How could you create a 95% effective global emergency broadcasting system?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
12
down vote

favorite













THIS IS A TEST of the Galactic Emergency Alert system



No action is required.



Type: Milkyway Empire




The World



In the near future:



  • we discover FTL

  • we run into some friendly aliens that are part of a benevolent galactic "empire"

  • in order to join, we must have a global emergency alert system that can reach >95% of our population

Most areas can be covered by cell phone/tv/radio alerts.



It is getting the alert out to the remote areas that concerns me



"remote areas"



  • Areas without cell service and no other alert method (radio,etc)

  • Areas with a warning system that we can't automate/hook into

  • Areas without a warning system at all (and no radio/etc.)

  • Areas without electricity

Partial Solution



I believe we can mass produce a simple pole with



  • antennae

  • Raspberry Pi

  • solar panels

  • batteries

  • loudspeakers

I can see deploying these in remote areas via B-52. The pole is dropped, it will jam itself into the ground and activate (pole is designed to manage terminal velocity)



Question



Including manufacturing time, how long would it take to ensure that >95% of the population would hear the global alert?



Assume that all major countries want to contribute.(The empire has a LOT of benefits when we join)






reality-check communication







share|improve this question



















  • 6




    It might be cheaper, easier and have many unrelated benefits to invest into a proper permanent GSM network. Global mobile phone ownership is on the rise, especially in developing countries. 95% of the world population either owning a mobile or having someone nearby with one isn't unrealistic in the near future, especially when governments would be willing to subsidize them.
    – Philipp
    17 hours ago







  • 1




    vaguely related, Hughes is working on a system that relies on LEO satellites to provide internet to everyone by 2027 oneweb and Elon Musk/Space-x seems to have a similar idea called starlink
    – depperm
    17 hours ago







  • 3




    Would methods of reducing the rural population be acceptable? Giving everyone a free cellphone and building out a global cell network is the boring approach. Killing everyone we can’t reach with existing systems would be a more novel and interesting solution, if it’s permissible. (I mean, you floated the idea of dropping speaker poles into remote areas from B52 bombers... why not just drop bombs?)
    – HopelessN00b
    12 hours ago







  • 2




    @Mr.J - I've already thought of the language barrier problem. Earth is given access to the Galactic Empire's version of Google Translate. You can receive the alert (on your phone) in Klingon or Elvish if you so choose.
    – Michael Kutz
    11 hours ago






  • 6




    Given that over 5% of the world's population is apparently deaf, I think it will be hard to create an effective system using loudspeakers
    – A C
    8 hours ago














up vote
12
down vote

favorite













THIS IS A TEST of the Galactic Emergency Alert system



No action is required.



Type: Milkyway Empire




The World



In the near future:



  • we discover FTL

  • we run into some friendly aliens that are part of a benevolent galactic "empire"

  • in order to join, we must have a global emergency alert system that can reach >95% of our population

Most areas can be covered by cell phone/tv/radio alerts.



It is getting the alert out to the remote areas that concerns me



"remote areas"



  • Areas without cell service and no other alert method (radio,etc)

  • Areas with a warning system that we can't automate/hook into

  • Areas without a warning system at all (and no radio/etc.)

  • Areas without electricity

Partial Solution



I believe we can mass produce a simple pole with



  • antennae

  • Raspberry Pi

  • solar panels

  • batteries

  • loudspeakers

I can see deploying these in remote areas via B-52. The pole is dropped, it will jam itself into the ground and activate (pole is designed to manage terminal velocity)



Question



Including manufacturing time, how long would it take to ensure that >95% of the population would hear the global alert?



Assume that all major countries want to contribute.(The empire has a LOT of benefits when we join)






reality-check communication







share|improve this question



















  • 6




    It might be cheaper, easier and have many unrelated benefits to invest into a proper permanent GSM network. Global mobile phone ownership is on the rise, especially in developing countries. 95% of the world population either owning a mobile or having someone nearby with one isn't unrealistic in the near future, especially when governments would be willing to subsidize them.
    – Philipp
    17 hours ago







  • 1




    vaguely related, Hughes is working on a system that relies on LEO satellites to provide internet to everyone by 2027 oneweb and Elon Musk/Space-x seems to have a similar idea called starlink
    – depperm
    17 hours ago







  • 3




    Would methods of reducing the rural population be acceptable? Giving everyone a free cellphone and building out a global cell network is the boring approach. Killing everyone we can’t reach with existing systems would be a more novel and interesting solution, if it’s permissible. (I mean, you floated the idea of dropping speaker poles into remote areas from B52 bombers... why not just drop bombs?)
    – HopelessN00b
    12 hours ago







  • 2




    @Mr.J - I've already thought of the language barrier problem. Earth is given access to the Galactic Empire's version of Google Translate. You can receive the alert (on your phone) in Klingon or Elvish if you so choose.
    – Michael Kutz
    11 hours ago






  • 6




    Given that over 5% of the world's population is apparently deaf, I think it will be hard to create an effective system using loudspeakers
    – A C
    8 hours ago












up vote
12
down vote

favorite









up vote
12
down vote

favorite












THIS IS A TEST of the Galactic Emergency Alert system



No action is required.



Type: Milkyway Empire




The World



In the near future:



  • we discover FTL

  • we run into some friendly aliens that are part of a benevolent galactic "empire"

  • in order to join, we must have a global emergency alert system that can reach >95% of our population

Most areas can be covered by cell phone/tv/radio alerts.



It is getting the alert out to the remote areas that concerns me



"remote areas"



  • Areas without cell service and no other alert method (radio,etc)

  • Areas with a warning system that we can't automate/hook into

  • Areas without a warning system at all (and no radio/etc.)

  • Areas without electricity

Partial Solution



I believe we can mass produce a simple pole with



  • antennae

  • Raspberry Pi

  • solar panels

  • batteries

  • loudspeakers

I can see deploying these in remote areas via B-52. The pole is dropped, it will jam itself into the ground and activate (pole is designed to manage terminal velocity)



Question



Including manufacturing time, how long would it take to ensure that >95% of the population would hear the global alert?



Assume that all major countries want to contribute.(The empire has a LOT of benefits when we join)






reality-check communication







share|improve this question
















THIS IS A TEST of the Galactic Emergency Alert system



No action is required.



Type: Milkyway Empire




The World



In the near future:



  • we discover FTL

  • we run into some friendly aliens that are part of a benevolent galactic "empire"

  • in order to join, we must have a global emergency alert system that can reach >95% of our population

Most areas can be covered by cell phone/tv/radio alerts.



It is getting the alert out to the remote areas that concerns me



"remote areas"



  • Areas without cell service and no other alert method (radio,etc)

  • Areas with a warning system that we can't automate/hook into

  • Areas without a warning system at all (and no radio/etc.)

  • Areas without electricity

Partial Solution



I believe we can mass produce a simple pole with



  • antennae

  • Raspberry Pi

  • solar panels

  • batteries

  • loudspeakers

I can see deploying these in remote areas via B-52. The pole is dropped, it will jam itself into the ground and activate (pole is designed to manage terminal velocity)



Question



Including manufacturing time, how long would it take to ensure that >95% of the population would hear the global alert?



