypse where the whole world dies game playout was not realistic. The world as we know it has too much of a common interest in not letting things go that far just because one tiny dictatorship country goes off the deep end at any point.

The same theory holds true in any other rouge country going off the deep end against China or Russia or most any major country. Everyone else will either sit back and watch or join the major player who was attacked in the form of civilian aid and related assistance and support if said attacked was not highly provoked. (and, no. twitter posturing does not count as 'Provocation'.) :cool:

Just a theory but one I can live with quite comfortably. ;)
 

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
13,079
A while back when the big NK nuke testing thing started there were a number of fairly midline speculation stories and the like that talked about what would be most likely to happen and by far the general consensus was not much on the global level would come about.

Given that the US, China, Russia and SK are all have vested interests plus do work on high levels of trade and general mutual well being as friends or at least cooperative frenemies statuses with each other, the general consensus was that if NK tried to give the US a black eye with one of their nukes everyone else would more than likely just sit back and let us wipe them off the face of the earth then we would all go into negotiations on who gets the ashes of which most likely SK would be the new governing body with the US's help along with a fairly good level of vested cooperative interests and assistance with China and Russia as well.

There was a fair amount of speculation on who would take things over in NK's rehabilitation of whomever was left (a surprisingly large part of the population given our ability to strike with surgical precision) but the overwhelming view was the WWIII apocalypse where the whole world dies game playout was not realistic. The world as we know it has too much of a common interest in not letting things go that far just because one tiny dictatorship country goes off the deep end at any point.

The same theory holds true in any other rouge country going off the deep end against China or Russia or most any major country. Everyone else will either sit back and watch or join the major player who was attacked in the form of civilian aid and related assistance and support if said attacked was not highly provoked. (and, no. twitter posturing does not count as 'Provocation'.) :cool:

Just a theory but one I can live with quite comfortably. ;)
I'm not really worried about China and Russia attacking us directly using their nuclear forces in a total WWIII apocalypse but there are plenty of second tier nuclear states. Let's just hope NK stays at the twitter posturing level because I don't think we will be restrained on the use of force if they attack us. That wasn't the military doctrine for the use of nuclear forces in a retaliatory attack when nuclear forces are used on this country and I really don't think that's changed much over the years.
 
Last edited:

tcmtech

Joined Nov 4, 2013
2,867
The world is a tinderbox of hates and revenges just waiting to be released. To me it's a coin toss the way it could go down.

Sort of yes but a lot of it is empty talk and rhetoric simply because we are all aware of it.

Rather like the present issue in the US with one side hell bent on provoking the other through ever increasing insanity to get them to go off so they can then claim more victim status badges to false virtue signal to the world with that they are good people (#metoo their own cause into the ground) when it's obvious by their own actions they are anything but honorable or virtuous. (#we say he said s******e therefor we can scream it at the top of our lungs to no end in public until we look even stupider and less credible than before and it's his fault, not ours.) :rolleyes:

To me that's the mentality that's going to get a lot of people killed one of these days for all the wrong reasons. Acting stupid and blaming someone else for your own very deliberate actions does not go unnoticed or unrewarded in society. :(
 

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
13,079
Sort of yes but a lot of it is empty talk and rhetoric simply because we are all aware of it.
It's a lot of empty talk from the political side (I'm not going there) but the military has real plans, real weapons and real targets with the objective to stop another attack by NK or any other nation all means necessary if WMD are used on the land mass of the USA and they (with the public's consent and demands) will convince the US leadership to act. I think the odds of a real NK attack on the US are low mainly because China and Russia have no incentive to let it happen but I also don't believe the global consequences will be quickly contained to NK outside of a total accident or rouge release during a leadership change.
 

tcmtech

Joined Nov 4, 2013
2,867
I'm not really worried about China and Russia attacking us directly using their nuclear forces in a total WWIII apocalypse but there are plenty of second tier nuclear states. Let's just hope NK stays at the twitter posturing level because I don't think we will be restrained on the use of force if they attack us. That wasn't the military doctrine for the use of nuclear forces in a retaliatory attack when nuclear forces are used on this country and I really don't think that's changed much over the years.

I'm not sure but I do think that the powers that be world wide do know we cannot colectavely go off the rails in a nuclear war and have anyone survive at this point. Given that, even if we or anyone else got hit with a low budget nuke from some crazy eyed dictator I don't think everyone would instantly go nuts and at each other's throats with reckless abandon over it.

I would speculate it would be more like a school yard fist fight and after the first punch got thrown most would be in duck and cover mode while the big players would be assessing who did it and why and to whom and does that person have a history of restraint enough to throw a tactical knockout punch back without taking anyone else out as well.

With NK as the example, to date they don't have any actual proven long range missiles that can go any direction other than up let alone an actual working nuke that could fit on one that could also get far enough and with enough accuracy to be much of a threat to anything even if they tried, fail or succeed, (very high probability on fail given the old highly unstable tech they have to work with) it's pretty much a suicide shot for them in the end.

The US and all the major players world wide know this and I suspect we already have a number of minimal collateral damage retaliation senario plans in place. Odds are most may not actually be nuke based either given we do have a pretty good idea where all their key military encampments are and how to take them out with minimal effort on our part. The 2 hour war is what I saw it called once being that's about how long it would take us to bomb every key military stronghold of their to useless bits without firing a single nuke of our own.

