How to Survive a Nuclear Attack

RiffRaff

Deputy Director
Staff member
Green said:
I think a lot of these guides are flawed in that they leave out a lot of things. For instance when you build a fallout shelter, none of these guides talk about means of circulating breathable air, what stops you from just suffocating or inhaling deadly amounts of isotopes?
I once read this guide that said air is "not so important"
Bullshit, not to mention, how do you expect to find edible food in the wake of a nuclear war? Ground water is likely heavily conaminated, anything that grows out of the ground or lives off the earth would likely contain toxic amounts of radiation.
This type of contamination won't go anywhere after the initial fallout.
There it will sit for 10s of thousands of years

My shelter guides include information on air circulation and filtering. It's not difficult, but you do have to understand what you're doing and why.

Water itself cannot become radioactive by means of fallout; only the impurities in the water (dirt, sand, dust, minerals, etc.) can be radioactive. Theoretically, if you filter the water thoroughly enough or distill it, it will be safe to drink.

As for food, that's the one area where you have to very careful with what you eat and how you prepare it.

And a lot of this comes down to this choice: Risk dying of starvation now; or risk dying of cancer in ten to twenty years.
 

Doc

Well-known member
apollonights said:
Doc said:
apollonights said:
There are many guides on the internet to help a person survive an immediate nuclear attack but less likely found are guides to survive past that in the "post-post apocalypse." I think the reason for that is because the sociological systems that would be constructed in such a world would be...grim at best.

I'd guess that many a prepper would arise from their hidey hole only to discover they live in a feudal slave state.

Your current government has extencive plans on how to rule the post-apocalcyptic world with an iron fist. So except for 5 times the taxes, 1/10 of the food and 10 000 Judge Dredds in your county or city, it wouldn't change that much.

I am aware of the governments plans but how effective they would be in a true "SHTF" scenario are laughable at best.

I suspect that you are not. You seem to belive that I was talking about any plans of helping the civilan population. The mission would be quite the opposite - and not laughable at all.
If we assume a total nuclear war the United States (nor any nation-state for that matter) will cease to exist as a country.

Again, you seem to be thinking conservatively. What is planned is not a continous country, but a transformation.
Every population center in the U.S. and Canada with a population over 300K would be destroyed

Which would be an advantage, now, would it not?
along with every state capital and military base.

Simple math. 2600 Russian warheads, how many are left to be used on cities when military targets have been taken out? Then think hard about it: would it not in fact be a strategic blunder to take out the inner cities of the United States?
The nuclear winter would produce two decades of a Little Ice Age with -8 celsius average temperatures which would make argiculture effectively impossible.

Nuclear winter is a theory that has been largely disproved. Excellent data was provided by mr. Hussein when he withdrew from Kuwait. As did Hekla, Eyjafjallajökull and Grimsvötn.
The EMP effect would further reduce the chance of recovery further.

The effects of EMP is largely unknown. The effects on EMP on protected systems is completely unknown. The effects of EMP over a weather-system is largely unknown. Et cetera.
To add onto that many nuclear reactors would be targeted as secondary targets. The ground in the Midwest, our nation's breadbasket, would be irradiated due to ground strikes against ICBM silos.

Vast studies done on Chernobyl, Hiroshima and Nagasaki indicate that a surge in thyroid cancer of the young, followed by a surge in acute leukemias in the adolencent is what you will have to expect. Apart from that that the life expectancy drops marginally as a result of increased aging (Damage to Telomeres ). Half the reactor core of the #4 reactor was spread out over northern europe. In resulted in no increase in mortality what so ever.

Even a graphite-fuelrod alloy is not that dangerous to handle directly. This girl is still alive and kicking.

[Youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kg4vVYKc90[/Youtube]


courbe_vin500.jpg


These are historical cesium-levels of the atmosphere (spikes due to nuclear testing and Chernobyl).

As you can see, this had no effect on the mortality rate at all.

uk-death-rate-per-million-population.gif

The O-Zone layer would be largely destroyed for two deacdes as well meaning that any action taken outside and you'd need to be covered to head to toe AND wear UV protective glasses or else you'd go blind.

Not a fact. A theory. And if infact so, Toronto would be safe, as it is far enough north. The Ozone-hypothesis was a hype from the 80ies that largely was disproved. AS you may have noticed, it disapeared from the lime-light.
The death of the O-Zone layer for those two decades would also make growing crops harder if not impossible because crops don't do well against UV rays.

Taken out of thin air. Plants are perfectly able to handle UVA and UVB, most of the UVC as well. Just as you are. You would develope a tan, and in 20 years, skin cancer if you insist on walking around nude.
There would less rain too because of the issues with the stratosphere.

More rain. Percipitation forms in saturated air around particles. Increased number of atmospheric particles means more rain/snow. Not less.
On top of all of that many facilities with bio-safety levels of 3/4 might accidentially release biological outbreaks. We've almost had accidential outbreaks in the U.S. on a regular Tuesday let alone when whole cities are burning down or in anarchy. Furthermore many nations have extensive bio-weapons programs and might release them as well. There is a good chance survivors would also have to deal with normally occuring biological outbreaks or worse intentional/accidential release of a super plague.