Assume that all major countries want to contribute.(The empire has a LOT of benefits when we join)






reality-check communication




reality-check communication






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 20 mins ago









Philipp

29.1k1159110




29.1k1159110










asked 18 hours ago









Michael Kutz

1,6381514




1,6381514







  • 6




    It might be cheaper, easier and have many unrelated benefits to invest into a proper permanent GSM network. Global mobile phone ownership is on the rise, especially in developing countries. 95% of the world population either owning a mobile or having someone nearby with one isn't unrealistic in the near future, especially when governments would be willing to subsidize them.
    – Philipp
    17 hours ago







  • 1




    vaguely related, Hughes is working on a system that relies on LEO satellites to provide internet to everyone by 2027 oneweb and Elon Musk/Space-x seems to have a similar idea called starlink
    – depperm
    17 hours ago







  • 3




    Would methods of reducing the rural population be acceptable? Giving everyone a free cellphone and building out a global cell network is the boring approach. Killing everyone we can’t reach with existing systems would be a more novel and interesting solution, if it’s permissible. (I mean, you floated the idea of dropping speaker poles into remote areas from B52 bombers... why not just drop bombs?)
    – HopelessN00b
    12 hours ago







  • 2




    @Mr.J - I've already thought of the language barrier problem. Earth is given access to the Galactic Empire's version of Google Translate. You can receive the alert (on your phone) in Klingon or Elvish if you so choose.
    – Michael Kutz
    11 hours ago






  • 6




    Given that over 5% of the world's population is apparently deaf, I think it will be hard to create an effective system using loudspeakers
    – A C
    8 hours ago












  • 6




    It might be cheaper, easier and have many unrelated benefits to invest into a proper permanent GSM network. Global mobile phone ownership is on the rise, especially in developing countries. 95% of the world population either owning a mobile or having someone nearby with one isn't unrealistic in the near future, especially when governments would be willing to subsidize them.
    – Philipp
    17 hours ago







  • 1




    vaguely related, Hughes is working on a system that relies on LEO satellites to provide internet to everyone by 2027 oneweb and Elon Musk/Space-x seems to have a similar idea called starlink
    – depperm
    17 hours ago







  • 3




    Would methods of reducing the rural population be acceptable? Giving everyone a free cellphone and building out a global cell network is the boring approach. Killing everyone we can’t reach with existing systems would be a more novel and interesting solution, if it’s permissible. (I mean, you floated the idea of dropping speaker poles into remote areas from B52 bombers... why not just drop bombs?)
    – HopelessN00b
    12 hours ago







  • 2




    @Mr.J - I've already thought of the language barrier problem. Earth is given access to the Galactic Empire's version of Google Translate. You can receive the alert (on your phone) in Klingon or Elvish if you so choose.
    – Michael Kutz
    11 hours ago






  • 6




    Given that over 5% of the world's population is apparently deaf, I think it will be hard to create an effective system using loudspeakers
    – A C
    8 hours ago







6




6




It might be cheaper, easier and have many unrelated benefits to invest into a proper permanent GSM network. Global mobile phone ownership is on the rise, especially in developing countries. 95% of the world population either owning a mobile or having someone nearby with one isn't unrealistic in the near future, especially when governments would be willing to subsidize them.
– Philipp
17 hours ago





It might be cheaper, easier and have many unrelated benefits to invest into a proper permanent GSM network. Global mobile phone ownership is on the rise, especially in developing countries. 95% of the world population either owning a mobile or having someone nearby with one isn't unrealistic in the near future, especially when governments would be willing to subsidize them.
– Philipp
17 hours ago





1




1




vaguely related, Hughes is working on a system that relies on LEO satellites to provide internet to everyone by 2027 oneweb and Elon Musk/Space-x seems to have a similar idea called starlink
– depperm
17 hours ago





vaguely related, Hughes is working on a system that relies on LEO satellites to provide internet to everyone by 2027 oneweb and Elon Musk/Space-x seems to have a similar idea called starlink
– depperm
17 hours ago





3




3




Would methods of reducing the rural population be acceptable? Giving everyone a free cellphone and building out a global cell network is the boring approach. Killing everyone we can’t reach with existing systems would be a more novel and interesting solution, if it’s permissible. (I mean, you floated the idea of dropping speaker poles into remote areas from B52 bombers... why not just drop bombs?)
– HopelessN00b
12 hours ago





Would methods of reducing the rural population be acceptable? Giving everyone a free cellphone and building out a global cell network is the boring approach. Killing everyone we can’t reach with existing systems would be a more novel and interesting solution, if it’s permissible. (I mean, you floated the idea of dropping speaker poles into remote areas from B52 bombers... why not just drop bombs?)
– HopelessN00b
12 hours ago





2




2




@Mr.J - I've already thought of the language barrier problem. Earth is given access to the Galactic Empire's version of Google Translate. You can receive the alert (on your phone) in Klingon or Elvish if you so choose.
– Michael Kutz
11 hours ago




@Mr.J - I've already thought of the language barrier problem. Earth is given access to the Galactic Empire's version of Google Translate. You can receive the alert (on your phone) in Klingon or Elvish if you so choose.
– Michael Kutz
11 hours ago




6




6




Given that over 5% of the world's population is apparently deaf, I think it will be hard to create an effective system using loudspeakers
– A C
8 hours ago




Given that over 5% of the world's population is apparently deaf, I think it will be hard to create an effective system using loudspeakers
– A C
8 hours ago










4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
12
down vote













First off, >95% coverage means that, with a worldwide population of 7 billion, you can ignore 350 million people. Which I feel like gives you some wiggle room.



Second, when you say 'near future,' what do you mean?



If you mean anything longer than the next few years, you may not need to do anything other than use cell phones. As of 2017, about 70% of the world's population owned one, and that percentage is rapidly increasing. In many areas of the world, mobile phones are the way you access the internet.



Additionally, about a quarter of the world's population is under 14 years old. The vast majority of these children, I believe it's safe to say, will be within hearing distance of an adult.



So, 70% of the world has cell phones. 25% are close enough to an adult to hear one in an emergency. Adding those together gives you 95% coverage.



Now, that's cutting it a little close as of 2017, but with the increasing ubiquity of mobile devices, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume in your 'near future' scenario that more than 95% could hear a cell phone if it went off.



But what if you wanted to be even more sure? Well, as we're all aware, humans are not evenly distributed across the planet. China and India each have more than a billion people, and many of those are among the poorest in the world... and they also live in large cities. By hooking up your raspberry pi to some airhorns in those large cities, you can pick up whole percentage points of the world population.



Want to be even more sure? Require phone manufacturers to donate a few tens of millions of devices, for the good of the planet. Ship those devices to every village in Africa and rural community in India, and voila! Even better coverage.



