Re-Creating WarGames with Tableau and Mapbox(allanwalkerit.tumblr.com)
allanwalkerit.tumblr.com
Re-Creating WarGames with Tableau and Mapbox
http://allanwalkerit.tumblr.com/post/136904674217/re-creating-wargames-with-tableau-and-mapbox
5 comments
"Apart from the introduction of ICBM’s, MIRV’s and SLBM’s since 1959, and the number of countries participating in this MADness…has anything else really changed, other than the time it would take to blow us all to Kingdom Come?"
In a word: yes. The targets have changed rather dramatically. Regardless of where they sourced their data, their targeting and their location of launch facilities are extremely outdated. The fields in Missouri, for example, are entirely decommissioned. A long time ago. The entire land based missile strike capacity of the United States lives in three areas: the Wyoming-Nebraska-Colorado border intersection, Montana, and North Dakota (though some of ND has been decommissioned). The vast majority of Russian missiles are, in most strategic scenarios, considered to be targeted at these locations The maps for the silo locations can be found here, here, and here:
http://w3.uwyo.edu/~jimkirk/warren-mm.html http://w3.uwyo.edu/~jimkirk/minot.html http://w3.uwyo.edu/~jimkirk/malmstrom.html
The United States has also become much more reliant on strategic submarines for missile delivery, depreciating the role of the bomber force.
As for targeting in the US, here is a state by state guesstimate based on known military targets back in the late 80s. http://www.ki4u.com/nuclearsurvival/states/ A lot has changed since then -- for one thing, both sides have less missiles, hence have less targets. But there are still more than enough to 'get the job done' -- I can't find the articles any more, but I recall reading a NYTimes or WaPo long form story about the topic from the mid 2000s that mentioned that pretty much every incoming new president, even the hawkish ones like George W Bush, is flabbergasted when he is briefed on the SIOP (now rennamed), as the plan has such a need to find ostensibly military targets for missiles that some of the missiles end up targeting things like railroad crossings.
Anyhow, all that aside, that's a pretty cool animation. Personally it doesn't really trip the nostalgia meter for me, as there was something really 80s about the vector-graphics look of Wargames that doesn't seem to translate here. But hats off to the developer all the same.
In a word: yes. The targets have changed rather dramatically. Regardless of where they sourced their data, their targeting and their location of launch facilities are extremely outdated. The fields in Missouri, for example, are entirely decommissioned. A long time ago. The entire land based missile strike capacity of the United States lives in three areas: the Wyoming-Nebraska-Colorado border intersection, Montana, and North Dakota (though some of ND has been decommissioned). The vast majority of Russian missiles are, in most strategic scenarios, considered to be targeted at these locations The maps for the silo locations can be found here, here, and here:
http://w3.uwyo.edu/~jimkirk/warren-mm.html http://w3.uwyo.edu/~jimkirk/minot.html http://w3.uwyo.edu/~jimkirk/malmstrom.html
The United States has also become much more reliant on strategic submarines for missile delivery, depreciating the role of the bomber force.
As for targeting in the US, here is a state by state guesstimate based on known military targets back in the late 80s. http://www.ki4u.com/nuclearsurvival/states/ A lot has changed since then -- for one thing, both sides have less missiles, hence have less targets. But there are still more than enough to 'get the job done' -- I can't find the articles any more, but I recall reading a NYTimes or WaPo long form story about the topic from the mid 2000s that mentioned that pretty much every incoming new president, even the hawkish ones like George W Bush, is flabbergasted when he is briefed on the SIOP (now rennamed), as the plan has such a need to find ostensibly military targets for missiles that some of the missiles end up targeting things like railroad crossings.
Anyhow, all that aside, that's a pretty cool animation. Personally it doesn't really trip the nostalgia meter for me, as there was something really 80s about the vector-graphics look of Wargames that doesn't seem to translate here. But hats off to the developer all the same.
From http://www.hp9845.net/9845/software/screenart/wargames/
>the frames were created one at a time on a high resolution vector display and recorded onto film. The display was monochromatic, so color separations had to be done and filters were rotated in front of the camera.
What you see in the movie has a lot of analog post processing on film as was typical of the era.
>the frames were created one at a time on a high resolution vector display and recorded onto film. The display was monochromatic, so color separations had to be done and filters were rotated in front of the camera.
What you see in the movie has a lot of analog post processing on film as was typical of the era.
Actual animation: http://dataplusscience.com/WOPR/wargamesusa2.html
So this is where it all begins
http://www.introversion.co.uk/defcon/