Name such a doomsday agent, please?
Due to the UV exposure and dramatic climate change it is likely that Earth's biosphere faces a mass die off of non-human life forms and the collapse of whole ecosystems.

Now you are comeing close to quoting the Church of Climatology. In reality, a close study of the Permian age will reveal that the Earth, its biosphere and its atmosphere are extremely stable systems. Thats why it has survived the number of cataclysmical events it has.
Under such a scenario if there is a "U.S. govt" it would be much like the Enclave in Fallout, hiding out in an undisclosed location awaiting the day they can reclaim the mainland. After the 20 years of nuclear winter argiculture would be possible again.

You can farm the year after. The Ukranians demonstrated that. "Your" government will initiate their plans for a new type of goverment appox week two.
Life in the Northern Hemisphere would look like a mix between Mad Max for the first few months then the Road and then On the Beach except everyone dies of stravation instead of radiation poisoning.

Hollywood references....
If there is hope in such a scenario it would be that somewhere along the Equator probably deep in the Congo, somewhere in Indoniesia or Papua New Guiena our species is able to conduct enough argiculture or hunt enough to continue to live on. Said people given enough time and the normalization of the biosphere would be able to restart agriculture and civilization would begin a slow, slow crawl again.

This is a dream shared by the Elephant and the Leopard. It is, however, a dream. This surface nuisance will have to be eradicated from the outside.
If you are a doomsday prepper and you think you can survive a total nuclear war short of a bunker with 20 years worth of food...I've got some realllly bad news for you.

I am not a prepper. And I fail to see any news at all. I only see propaganda from the 80ies.


Sorry about that. I'm not trying to be edgy or get anyone down. I just think that folks should fully understand the scale of the problems they face.

Actually, you have failed to mention the three factors that are most likely to kill you in a post apocalyptic United States.
An American eats about 1 ton of food a year.

Exactly. And, again I ask you to think about it. What is the obvious solution to that problem were you suddely appointed minister of food at day +25?

Just to give you some facts: At 1200 kcal/day you die slowly of starvation, but you might live for up to a year. At three times that you are even able to work alittle. Check out how little that actually is.
If you really want to increase your odds of survival you'd become rich now in the pre-war world. With wealth you'd be able to finance such an operation, more easily build the group of skilled persons needed and build a more luxurious survival bunker. If you plan on spending twenty years in the same place it might as well be nice. With increased wealth you could also finance more extensive equipment for the valut opening. I've done some reading and techinically with the right mix of people and preservation of knowledge you could then restart basic industrial civilization...provided that once out of your hidey hole you find some other humans to lord over anyway...

Or you could simply find the least populated forrest possible and buy a small cabin, a rifle and a book on edible plants.
 

Doc

Well-known member
RiffRaff said:
My shelter guides include information on air circulation and filtering. It's not difficult, but you do have to understand what you're doing and why.

You dont actually need an air-filter. You just need something dust-proof. I would guess that your house already is.
Water itself cannot become radioactive by means of fallout; only the impurities in the water (dirt, sand, dust, minerals, etc.) can be radioactive. Theoretically, if you filter the water thoroughly enough or distill it, it will be safe to drink.

Good filters work. Destilling, however, does not. Due to Guldberg-Waage and leChatelier.
 

RiffRaff

Deputy Director
Staff member
Doc said:
RiffRaff said:
My shelter guides include information on air circulation and filtering. It's not difficult, but you do have to understand what you're doing and why.

You dont actually need an air-filter. You just need something dust-proof. I would guess that your house already is.
:lol:
Yeah, with a cat and a dog, our 60 year-old house is completely dust free.
Water itself cannot become radioactive by means of fallout; only the impurities in the water (dirt, sand, dust, minerals, etc.) can be radioactive. Theoretically, if you filter the water thoroughly enough or distill it, it will be safe to drink.
Doc said:
Good filters work. Destilling, however, does not. Due to Guldberg-Waage and leChatelier.
I'll be honest, I had to Google that. Thank you for the correction.
 

apollonights

Active member
I have no doubt some enclave of the U.S. govt. would continue on. But that would be it just an enclave and not the "United States" as we commonly understand it.
Again, you seem to be thinking conservatively. What is planned is not a continous country, but a transformation.
A transformation to a largely dead biosphere? I'm going to need you to expand on this point.
Which would be an advantage, now, would it not?
No losing your most important industrial and financial centers along with the majority of your educated and skilled population is not an advantage.
Simple math. 2600 Russian warheads, how many are left to be used on cities when military targets have been taken out? Then think hard about it: would it not in fact be a strategic blunder to take out the inner cities of the United States?
No one said the "inner cities" but every major city would be targeted because they have stragetic industries, military-industrial complex infrastructure, logistics hubs, government infrastructure etc. It is conceiveable that many city cores (the skyscapers and slums surrounding them) would be left relatively untouched with the blast centered on some target in the suburbs. With the collapse of larger society the city would still be a death trap. Also see the attached. This map assumes a 2,000 warhead war.