So, even assuming you're not happy with the current growth of cell phone usage worldwide, which within the next few years will easily take you over 95% coverage, manufacturing and shipping those cheap mobile devices for rural areas would take, what, a year? At most? We're already making hundreds of millions of phones now, so it wouldn't take long to redirect them where they're needed if necessary.






share|improve this answer
















  • 19




    What percent of cell-phone users are also under 14 years old? I agree with the validity of the rest of your answer, but if there's any chance of overlap between two groups, you can't get an absolute percent, just lower and upper limits.
    – DqwertyC
    13 hours ago










  • @DqwertyC Good question! I briefly considered this, but decided that the number of kids who have a phone would balance those who were out of earshot. In fact, back in my day™, I wasn't allowed to go out with friends alone unless one of us had a cell phone. But you're absolutely right, we can't know for sure, and there is definitely a potential for an overlap that messes up my numbers.
    – Elliot Schrock
    13 hours ago






  • 2




    I think that you are mixing things up with the percentage addition part, kids with phones will not cancel out with kids out of ear shot, those two categories will actually both decrease the percentage.
    – Rodolvertice
    5 hours ago










  • As far as I know even villages in Africa usually have a few cellphones in them. The users often have to go to the next city to get a connection, but many have one. There's even a pretty popular payment method there that uses SMS.
    – Fabian Röling
    3 hours ago

















up vote
10
down vote













Is the scope of the system to only be on Earth? If that is the case, then satellites should suffice, as we have had 100% coverage for decades now. The old Iridium constellation, famous for its satellite flares, was able to completely cover the Earth, as shown below:



enter image description here



Simply use a satellite alert system for phones, or use those pole thingies you mentioned but hook them up to a satellite.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




KITTENDESTROYER-9000 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

















  • But how long would it take to manufacture and distribute the pole thingies to ensure >95% of the people can be reached?
    – Michael Kutz
    15 hours ago






  • 1




    @MichaelKutz Depends how dedicated you are. I doubt if we have FTL travel greater than 5% of the population would be disconnected from the internet, so this question may not even be applicable.
    – KITTENDESTROYER-9000
    15 hours ago






  • 1




    Iridium is still going and launching new satellites.
    – Schwern
    10 hours ago











  • The only real issue with using Satellites is that they have trouble connecting if there is too much between you and the sky - but, that's mostly an issue in urban settings (tall buildings, etc) where we already have phone masts. Mandate a change of all phones to support both satellites and masts (since the necessary antenna are different), then run a global "subsidised trade-in" scheme to encourage everyone to upgrade (the new "basic model" might be free with any trade-in)
    – Chronocidal
    5 hours ago






  • 1




    @MichaelKutz If money is no object (and lets face it, you're joining an intergalactic community here, it's worth shelling out!) then you could probably contract a few manufacturers and churn out a few million of the things in a matter of months at most.
    – Ruadhan
    1 hour ago

















up vote
8
down vote













Reduce the Population



95% gets a lot easier if you can chop off the long tail. Now that you can move things faster than the speed of light, kinetic kill weapons can devestate the world. While world leaders debate how to achieve the goal, a rogue faction secedes to the moon, cracks the earth in half, and neatly qualifies for entry into the galactic fold. Then, they emigrate somewhere nicer than this galactic backwater.






share|improve this answer






















  • And then there's people like this, mass murder everybody else just to save themselves, then justify their actions as heroic. While this answer is logically correct, annihilating a whole civilization for your own good, is like murdering your own parents for the sake of your own peace. AND, if this kind sir/madam can murder his parents. Then this answer qualifies as valid.
    – Mr.J
    12 hours ago






  • 1




    I agree, the rogue faction that enacts this plan will be highly immoral.
    – Daniel B
    11 hours ago






  • 3




    But take note, I have to emphasize this, this is highly logical. Immoral, yes, but logically correct.
    – Mr.J
    11 hours ago






  • 1




    @Mr.J , etc. - I'm already killing off at least 50% of the population at the end of "Chapter 1" because of a massive multi-brood infestation of Space Locus in our asteroid belt. I don't want/need any more needless killings. ( worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/102010/… )
    – Michael Kutz
    11 hours ago










  • @MichaelKutz You forgot to add that detail, this changes things. If your period is post apocalypse, do you think most of earths facilities are still intact?
    – Mr.J
    11 hours ago

















up vote
7
down vote













Detonating nukes in very high altitudes causes a lot of noise and brings along some nice pyrotechnical effects:




In general, nuclear effects in space (or very high altitudes) have a qualitatively different display. While an atmospheric nuclear explosion has a characteristic mushroom-shaped cloud, high-altitude and space explosions tend to manifest a spherical 'cloud,' reminiscent of other space-based explosions until distorted by Earth's magnetic field, and the charged particles resulting from the blast can cross hemispheres to create an auroral display which has led documentary maker Peter Kuran to characterize these detonations as 'the rainbow bombs'.




If we have the tech for FTL, we have the tech to blow some nuclear fireworks up high. That should gather a lot of attention. We could do it around the globe.






share|improve this answer
















  • 1




    @KITTDESTROYER-9000 the fallout would be minimal, you get more rads from bricks. But we'd need to upgrade our satellites to withstand that.
    – Renan
    16 hours ago






  • 21




    Your attention please. An emergency has been declared. Nuclear explosives have been detonated in your atmosphere to draw your attention to this emergency. Incidentally, it is also the emergency itself.
    – Cort Ammon
    16 hours ago






  • 3




    You had me at "detonating nukes".
    – GrandmasterB
    15 hours ago






  • 1




    This is killing 95% of the world's population, IN STYLE.
    – Mr.J
    10 hours ago






  • 2




    Wouldn't the EMP kill all electronics everywhere? Some might consider that a negative.
    – AmiralPatate
    7 hours ago










Your Answer




StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "579"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: false,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);













 

draft saved


draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f126675%2fhow-could-you-create-a-95-effective-global-emergency-broadcasting-system%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest

















4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes








4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








up vote
12
down vote













First off, >95% coverage means that, with a worldwide population of 7 billion, you can ignore 350 million people. Which I feel like gives you some wiggle room.



Second, when you say 'near future,' what do you mean?



If you mean anything longer than the next few years, you may not need to do anything other than use cell phones. As of 2017, about 70% of the world's population owned one, and that percentage is rapidly increasing. In many areas of the world, mobile phones are the way you access the internet.



Additionally, about a quarter of the world's population is under 14 years old. The vast majority of these children, I believe it's safe to say, will be within hearing distance of an adult.



So, 70% of the world has cell phones. 25% are close enough to an adult to hear one in an emergency. Adding those together gives you 95% coverage.



Now, that's cutting it a little close as of 2017, but with the increasing ubiquity of mobile devices, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume in your 'near future' scenario that more than 95% could hear a cell phone if it went off.



But what if you wanted to be even more sure? Well, as we're all aware, humans are not evenly distributed across the planet. China and India each have more than a billion people, and many of those are among the poorest in the world... and they also live in large cities. By hooking up your raspberry pi to some airhorns in those large cities, you can pick up whole percentage points of the world population.



Want to be even more sure? Require phone manufacturers to donate a few tens of millions of devices, for the good of the planet. Ship those devices to every village in Africa and rural community in India, and voila! Even better coverage.