Now with other countries in other regions then all bets are off given I have suspicions that if some crazy middle eastern nutjobs went nuclear on us we would likely flash roast everyone and everything that moves in their country and anyone else who was associated with them that so much as twitched while we were doing it. I also would not be to surprised to see other countries join us in one form or another (likely not nuclear) rather than fight us for it just to make it clear they dont want trouble. But given the improve relations we have in the mid east, plus their own cracking down on terrorism, I doubt that's even a big concern.

Not sure really but I just don't see nuclear anything being likely myself. NK's been pinned down pretty hard now and knows we are willing to talk when they are ready and given they appear to be working towards playing nice with SK for the olympics I think things are going to work out just fine. I would not be surprised if we haven't already had a productive chat with them off the records by now. ;)
 

WBahn

Joined Mar 31, 2012
29,976
I'm not really worried about China and Russia attacking us directly using their nuclear forces in a total WWIII apocalypse but there are plenty of second tier nuclear states. Let's just hope NK stays at the twitter posturing level because I don't think we will be restrained on the use of force if they attack us. That wasn't the military doctrine for the use of nuclear forces in a retaliatory attack when nuclear forces are used on this country and I really don't think that's changed much over the years.
I'd be willing to bet that it HAS changed. That doctrine reflects a world in which the only viable nuclear threat to us was in a position to launch a massive, overwhelming strike against us. That's just not the case anymore and doctrine has almost certainly evolved to reflect that.
 

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
13,079
Not sure really but I just don't see nuclear anything being likely myself. NK's been pinned down pretty hard now and knows we are willing to talk when they are ready and given they appear to be working towards playing nice with SK for the olympics I think things are going to work out just fine. I would not be surprised if we haven't already had a productive chat with them off the records by now. ;)
If it does happen the party will be at my house.
 

WBahn

Joined Mar 31, 2012
29,976
It's not the only road but look at the probabilities in terms of human nature and history. We would declare Total war instantaneously on the attacking nation and would threaten the use of nuclear war on any nation that tried to stop us from retaliation. The world would be on a hair trigger watching real nukes flying with the odds for a miscalculation extremely high in places already on high alert. Nations like Israel would likely neutralize future nuclear states like Iran with preemptive attacks after a US attack. The world is a tinderbox of hates and revenges just waiting to be released. To me it's a coin toss the way it could go down.
And because it's a coin toss I would rather not throw in the towel before it lands. I'd rather at least see which side it ends up on before making irrevocable decisions.
 

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
13,079
I'd be willing to bet that it HAS changed. That doctrine reflects a world in which the only viable nuclear threat to us was in a position to launch a massive, overwhelming strike against us. That's just not the case anymore and doctrine has almost certainly evolved to reflect that.
Let's hope so but you can bet that plan B is also in effect when things move sideways. I'm the eternal pessimist on the control of human emotions if 100's of thousands of people are killed in a attack.
 

tcmtech

Joined Nov 4, 2013
2,867
It's a lot of empty talk from the political side (I'm not going there) but the military has real plans, real weapons and real targets with the objective to stop another attack by NK or any other nation all means necessary if WMD are used on the land mass of the USA and they (with the public's consent and demands) will convince the US leadership to act. I think the odds of a real NK attack on the US are low mainly because China and Russia have no incentive to let it happen but I also don't believe the global consequences will be quickly contained to NK outside of a total accident or rouge release during a leadership change.

I totally agree. Possible and planned for but highly unlikely given what's at stake on all sides. ;)

Personally I would not have one bit of a problem with us and China, Russia and SK all sitting down with NK in some politically neutral setting (I think Japan has been a given as a choice of location we all could work together at) and just talking things out for what they want and how we could achieve it. NK has a potentially very viable workforce that could be brought up to a minimal working speed in less than decade to where their capacity to enter the world market on a number of strategically favorable trade goods levels well above anything they have had so far would be possible.

They have huge mineral and natural resource assets (estimated 1- 3 Trillion or more US market values, I think) and a potential workforce to process them into a highly valuable goods the us, China,Russia and SK would be dead easy markets for them to open up into simply because we would likely being willing to invest in helping them get up to speed in return for preferences on getting their goods first in return. In theory it would also give us all one more collective shared invested global asset interest to work peacefully over and that's never a bad thing for global relations between frenemies. ;)

It is in a way how Russia and China and other countries have moved toward more capitalistic economies and social system constructs over the last 30 years or less. They know it's gainful on every level and it makes us all far less likely to attack each other in all out militarized war if we have vested mutual profitable trades markets between us.

Just my take on things.
 

JoeJester

Joined Apr 26, 2005
4,390
The question is who can authorize that alert in the EAS (emergency alert system).

The EAS is automated and automatically interrupts the regularly scheduled broadcast. I'm sure the right talent could have into it and generate the proper codes or transmit the codes in that manner the government does.
 

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
13,079
It is in a way how Russia and China and other countries have moved toward more capitalistic economies and social system constructs over the last 30 years or less. They know it's gainful on every level and it makes us all far less likely to attack each other in all out militarized war if we have vested mutual profitable trades markets between us.

Just my take on things.
Good points. Up until this point NK has been seen as a source of cheap slave labor for Russia, a proxy for Chinese influence in the region and one of the reasons for the US to maintain high levels of deployed forces in Asia. We have all played a role in propping up the Kim's for our own benefits. What a mess.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top