SOURCE: jlrbszb.cnjiwang.com
An official newspaper of China’s northeastern province of Jilin has published a full-page article instructing its citizens on how to protect themselves in case of a nuclear attack.
The province of Jilin borders North Korea and is located close to the Punggye-ri nuclear test site. The article describes in detail how dangerous nuclear weapons can be and what happens in case of the attack: light radiation, blast waves, early-stage nuclear radiation, nuclear electro-magnetic pulses and radioactive pollution.
The article says how people should protect themselves in case of a nuclear attack and notes wartime air raids.
Newspaper owned by local govt of #China‘s northeastern #Jilin province published a full-page story about how to protect oneself from NUCLEAR WEAPONS. Jilin province borders #NorthKorea. pic.twitter.com/8K0zkNm7Vy
— YUAN TALKS (@YuanTalks) 6 December 2017
Doesn’t that cartoon remind you of those old 50’s ‘duck and cover’ campaigns?
Yes, but you can not get under Jap and South Korean tables.
They surely are as useful as those.
As with all nuclear war survival guides that have ever been published, there is NO practical useful advice that would be of any benefit in a real situation… its all meant to reassure people on the ground that they are not helpless – until they are overtaken by the awful reality of blast damage, heat + radio-active contamination. ‘Duck + cover’ is another nonsense used by Japan today… but ‘ionizing radiation’ destroys living cells + governments couldn’t really give a damn about losing a few million citizens today… its simply population control…
Wikipedia offers an alternative point of view: “Within a considerable radius from the surface of the nuclear fireball, 0–3 kilometers—largely depending on the explosion’s height, yield and position of personnel—ducking and covering would offer negligible protection against the intense heat, blast and prompt ionizing radiation following a nuclear explosion. Beyond that range, however, many lives would be saved by following the simple advice, especially since at that range the main hazard is not from ionizing radiation but from blast injuries and sustaining thermal flash burns to unprotected skin.”
Of course if the assumption is that a massive nuclear exchange has occurred then widespread radiation could be expected. A small handful of North Korean nukes though and “duck and cover” makes sense as good advice.
I am old enough to remember Chernobyl disaster, and they even didn’t have proper nuclear explosion. If real nukes start dropping, they would be anything but “small handfull”. Everyone in the area is fucked because radioactive wasteland isn’t very good for health. If US could nuke North Korea without affecting South Korea, China and Russia they would have already done it.
According to Douglas Chalmers “Duck + cover’ is another nonsense used by Japan today…”. If Japan is using Duck and cover as a public safety message it is in response to a perceived nuclear threat from North Korea. If there ever is a nuclear launch from North Korea towards Japan then yes it is going to be just a handful of nuclear weapons and people WILL survive. If some Japanese duck and cover more will survive then if nobody ducks and covers.. It isn’t rocket science….
They already had “real thing” a couple of months ago, when North Korean missile flew high over Japan. There is even a video of a tourist being bothered because noise woke him up. If you come to depend on duck-and-cover against nukes, you already lost. How many lives would it save in Hiroshima, Nagasaki or even Fukushima?
I have been a civilian in vincinity of regular bombs falling from the sky, where ducking can actually save lives. Nukes are a whole new ball game, and anyone without underground bunker can just hope they don’t fall (or fall far enough). On the other hand keeping people busy, and giving them false hope is very important for morale.
You agree then with Douglas Chalmers: “there is NO practical useful advice that would be of any benefit in a real situation..”? I am not suggesting that people “depend” on duck and cover. Nor am I pretending that people’s chances of survival are excellent if they duck and cover. Given just a few minutes warning and no nearby fallout shelter then telling people to duck and cover seems sensible advice.
Here is one commentary that seems to sum it up for me:
“consider this example of a 20 kiloton weapon detonated over Boston at an altitude meant to maximize the 5 psi blast radius.
Inside that green zone (the 500 rem radiation exposure) you can pretty much expect almost 100% fatalities (not just because of the radiation, but just because of the proximity to the bomb’s other extreme effects as well). But each of those outer limits represent significantly less force. Those outer rings of blast and thermal radiation are in the zones of “if you are doing good Duck and Cover tactics, you dramatically increase your chances of survival or lack of injury.” There are some 700,000 people within the total outer radius there, and some 130,000 within the “probably going to die” radius. If you could affect the number of dead by 10%, 20%, or 30%, that adds up to a lot of individual lives.”
Practical advice is to be far from explosion, in a bunker, with lots of supplies. Also, get a gun ’cause you’re gonna need it, either to shoot other survivors or yourself. That “Stalin arithmetics” (a single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic), and the ducking advices are there just to give hope to the poor that they are gonna end up in the 1%. That way of thinking is called American Dream in the USA. The reason they call it the American Dream is because you have to be asleep to believe it.