So, even assuming you're not happy with the current growth of cell phone usage worldwide, which within the next few years will easily take you over 95% coverage, manufacturing and shipping those cheap mobile devices for rural areas would take, what, a year? At most? We're already making hundreds of millions of phones now, so it wouldn't take long to redirect them where they're needed if necessary.






share|improve this answer
















  • 19




    What percent of cell-phone users are also under 14 years old? I agree with the validity of the rest of your answer, but if there's any chance of overlap between two groups, you can't get an absolute percent, just lower and upper limits.
    – DqwertyC
    13 hours ago










  • @DqwertyC Good question! I briefly considered this, but decided that the number of kids who have a phone would balance those who were out of earshot. In fact, back in my day™, I wasn't allowed to go out with friends alone unless one of us had a cell phone. But you're absolutely right, we can't know for sure, and there is definitely a potential for an overlap that messes up my numbers.
    – Elliot Schrock
    13 hours ago






  • 2




    I think that you are mixing things up with the percentage addition part, kids with phones will not cancel out with kids out of ear shot, those two categories will actually both decrease the percentage.
    – Rodolvertice
    5 hours ago










  • As far as I know even villages in Africa usually have a few cellphones in them. The users often have to go to the next city to get a connection, but many have one. There's even a pretty popular payment method there that uses SMS.
    – Fabian Röling
    3 hours ago














up vote
12
down vote













First off, >95% coverage means that, with a worldwide population of 7 billion, you can ignore 350 million people. Which I feel like gives you some wiggle room.



Second, when you say 'near future,' what do you mean?



If you mean anything longer than the next few years, you may not need to do anything other than use cell phones. As of 2017, about 70% of the world's population owned one, and that percentage is rapidly increasing. In many areas of the world, mobile phones are the way you access the internet.



Additionally, about a quarter of the world's population is under 14 years old. The vast majority of these children, I believe it's safe to say, will be within hearing distance of an adult.



So, 70% of the world has cell phones. 25% are close enough to an adult to hear one in an emergency. Adding those together gives you 95% coverage.



Now, that's cutting it a little close as of 2017, but with the increasing ubiquity of mobile devices, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume in your 'near future' scenario that more than 95% could hear a cell phone if it went off.



But what if you wanted to be even more sure? Well, as we're all aware, humans are not evenly distributed across the planet. China and India each have more than a billion people, and many of those are among the poorest in the world... and they also live in large cities. By hooking up your raspberry pi to some airhorns in those large cities, you can pick up whole percentage points of the world population.



Want to be even more sure? Require phone manufacturers to donate a few tens of millions of devices, for the good of the planet. Ship those devices to every village in Africa and rural community in India, and voila! Even better coverage.



So, even assuming you're not happy with the current growth of cell phone usage worldwide, which within the next few years will easily take you over 95% coverage, manufacturing and shipping those cheap mobile devices for rural areas would take, what, a year? At most? We're already making hundreds of millions of phones now, so it wouldn't take long to redirect them where they're needed if necessary.






share|improve this answer
















  • 19




    What percent of cell-phone users are also under 14 years old? I agree with the validity of the rest of your answer, but if there's any chance of overlap between two groups, you can't get an absolute percent, just lower and upper limits.
    – DqwertyC
    13 hours ago










  • @DqwertyC Good question! I briefly considered this, but decided that the number of kids who have a phone would balance those who were out of earshot. In fact, back in my day™, I wasn't allowed to go out with friends alone unless one of us had a cell phone. But you're absolutely right, we can't know for sure, and there is definitely a potential for an overlap that messes up my numbers.
    – Elliot Schrock
    13 hours ago






  • 2




    I think that you are mixing things up with the percentage addition part, kids with phones will not cancel out with kids out of ear shot, those two categories will actually both decrease the percentage.
    – Rodolvertice
    5 hours ago










  • As far as I know even villages in Africa usually have a few cellphones in them. The users often have to go to the next city to get a connection, but many have one. There's even a pretty popular payment method there that uses SMS.
    – Fabian Röling
    3 hours ago












up vote
12
down vote










up vote
12
down vote









First off, >95% coverage means that, with a worldwide population of 7 billion, you can ignore 350 million people. Which I feel like gives you some wiggle room.



Second, when you say 'near future,' what do you mean?



If you mean anything longer than the next few years, you may not need to do anything other than use cell phones. As of 2017, about 70% of the world's population owned one, and that percentage is rapidly increasing. In many areas of the world, mobile phones are the way you access the internet.



Additionally, about a quarter of the world's population is under 14 years old. The vast majority of these children, I believe it's safe to say, will be within hearing distance of an adult.



So, 70% of the world has cell phones. 25% are close enough to an adult to hear one in an emergency. Adding those together gives you 95% coverage.



Now, that's cutting it a little close as of 2017, but with the increasing ubiquity of mobile devices, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume in your 'near future' scenario that more than 95% could hear a cell phone if it went off.



But what if you wanted to be even more sure? Well, as we're all aware, humans are not evenly distributed across the planet. China and India each have more than a billion people, and many of those are among the poorest in the world... and they also live in large cities. By hooking up your raspberry pi to some airhorns in those large cities, you can pick up whole percentage points of the world population.



Want to be even more sure? Require phone manufacturers to donate a few tens of millions of devices, for the good of the planet. Ship those devices to every village in Africa and rural community in India, and voila! Even better coverage.



So, even assuming you're not happy with the current growth of cell phone usage worldwide, which within the next few years will easily take you over 95% coverage, manufacturing and shipping those cheap mobile devices for rural areas would take, what, a year? At most? We're already making hundreds of millions of phones now, so it wouldn't take long to redirect them where they're needed if necessary.






share|improve this answer












First off, >95% coverage means that, with a worldwide population of 7 billion, you can ignore 350 million people. Which I feel like gives you some wiggle room.



Second, when you say 'near future,' what do you mean?



If you mean anything longer than the next few years, you may not need to do anything other than use cell phones. As of 2017, about 70% of the world's population owned one, and that percentage is rapidly increasing. In many areas of the world, mobile phones are the way you access the internet.



Additionally, about a quarter of the world's population is under 14 years old. The vast majority of these children, I believe it's safe to say, will be within hearing distance of an adult.



So, 70% of the world has cell phones. 25% are close enough to an adult to hear one in an emergency. Adding those together gives you 95% coverage.



Now, that's cutting it a little close as of 2017, but with the increasing ubiquity of mobile devices, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume in your 'near future' scenario that more than 95% could hear a cell phone if it went off.



But what if you wanted to be even more sure? Well, as we're all aware, humans are not evenly distributed across the planet. China and India each have more than a billion people, and many of those are among the poorest in the world... and they also live in large cities. By hooking up your raspberry pi to some airhorns in those large cities, you can pick up whole percentage points of the world population.



Want to be even more sure? Require phone manufacturers to donate a few tens of millions of devices, for the good of the planet. Ship those devices to every village in Africa and rural community in India, and voila! Even better coverage.



