Two horses Arses

Hildum wrote:

lyonheart wrote:Hi Weird Harold,

The highway overpasses of the National Defense Highway System were supposed to have bomb shelters in the ramps, actually more like radiation shelters, for all the evacuees fleeing the cities; but that was still way too expensive.

…

L

Fallout shelters made sense in the very early days of the cold war when most weapons were in the 10s to 100s of kiloton range. If you were not in the immediate area of the detonation or had reasonable blast protection (remember, two bank clerks in Hiroshima survived the blast of the bomb due to the heavy construction of the bank building even though they were less than 300 meters from the hypocenter), you likely would survive if you could be protected from fallout for a few days (remember, things that are highly radioactive do not last long).

The hydrogen bomb pretty much ended the chance of surviving a hit on a city, so the fallout shelter program was largely abandoned in the 1960s.

Also the fact that ICBM's got more accurate. IIRC during the 50's a CEP 5 miles. During the 60's CEP 2.5 miles

Hi guys,

Since the H-bomb was tested in November 1952, after Eisenhower was elected, and the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways bill wasn't signed until June 29, 1956, atomic kiloton range bombs weren't the anticipated threat.

I suspected policing and protecting such shelters was so inconvenient and expensive for the local states, counties and cities that the scheme was dropped, before construction began, which is why I've never heard of any built, though it was a major public selling point during the congressional debate; even though the evacuation scheme did frighten the Soviets who had no such capability.

They were sure we'd order such an evacuation before the bombers had reached the USSR, because that's what they'd do.

While ICBM accuracy was claimed to be 2.5 miles at the time, there are indications that it was rather less, especially for the Atlas and Titan I types, but especially for the soviet missiles, being one reason they kept much larger warheads far longer than we did.

L

saber964 wrote:[quote="Hildum"*quote="lyonheart"*Hi Weird Harold,

The highway overpasses of the National Defense Highway System were supposed to have bomb shelters in the ramps, actually more like radiation shelters, for all the evacuees fleeing the cities; but that was still way too expensive.

…

L

*quote*

Fallout shelters made sense in the very early days of the cold war when most weapons were in the 10s to 100s of kiloton range. If you were not in the immediate area of the detonation or had reasonable blast protection (remember, two bank clerks in Hiroshima survived the blast of the bomb due to the heavy construction of the bank building even though they were less than 300 meters from the hypocenter), you likely would survive if you could be protected from fallout for a few days (remember, things that are highly radioactive do not last long).

The hydrogen bomb pretty much ended the chance of surviving a hit on a city, so the fallout shelter program was largely abandoned in the 1960s.

Also the fact that ICBM's got more accurate. IIRC during the 50's a CEP 5 miles. During the 60's CEP 2.5 miles[/quote]

*quote*

Fallout shelters made sense in the very early days of the cold war when most weapons were in the 10s to 100s of kiloton range. If you were not in the immediate area of the detonation or had reasonable blast protection (remember, two bank clerks in Hiroshima survived the blast of the bomb due to the heavy construction of the bank building even though they were less than 300 meters from the hypocenter), you likely would survive if you could be protected from fallout for a few days (remember, things that are highly radioactive do not last long).

The hydrogen bomb pretty much ended the chance of surviving a hit on a city, so the fallout shelter program was largely abandoned in the 1960s.[/quote]
Also the fact that ICBM's got more accurate. IIRC during the 50's a CEP 5 miles. During the 60's CEP 2.5 miles[/quote][/quote]


Here is a State Department of Transportation website talking about fallout shelters in the Interstate system.
Got to love Seattle.
http://wsdotblog.blogspot.com/2010/05/w ... der-i.html

Weird Harold wrote:

EdThomas wrote:Don't recall where I heard this but the minimum width on the Eisenhower Defense highway System , our Interstates, is the width of two main battle tanks. Any one know anything about this?

I don't know what they used to decide, but Interstates and US Highways are designed according to a single lane width -- Ten feet, IIRC -- and not according to total width. Interstates are a minimum of two lanes wide, and modern Interstate lanes are much wider than the originals.

Theemile wrote:Don't know about that, but it doesn't surprise me. (Originally) the Eisenhower system stipulated that overpasses outside urban areas had to be a minimum of several (2 or 3) miles apart. This was so that fighters and bombers could be dispersed from airbases if required and operate off any available section of highway.

AFAIK, no US highways (including Interstates) were used or planned as emergency runways. The Autobahn was designed and constructed with emergency airfields in mind, and reinforced sections of highways designated (and used in exercises) as wartime runways can be found all over Europe. But they are just sections; it isn't economically feasible to build highways entirely to the standards required of runways for jet fighters or bombers.

Your response got me thinking... As an engineer and former military aviator...

Some quick research from reputable sources:

- Interstate highway pavement concrete thickness (where the pavement is concrete and not some other material) is about 11 inches. Source: http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2006/3127/2006-3127.pdf

- Runway concrete thickness (where the runway is made of concrete) varies by the weight of aircraft that will land there, narrow body aircraft - 11-13 inches, wide body aircraft - 17-20 inches. Source: http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/commercial/airports/faqs/boeing_pavement_surface_types.pdf

Although I suspect that there is a LOT more rebar in the runway concrete than in the highway concrete. I also suspect that the runways are thicker at the ends where the loads due to landing aircraft are much higher...

Given the weights of tactical aircraft (F-14, F-15, F-16, F-18, A-10, F-111, etc.), they could easily take off and land on interstates. Tankers, heavy bombers, and transport aircraft would be something altogether different though. If you can land an F-14 on an aircraft carrier with a steel deck, you can certainly land one on an interstate with 11-inches of reinforced concrete underneath you...