So, even assuming you're not happy with the current growth of cell phone usage worldwide, which within the next few years will easily take you over 95% coverage, manufacturing and shipping those cheap mobile devices for rural areas would take, what, a year? At most? We're already making hundreds of millions of phones now, so it wouldn't take long to redirect them where they're needed if necessary.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered 14 hours ago









Elliot Schrock

1,887614




1,887614







  • 19




    What percent of cell-phone users are also under 14 years old? I agree with the validity of the rest of your answer, but if there's any chance of overlap between two groups, you can't get an absolute percent, just lower and upper limits.
    – DqwertyC
    13 hours ago










  • @DqwertyC Good question! I briefly considered this, but decided that the number of kids who have a phone would balance those who were out of earshot. In fact, back in my day™, I wasn't allowed to go out with friends alone unless one of us had a cell phone. But you're absolutely right, we can't know for sure, and there is definitely a potential for an overlap that messes up my numbers.
    – Elliot Schrock
    13 hours ago






  • 2




    I think that you are mixing things up with the percentage addition part, kids with phones will not cancel out with kids out of ear shot, those two categories will actually both decrease the percentage.
    – Rodolvertice
    5 hours ago










  • As far as I know even villages in Africa usually have a few cellphones in them. The users often have to go to the next city to get a connection, but many have one. There's even a pretty popular payment method there that uses SMS.
    – Fabian Röling
    3 hours ago












  • 19




    What percent of cell-phone users are also under 14 years old? I agree with the validity of the rest of your answer, but if there's any chance of overlap between two groups, you can't get an absolute percent, just lower and upper limits.
    – DqwertyC
    13 hours ago










  • @DqwertyC Good question! I briefly considered this, but decided that the number of kids who have a phone would balance those who were out of earshot. In fact, back in my day™, I wasn't allowed to go out with friends alone unless one of us had a cell phone. But you're absolutely right, we can't know for sure, and there is definitely a potential for an overlap that messes up my numbers.
    – Elliot Schrock
    13 hours ago






  • 2




    I think that you are mixing things up with the percentage addition part, kids with phones will not cancel out with kids out of ear shot, those two categories will actually both decrease the percentage.
    – Rodolvertice
    5 hours ago










  • As far as I know even villages in Africa usually have a few cellphones in them. The users often have to go to the next city to get a connection, but many have one. There's even a pretty popular payment method there that uses SMS.
    – Fabian Röling
    3 hours ago







19




19




What percent of cell-phone users are also under 14 years old? I agree with the validity of the rest of your answer, but if there's any chance of overlap between two groups, you can't get an absolute percent, just lower and upper limits.
– DqwertyC
13 hours ago




What percent of cell-phone users are also under 14 years old? I agree with the validity of the rest of your answer, but if there's any chance of overlap between two groups, you can't get an absolute percent, just lower and upper limits.
– DqwertyC
13 hours ago












@DqwertyC Good question! I briefly considered this, but decided that the number of kids who have a phone would balance those who were out of earshot. In fact, back in my day™, I wasn't allowed to go out with friends alone unless one of us had a cell phone. But you're absolutely right, we can't know for sure, and there is definitely a potential for an overlap that messes up my numbers.
– Elliot Schrock
13 hours ago




@DqwertyC Good question! I briefly considered this, but decided that the number of kids who have a phone would balance those who were out of earshot. In fact, back in my day™, I wasn't allowed to go out with friends alone unless one of us had a cell phone. But you're absolutely right, we can't know for sure, and there is definitely a potential for an overlap that messes up my numbers.
– Elliot Schrock
13 hours ago




2




2




I think that you are mixing things up with the percentage addition part, kids with phones will not cancel out with kids out of ear shot, those two categories will actually both decrease the percentage.
– Rodolvertice
5 hours ago




I think that you are mixing things up with the percentage addition part, kids with phones will not cancel out with kids out of ear shot, those two categories will actually both decrease the percentage.
– Rodolvertice
5 hours ago












As far as I know even villages in Africa usually have a few cellphones in them. The users often have to go to the next city to get a connection, but many have one. There's even a pretty popular payment method there that uses SMS.
– Fabian Röling
3 hours ago




As far as I know even villages in Africa usually have a few cellphones in them. The users often have to go to the next city to get a connection, but many have one. There's even a pretty popular payment method there that uses SMS.
– Fabian Röling
3 hours ago










up vote
10
down vote













Is the scope of the system to only be on Earth? If that is the case, then satellites should suffice, as we have had 100% coverage for decades now. The old Iridium constellation, famous for its satellite flares, was able to completely cover the Earth, as shown below:



enter image description here



Simply use a satellite alert system for phones, or use those pole thingies you mentioned but hook them up to a satellite.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




KITTENDESTROYER-9000 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

















  • But how long would it take to manufacture and distribute the pole thingies to ensure >95% of the people can be reached?
    – Michael Kutz
    15 hours ago






  • 1




    @MichaelKutz Depends how dedicated you are. I doubt if we have FTL travel greater than 5% of the population would be disconnected from the internet, so this question may not even be applicable.
    – KITTENDESTROYER-9000
    15 hours ago






  • 1




    Iridium is still going and launching new satellites.
    – Schwern
    10 hours ago











  • The only real issue with using Satellites is that they have trouble connecting if there is too much between you and the sky - but, that's mostly an issue in urban settings (tall buildings, etc) where we already have phone masts. Mandate a change of all phones to support both satellites and masts (since the necessary antenna are different), then run a global "subsidised trade-in" scheme to encourage everyone to upgrade (the new "basic model" might be free with any trade-in)
    – Chronocidal
    5 hours ago






  • 1




    @MichaelKutz If money is no object (and lets face it, you're joining an intergalactic community here, it's worth shelling out!) then you could probably contract a few manufacturers and churn out a few million of the things in a matter of months at most.
    – Ruadhan
    1 hour ago














up vote
10
down vote













Is the scope of the system to only be on Earth? If that is the case, then satellites should suffice, as we have had 100% coverage for decades now. The old Iridium constellation, famous for its satellite flares, was able to completely cover the Earth, as shown below:



enter image description here



Simply use a satellite alert system for phones, or use those pole thingies you mentioned but hook them up to a satellite.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




KITTENDESTROYER-9000 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

















  • But how long would it take to manufacture and distribute the pole thingies to ensure >95% of the people can be reached?
    – Michael Kutz
    15 hours ago






  • 1




    @MichaelKutz Depends how dedicated you are. I doubt if we have FTL travel greater than 5% of the population would be disconnected from the internet, so this question may not even be applicable.
    – KITTENDESTROYER-9000
    15 hours ago






  • 1




    Iridium is still going and launching new satellites.
    – Schwern
    10 hours ago











  • The only real issue with using Satellites is that they have trouble connecting if there is too much between you and the sky - but, that's mostly an issue in urban settings (tall buildings, etc) where we already have phone masts. Mandate a change of all phones to support both satellites and masts (since the necessary antenna are different), then run a global "subsidised trade-in" scheme to encourage everyone to upgrade (the new "basic model" might be free with any trade-in)
    – Chronocidal
    5 hours ago






  • 1




    @MichaelKutz If money is no object (and lets face it, you're joining an intergalactic community here, it's worth shelling out!) then you could probably contract a few manufacturers and churn out a few million of the things in a matter of months at most.
    – Ruadhan
    1 hour ago












up vote
10
down vote










up vote
10
down vote









Is the scope of the system to only be on Earth? If that is the case, then satellites should suffice, as we have had 100% coverage for decades now. The old Iridium constellation, famous for its satellite flares, was able to completely cover the Earth, as shown below:



enter image description here



Simply use a satellite alert system for phones, or use those pole thingies you mentioned but hook them up to a satellite.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




KITTENDESTROYER-9000 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









Is the scope of the system to only be on Earth? If that is the case, then satellites should suffice, as we have had 100% coverage for decades now. The old Iridium constellation, famous for its satellite flares, was able to completely cover the Earth, as shown below:



enter image description here



Simply use a satellite alert system for phones, or use those pole thingies you mentioned but hook them up to a satellite.







share|improve this answer








New contributor




KITTENDESTROYER-9000 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer






New contributor




KITTENDESTROYER-9000 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









answered 16 hours ago









KITTENDESTROYER-9000

3015




3015




New contributor




KITTENDESTROYER-9000 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





KITTENDESTROYER-9000 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






KITTENDESTROYER-9000 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











  • But how long would it take to manufacture and distribute the pole thingies to ensure >95% of the people can be reached?
    – Michael Kutz
    15 hours ago






  • 1




    @MichaelKutz Depends how dedicated you are. I doubt if we have FTL travel greater than 5% of the population would be disconnected from the internet, so this question may not even be applicable.
    – KITTENDESTROYER-9000
    15 hours ago






  • 1




    Iridium is still going and launching new satellites.
    – Schwern
    10 hours ago











  • The only real issue with using Satellites is that they have trouble connecting if there is too much between you and the sky - but, that's mostly an issue in urban settings (tall buildings, etc) where we already have phone masts. Mandate a change of all phones to support both satellites and masts (since the necessary antenna are different), then run a global "subsidised trade-in" scheme to encourage everyone to upgrade (the new "basic model" might be free with any trade-in)
    – Chronocidal
    5 hours ago






  • 1




    @MichaelKutz If money is no object (and lets face it, you're joining an intergalactic community here, it's worth shelling out!) then you could probably contract a few manufacturers and churn out a few million of the things in a matter of months at most.
    – Ruadhan
    1 hour ago
















  • But how long would it take to manufacture and distribute the pole thingies to ensure >95% of the people can be reached?
    – Michael Kutz
    15 hours ago






  • 1




    @MichaelKutz Depends how dedicated you are. I doubt if we have FTL travel greater than 5% of the population would be disconnected from the internet, so this question may not even be applicable.
    – KITTENDESTROYER-9000
    15 hours ago






  • 1




    Iridium is still going and launching new satellites.
    – Schwern
    10 hours ago











  • The only real issue with using Satellites is that they have trouble connecting if there is too much between you and the sky - but, that's mostly an issue in urban settings (tall buildings, etc) where we already have phone masts. Mandate a change of all phones to support both satellites and masts (since the necessary antenna are different), then run a global "subsidised trade-in" scheme to encourage everyone to upgrade (the new "basic model" might be free with any trade-in)
    – Chronocidal
    5 hours ago






  • 1




    @MichaelKutz If money is no object (and lets face it, you're joining an intergalactic community here, it's worth shelling out!) then you could probably contract a few manufacturers and churn out a few million of the things in a matter of months at most.
    – Ruadhan
    1 hour ago















But how long would it take to manufacture and distribute the pole thingies to ensure >95% of the people can be reached?
– Michael Kutz
15 hours ago




But how long would it take to manufacture and distribute the pole thingies to ensure >95% of the people can be reached?
– Michael Kutz
15 hours ago




1




1




@MichaelKutz Depends how dedicated you are. I doubt if we have FTL travel greater than 5% of the population would be disconnected from the internet, so this question may not even be applicable.
– KITTENDESTROYER-9000
15 hours ago




@MichaelKutz Depends how dedicated you are. I doubt if we have FTL travel greater than 5% of the population would be disconnected from the internet, so this question may not even be applicable.
– KITTENDESTROYER-9000
15 hours ago




1




1




Iridium is still going and launching new satellites.
– Schwern
10 hours ago





Iridium is still going and launching new satellites.
– Schwern
10 hours ago













The only real issue with using Satellites is that they have trouble connecting if there is too much between you and the sky - but, that's mostly an issue in urban settings (tall buildings, etc) where we already have phone masts. Mandate a change of all phones to support both satellites and masts (since the necessary antenna are different), then run a global "subsidised trade-in" scheme to encourage everyone to upgrade (the new "basic model" might be free with any trade-in)
– Chronocidal
5 hours ago




The only real issue with using Satellites is that they have trouble connecting if there is too much between you and the sky - but, that's mostly an issue in urban settings (tall buildings, etc) where we already have phone masts. Mandate a change of all phones to support both satellites and masts (since the necessary antenna are different), then run a global "subsidised trade-in" scheme to encourage everyone to upgrade (the new "basic model" might be free with any trade-in)
– Chronocidal
5 hours ago




1




1




@MichaelKutz If money is no object (and lets face it, you're joining an intergalactic community here, it's worth shelling out!) then you could probably contract a few manufacturers and churn out a few million of the things in a matter of months at most.
– Ruadhan
1 hour ago




@MichaelKutz If money is no object (and lets face it, you're joining an intergalactic community here, it's worth shelling out!) then you could probably contract a few manufacturers and churn out a few million of the things in a matter of months at most.
– Ruadhan
1 hour ago










up vote
8
down vote













Reduce the Population



95% gets a lot easier if you can chop off the long tail. Now that you can move things faster than the speed of light, kinetic kill weapons can devestate the world. While world leaders debate how to achieve the goal, a rogue faction secedes to the moon, cracks the earth in half, and neatly qualifies for entry into the galactic fold. Then, they emigrate somewhere nicer than this galactic backwater.






share|improve this answer






















  • And then there's people like this, mass murder everybody else just to save themselves, then justify their actions as heroic. While this answer is logically correct, annihilating a whole civilization for your own good, is like murdering your own parents for the sake of your own peace. AND, if this kind sir/madam can murder his parents. Then this answer qualifies as valid.
    – Mr.J
    12 hours ago






  • 1




    I agree, the rogue faction that enacts this plan will be highly immoral.
    – Daniel B
    11 hours ago






  • 3




    But take note, I have to emphasize this, this is highly logical. Immoral, yes, but logically correct.
    – Mr.J
    11 hours ago






  • 1




    @Mr.J , etc. - I'm already killing off at least 50% of the population at the end of "Chapter 1" because of a massive multi-brood infestation of Space Locus in our asteroid belt. I don't want/need any more needless killings. ( worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/102010/… )
    – Michael Kutz
    11 hours ago










  • @MichaelKutz You forgot to add that detail, this changes things. If your period is post apocalypse, do you think most of earths facilities are still intact?
    – Mr.J
    11 hours ago














up vote
8
down vote













Reduce the Population



95% gets a lot easier if you can chop off the long tail. Now that you can move things faster than the speed of light, kinetic kill weapons can devestate the world. While world leaders debate how to achieve the goal, a rogue faction secedes to the moon, cracks the earth in half, and neatly qualifies for entry into the galactic fold. Then, they emigrate somewhere nicer than this galactic backwater.






share|improve this answer






















  • And then there's people like this, mass murder everybody else just to save themselves, then justify their actions as heroic. While this answer is logically correct, annihilating a whole civilization for your own good, is like murdering your own parents for the sake of your own peace. AND, if this kind sir/madam can murder his parents. Then this answer qualifies as valid.
    – Mr.J
    12 hours ago






  • 1




    I agree, the rogue faction that enacts this plan will be highly immoral.
    – Daniel B
    11 hours ago






  • 3




    But take note, I have to emphasize this, this is highly logical. Immoral, yes, but logically correct.
    – Mr.J
    11 hours ago






  • 1




    @Mr.J , etc. - I'm already killing off at least 50% of the population at the end of "Chapter 1" because of a massive multi-brood infestation of Space Locus in our asteroid belt. I don't want/need any more needless killings. ( worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/102010/… )
    – Michael Kutz
    11 hours ago