WeberFan wrote:Your response got me thinking... As an engineer and former military aviator...

Some quick research from reputable sources:

- Interstate highway pavement concrete thickness (where the pavement is concrete and not some other material) is about 11 inches. Source: http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2006/3127/2006-3127.pdf

- Runway concrete thickness (where the runway is made of concrete) varies by the weight of aircraft that will land there, narrow body aircraft - 11-13 inches, wide body aircraft - 17-20 inches. Source: http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/commercial/airports/faqs/boeing_pavement_surface_types.pdf

Although I suspect that there is a LOT more rebar in the runway concrete than in the highway concrete. I also suspect that the runways are thicker at the ends where the loads due to landing aircraft are much higher...

Given the weights of tactical aircraft (F-14, F-15, F-16, F-18, A-10, F-111, etc.), they could easily take off and land on interstates. Tankers, heavy bombers, and transport aircraft would be something altogether different though. If you can land an F-14 on an aircraft carrier with a steel deck, you can certainly land one on an interstate with 11-inches of reinforced concrete underneath you...

There would also be a 2nd consideration - Airports need to hold out for 20-30 years of aircraft use - if a Highway was used, most likely it would need to last just weeks in said role.

It is worth remembering:

1) Except in extremely heavily populated areas, most land is agricultural, and population density is low.

2) Blast forces decrease rapidly with distance from center.

3) Radioactive fallout is worst at the beginning. Long life isotopes can cause major problems, but fallout shelters will prevent many immediate deaths by sheltering during the peak.

4) Root cellars, properly designed and built, can double as fallout shelters, while producing an immediate return on investment by food storage.

In "Pulling Through" bu Dean Ing, which was a story built around known nuclear war survival techniques, a number of things are shown about reducing deaths. It is a good story also.

5) It still could be very bad.

PalmerSperry wrote:
2nd example. This http://tinyurl.com/nggarratt is technically a narrow gauge locomotive, since it runs on 3ft 6in "gape gauge" track but there's nothing small about it!

That would be "cape gauge" (as in Cape of Good Hope) and was specified for South Africa and used in parts of South East Asia, South Australia and Queensland. BTW a Garratt on 2'6" gauge looks even weirder.

4'8" was chosen because that was what the English carriage builders were using as standard width for wheel bases. The Irish used 5'3" and then to be totally different 8' was used for the Great Western line.

Broader gauges have advantages - but cost is not one of them since you need more wood for sleepers and more land since the bends are exponentially wider (as acceptable wheel slippage and consequent wear is a limiting factor).

lyonheart wrote:While ICBM accuracy was claimed to be 2.5 miles at the time, there are indications that it was rather less, especially for the Atlas and Titan I types, but especially for the soviet missiles, being one reason they kept much larger warheads far longer than we did.

L

I imagine they also valued the political/propaganda/deterrence value of great big honkin' warheads too - more accurate smaller ones may be more effective in a military, benefit-upon-use sense, but they won't command the same visceral fear value. And in the event, the entire value of nuclear missiles so far (thankfully!) has been fear value rather than use value.

If you're a canny, careful, ideally rational student of nuclear weapon use value, and the fear value they have for you is rigorously determined by that use value, that wouldn't work, but no such being has ever acquired political office or can be expected to.

Hi Jeff Engel,

Size certainly matters, especially for fear mongering as you pointed out so well.

Then again, having the biggest 'the best', or the most, has always been important to the Russians, especially with their inferiority complexes, which had a lot to do with their holding on to the monsters, however obsolete they may have been by more modern insights of even Russian analysts, then finally for their bargaining value in all the various treaties.

L

JeffEngel wrote:

lyonheart wrote:While ICBM accuracy was claimed to be 2.5 miles at the time, there are indications that it was rather less, especially for the Atlas and Titan I types, but especially for the soviet missiles, being one reason they kept much larger warheads far longer than we did.

L

I imagine they also valued the political/propaganda/deterrence value of great big honkin' warheads too - more accurate smaller ones may be more effective in a military, benefit-upon-use sense, but they won't command the same visceral fear value. And in the event, the entire value of nuclear missiles so far (thankfully!) has been fear value rather than use value.

If you're a canny, careful, ideally rational student of nuclear weapon use value, and the fear value they have for you is rigorously determined by that use value, that wouldn't work, but no such being has ever acquired political office or can be expected to.

HamsterDesTodes wrote:

Weird Harold wrote:AFAIK, no US highways (including Interstates) were used or planned as emergency runways. The Autobahn was designed and constructed with emergency airfields in mind, and reinforced sections of highways designated (and used in exercises) as wartime runways can be found all over Europe. But they are just sections; it isn't economically feasible to build highways entirely to the standards required of runways for jet fighters or bombers.

The Autobahn of Hitler wasnt designed to include wartime airports, airplanes had too low a range and of course nobody would ever need to fight in Germany itself, so why go to the effort? Thre were some build as an emergency measure during the later part, but that wasnt part of the original design so Eisenhower hopefully wasnt inspired by it.

A bit of trivia: Ramstein airbase is build on such an emergency airport. Today the rebuilt Autobahn leads in a large halfcircle around it.

(SNIP)

True - Also one thing to consider, is that due to the narrow width of the undercarriage, a lot of WW2 fighter aircraft (i.e. Me-109 and Spitfires) could not land or takeoff with any kind of cross wind.

For these airfraft, the best airfield was actually a large paddock.....