  • @MichaelKutz You forgot to add that detail, this changes things. If your period is post apocalypse, do you think most of earths facilities are still intact?
    – Mr.J
    11 hours ago












up vote
8
down vote










up vote
8
down vote









Reduce the Population



95% gets a lot easier if you can chop off the long tail. Now that you can move things faster than the speed of light, kinetic kill weapons can devestate the world. While world leaders debate how to achieve the goal, a rogue faction secedes to the moon, cracks the earth in half, and neatly qualifies for entry into the galactic fold. Then, they emigrate somewhere nicer than this galactic backwater.






share|improve this answer














Reduce the Population



95% gets a lot easier if you can chop off the long tail. Now that you can move things faster than the speed of light, kinetic kill weapons can devestate the world. While world leaders debate how to achieve the goal, a rogue faction secedes to the moon, cracks the earth in half, and neatly qualifies for entry into the galactic fold. Then, they emigrate somewhere nicer than this galactic backwater.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 12 hours ago

























answered 12 hours ago









Daniel B

3,3091518




3,3091518











  • And then there's people like this, mass murder everybody else just to save themselves, then justify their actions as heroic. While this answer is logically correct, annihilating a whole civilization for your own good, is like murdering your own parents for the sake of your own peace. AND, if this kind sir/madam can murder his parents. Then this answer qualifies as valid.
    – Mr.J
    12 hours ago






  • 1




    I agree, the rogue faction that enacts this plan will be highly immoral.
    – Daniel B
    11 hours ago






  • 3




    But take note, I have to emphasize this, this is highly logical. Immoral, yes, but logically correct.
    – Mr.J
    11 hours ago






  • 1




    @Mr.J , etc. - I'm already killing off at least 50% of the population at the end of "Chapter 1" because of a massive multi-brood infestation of Space Locus in our asteroid belt. I don't want/need any more needless killings. ( worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/102010/… )
    – Michael Kutz
    11 hours ago










  • @MichaelKutz You forgot to add that detail, this changes things. If your period is post apocalypse, do you think most of earths facilities are still intact?
    – Mr.J
    11 hours ago
















  • And then there's people like this, mass murder everybody else just to save themselves, then justify their actions as heroic. While this answer is logically correct, annihilating a whole civilization for your own good, is like murdering your own parents for the sake of your own peace. AND, if this kind sir/madam can murder his parents. Then this answer qualifies as valid.
    – Mr.J
    12 hours ago






  • 1




    I agree, the rogue faction that enacts this plan will be highly immoral.
    – Daniel B
    11 hours ago






  • 3




    But take note, I have to emphasize this, this is highly logical. Immoral, yes, but logically correct.
    – Mr.J
    11 hours ago






  • 1




    @Mr.J , etc. - I'm already killing off at least 50% of the population at the end of "Chapter 1" because of a massive multi-brood infestation of Space Locus in our asteroid belt. I don't want/need any more needless killings. ( worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/102010/… )
    – Michael Kutz
    11 hours ago










  • @MichaelKutz You forgot to add that detail, this changes things. If your period is post apocalypse, do you think most of earths facilities are still intact?
    – Mr.J
    11 hours ago















And then there's people like this, mass murder everybody else just to save themselves, then justify their actions as heroic. While this answer is logically correct, annihilating a whole civilization for your own good, is like murdering your own parents for the sake of your own peace. AND, if this kind sir/madam can murder his parents. Then this answer qualifies as valid.
– Mr.J
12 hours ago




And then there's people like this, mass murder everybody else just to save themselves, then justify their actions as heroic. While this answer is logically correct, annihilating a whole civilization for your own good, is like murdering your own parents for the sake of your own peace. AND, if this kind sir/madam can murder his parents. Then this answer qualifies as valid.
– Mr.J
12 hours ago




1




1




I agree, the rogue faction that enacts this plan will be highly immoral.
– Daniel B
11 hours ago




I agree, the rogue faction that enacts this plan will be highly immoral.
– Daniel B
11 hours ago




3




3




But take note, I have to emphasize this, this is highly logical. Immoral, yes, but logically correct.
– Mr.J
11 hours ago




But take note, I have to emphasize this, this is highly logical. Immoral, yes, but logically correct.
– Mr.J
11 hours ago




1




1




@Mr.J , etc. - I'm already killing off at least 50% of the population at the end of "Chapter 1" because of a massive multi-brood infestation of Space Locus in our asteroid belt. I don't want/need any more needless killings. ( worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/102010/… )
– Michael Kutz
11 hours ago




@Mr.J , etc. - I'm already killing off at least 50% of the population at the end of "Chapter 1" because of a massive multi-brood infestation of Space Locus in our asteroid belt. I don't want/need any more needless killings. ( worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/102010/… )
– Michael Kutz
11 hours ago












@MichaelKutz You forgot to add that detail, this changes things. If your period is post apocalypse, do you think most of earths facilities are still intact?
– Mr.J
11 hours ago




@MichaelKutz You forgot to add that detail, this changes things. If your period is post apocalypse, do you think most of earths facilities are still intact?
– Mr.J
11 hours ago










up vote
7
down vote













Detonating nukes in very high altitudes causes a lot of noise and brings along some nice pyrotechnical effects:




In general, nuclear effects in space (or very high altitudes) have a qualitatively different display. While an atmospheric nuclear explosion has a characteristic mushroom-shaped cloud, high-altitude and space explosions tend to manifest a spherical 'cloud,' reminiscent of other space-based explosions until distorted by Earth's magnetic field, and the charged particles resulting from the blast can cross hemispheres to create an auroral display which has led documentary maker Peter Kuran to characterize these detonations as 'the rainbow bombs'.




If we have the tech for FTL, we have the tech to blow some nuclear fireworks up high. That should gather a lot of attention. We could do it around the globe.






share|improve this answer
















  • 1




    @KITTDESTROYER-9000 the fallout would be minimal, you get more rads from bricks. But we'd need to upgrade our satellites to withstand that.
    – Renan
    16 hours ago






  • 21




    Your attention please. An emergency has been declared. Nuclear explosives have been detonated in your atmosphere to draw your attention to this emergency. Incidentally, it is also the emergency itself.
    – Cort Ammon
    16 hours ago






  • 3




    You had me at "detonating nukes".
    – GrandmasterB
    15 hours ago






  • 1




    This is killing 95% of the world's population, IN STYLE.
    – Mr.J
    10 hours ago






  • 2




    Wouldn't the EMP kill all electronics everywhere? Some might consider that a negative.
    – AmiralPatate
    7 hours ago














up vote
7
down vote













Detonating nukes in very high altitudes causes a lot of noise and brings along some nice pyrotechnical effects:




In general, nuclear effects in space (or very high altitudes) have a qualitatively different display. While an atmospheric nuclear explosion has a characteristic mushroom-shaped cloud, high-altitude and space explosions tend to manifest a spherical 'cloud,' reminiscent of other space-based explosions until distorted by Earth's magnetic field, and the charged particles resulting from the blast can cross hemispheres to create an auroral display which has led documentary maker Peter Kuran to characterize these detonations as 'the rainbow bombs'.




If we have the tech for FTL, we have the tech to blow some nuclear fireworks up high. That should gather a lot of attention. We could do it around the globe.






share|improve this answer
















  • 1




    @KITTDESTROYER-9000 the fallout would be minimal, you get more rads from bricks. But we'd need to upgrade our satellites to withstand that.
    – Renan
    16 hours ago






  • 21




    Your attention please. An emergency has been declared. Nuclear explosives have been detonated in your atmosphere to draw your attention to this emergency. Incidentally, it is also the emergency itself.
    – Cort Ammon
    16 hours ago






  • 3




    You had me at "detonating nukes".
    – GrandmasterB
    15 hours ago






  • 1




    This is killing 95% of the world's population, IN STYLE.
    – Mr.J
    10 hours ago






  • 2




    Wouldn't the EMP kill all electronics everywhere? Some might consider that a negative.
    – AmiralPatate
    7 hours ago












up vote
7
down vote










up vote
7
down vote









Detonating nukes in very high altitudes causes a lot of noise and brings along some nice pyrotechnical effects:




In general, nuclear effects in space (or very high altitudes) have a qualitatively different display. While an atmospheric nuclear explosion has a characteristic mushroom-shaped cloud, high-altitude and space explosions tend to manifest a spherical 'cloud,' reminiscent of other space-based explosions until distorted by Earth's magnetic field, and the charged particles resulting from the blast can cross hemispheres to create an auroral display which has led documentary maker Peter Kuran to characterize these detonations as 'the rainbow bombs'.




If we have the tech for FTL, we have the tech to blow some nuclear fireworks up high. That should gather a lot of attention. We could do it around the globe.






share|improve this answer












Detonating nukes in very high altitudes causes a lot of noise and brings along some nice pyrotechnical effects:




In general, nuclear effects in space (or very high altitudes) have a qualitatively different display. While an atmospheric nuclear explosion has a characteristic mushroom-shaped cloud, high-altitude and space explosions tend to manifest a spherical 'cloud,' reminiscent of other space-based explosions until distorted by Earth's magnetic field, and the charged particles resulting from the blast can cross hemispheres to create an auroral display which has led documentary maker Peter Kuran to characterize these detonations as 'the rainbow bombs'.




If we have the tech for FTL, we have the tech to blow some nuclear fireworks up high. That should gather a lot of attention. We could do it around the globe.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered 16 hours ago









Renan

34.5k981178




34.5k981178







  • 1




    @KITTDESTROYER-9000 the fallout would be minimal, you get more rads from bricks. But we'd need to upgrade our satellites to withstand that.
    – Renan
    16 hours ago






  • 21




    Your attention please. An emergency has been declared. Nuclear explosives have been detonated in your atmosphere to draw your attention to this emergency. Incidentally, it is also the emergency itself.
    – Cort Ammon
    16 hours ago






  • 3




    You had me at "detonating nukes".
    – GrandmasterB
    15 hours ago






  • 1




    This is killing 95% of the world's population, IN STYLE.
    – Mr.J
    10 hours ago






  • 2




    Wouldn't the EMP kill all electronics everywhere? Some might consider that a negative.
    – AmiralPatate
    7 hours ago












  • 1




    @KITTDESTROYER-9000 the fallout would be minimal, you get more rads from bricks. But we'd need to upgrade our satellites to withstand that.
    – Renan
    16 hours ago






  • 21




    Your attention please. An emergency has been declared. Nuclear explosives have been detonated in your atmosphere to draw your attention to this emergency. Incidentally, it is also the emergency itself.
    – Cort Ammon
    16 hours ago






  • 3




    You had me at "detonating nukes".
    – GrandmasterB
    15 hours ago






  • 1




    This is killing 95% of the world's population, IN STYLE.
    – Mr.J
    10 hours ago






  • 2




    Wouldn't the EMP kill all electronics everywhere? Some might consider that a negative.
    – AmiralPatate
    7 hours ago







1




1




@KITTDESTROYER-9000 the fallout would be minimal, you get more rads from bricks. But we'd need to upgrade our satellites to withstand that.
– Renan
16 hours ago




@KITTDESTROYER-9000 the fallout would be minimal, you get more rads from bricks. But we'd need to upgrade our satellites to withstand that.
– Renan
16 hours ago




21




21




Your attention please. An emergency has been declared. Nuclear explosives have been detonated in your atmosphere to draw your attention to this emergency. Incidentally, it is also the emergency itself.
– Cort Ammon
16 hours ago




Your attention please. An emergency has been declared. Nuclear explosives have been detonated in your atmosphere to draw your attention to this emergency. Incidentally, it is also the emergency itself.
– Cort Ammon
16 hours ago




3




3




You had me at "detonating nukes".
– GrandmasterB
15 hours ago




You had me at "detonating nukes".
– GrandmasterB
15 hours ago




1




1




This is killing 95% of the world's population, IN STYLE.
– Mr.J
10 hours ago




This is killing 95% of the world's population, IN STYLE.
– Mr.J
10 hours ago




2




2




Wouldn't the EMP kill all electronics everywhere? Some might consider that a negative.
– AmiralPatate
7 hours ago




Wouldn't the EMP kill all electronics everywhere? Some might consider that a negative.
– AmiralPatate
7 hours ago

















 

draft saved


draft discarded















































 


draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f126675%2fhow-could-you-create-a-95-effective-global-emergency-broadcasting-system%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest
































































Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Long meetings (6-7 hours a day): Being “babysat” by supervisor

Image
Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP .everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0; up vote 31 down vote favorite 4 I hold a PhD in mechanical engineering with a 7 year background in self-guided, self-paced research including 2 years as a graduate level course instructor and a subject matter expert for various engineering projects in a university setting in the United States. For the last 10-11 months, I am working in a research industry in France where my task is to debug C++ spaghetti code written over a period of several years by my current supervisor. It is a team of 2: just I and my supervisor. Diurnally, I am posed with a "bug of the day" to get out of this C++ code. My supervisor generally gives me about 15-30 minutes to solve it and then accosts me about whether or not the task is completed and then rinses and repeats this until the end of the day. Off-late, my supervisor has been holding 6-7 hour long "meetin
Read more

Is the Concept of Multiple Fantasy Races Scientifically Flawed? [closed]

Image
Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP up vote 2 down vote favorite Many fantasy worlds have multiple humanoid species (elves, orcs, humans, etc) living in the same world, in addition to that, they often have the ability to interbreed. And I can't help but question their believability... fantasy-races reproduction interspecies-relations share | improve this question edited Aug 9 at 14:46 Michael Kjörling ♦ 21.1k 10 85 161 asked Aug 9 at 13:13 Chlodio 118 6 closed as unclear what you're asking by MichaelK, Gryphon, John, Vincent, Frostfyre Aug 9 at 15:25 Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question. 3 Stack Exchange exist to
Read more

Confectionery

Image
Prepared foods made with a lot of sugar or other cabohydrates "Sweetmeat" redirects here. For the racehorse, see Sweetmeat (horse). Not to be confused with Sweetbread. This Kransekake is a traditional Scandinavian baker's confection. Confectionery is the art of making confections , which are food items that are rich in sugar and carbohydrates. Exact definitions are difficult. [1] In general, though, confectionery is divided into two broad and somewhat overlapping categories, bakers' confections and sugar confections. [2] Bakers' confectionery, also called flour confections , includes principally sweet pastries, cakes, and similar baked goods. Sugar confectionery includes candies ( sweets in British English), candied nuts, chocolates, chewing gum, bubble gum, pastillage, and other confections that are made primarily of sugar. In some cases, chocolate confections (confections made of chocolate) are treated as a separate category, as are sugar-free versions of
Read more