http://www.northcrane.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/1476573614737.jpg
Nuclear winter is a theory that has been largely disproved. Excellent data was produced by mr. Hussein when he withdrew from Kuwait. As has Hekla, Eyjafjallajökull and Grimsvötn.
Wrong for a couple of reasons. A. None of those events you listed did any damage to the O-Zone layer. B. None of the events you just listed were anywhere near the scale of a nuclear war and the amount of debris that would be ejected into the stratosphere. You should look at this more recent study that takes a look at the effect of a more limited nuclear war.

http://www.popsci.com/article/science/computer-models-show-what-exactly-would-happen-earth-after-nuclear-war

The theory was never "disproved" by the way. The scientists in the 80s overstated the case at the time given the information they had. Then as the scientific community reexamined the concept with more modern computers and techniques they realised that they actually UNDERESTIMATED the effect nuclear winter would have.
The effects of EMP is largely unknown. The effects on EMP on protected systems is completely unknown. The effects of EMP over a weather-system is largely unknown. Et cetera.
Once again wrong. I mean here just read the links, we've got former CIA director James Woolsey, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, the whole Congressional committee on this, this site recently promoted an article about it as well. EMP is a well known effect of using nuclear weapons. Based on the open source information available the Russians transfered the technology to build NEMP (10 to 20 KT weapons) long ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBfALe8X9C8
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/06/02/newt-gingrich-north-korean-emp-threat.html
http://www.empcommission.org/
http://www.38north.org/2017/06/wgraham060217/
Vast studies done on Chernobyl, Hiroshima and Nagasaki indicate that a surge in thyroid cancer of the young, followed by a surge in acute leukemias in the adolencent is what you will have to expect. Apart from that that the life expectancy drops marginally as a result of increased aging (Damage to Teleomers ). Half the reactor core of the #4 reactor was spread out over northern europe. In resulted in no substantial increase in mortality.
Chernobyl was contained and the area evacuated. Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't ground burst. A better case study would be those islands in the Pacific that humans still can't live on...
courbe_vin500.jpg


These are historical cesium-levels of the atmosphere (spikes due to nuclear testing and Chernobyl).

As you can see, this had no effect on the mortality rate at all.

uk-death-rate-per-million-population.gif
Agreed. Like I said in another post as long as folks stay away from ground strike areas or nuclear reactors that happened to get hit they should be "fine" regarding fallout post the two week/two month period after the bombs fall.
Not a fact. A theory. And if infact so, Toronto would be safe, as it is far enough north. The Ozone-hypothesis was a hype from the 80ies that largely was disproved. AS you may have noticed, it disapeared from the lime-light.
A. Toronto would be hit. B. Further north you go the colder it will get in nuclear winter, Toronto would be hell on earth for humans. C. See my previous comments on nuclear winter. D. Even though Toronto's UV effects would be lesser than say the equator the stratosphere would still be shredded that far north as well.
Taken out of thin air. Plants are perfectly able to handle UVA and UVB, most of the UVC as well. Just as you are. You would develope a tan, and in 20 years, skin cancer if you insist on walking around nude.

Wrong for lots of reasons. A. The UV levels we are talking about are off the damn charts. We are talking UV levels of +20 in June in the Northern Hemisphere when right now +11 UV can cause skin cancer and blindness. B. UV is harmful to the rest of the ecosystem see the below link.

http://www.popsci.com/article/science/computer-models-show-what-exactly-would-happen-earth-after-nuclear-war
More rain. Percipitation forms in saturated air around particles. Increased number of atmospheric particles means more rain/snow. Not less.
Nope.
Earth's falling temperatures reduces the amount of rain the planet receives. Year five after the war, Earth will have 9 percent less rain than usual. Year 26 after the war, Earth gets 4.5 percent less rain than before the war.

That's a small regional war once again not modeling for the real deal.

http://www.popsci.com/article/science/computer-models-show-what-exactly-would-happen-earth-after-nuclear-war
Name such an doomsday agent, please?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosafety_level#Biosafety_level_4
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_biological_weapons_program#List_of_Soviet.2FRussian_BW_institutions.2C_programs_and_projects

That's not even getting into the more mundane outbreaks that would occur, or the threat of designer plagues by non-government institutions, or black projects we don't know about, the fact that old diseases without vaccines would quickly run rampant again etc.
Now you are comeing close to quoting the Church of Climatology. In reality, a close study of the Permian age will reveal that the Earth and its atmosphere is an extremely stable system. Thats why it has survived the number of cataclysmical events it has.
Wait you don't believe in climate change? Like not even that the climate *has changed? How do you explain the mass extinctions or differences in the earth's tempature over the millions of years? Please do tell.
You can farm the year after. The Ukranians demonstrated that. "Your" government will initiate their plans for a new type of goverment appox week two.
When did the Ukranians recover from a +3000 warhead nuclear war and then farm right after?
Hollywood references....
Are a useful frame of reference for people to develop a mental image of possible events.
This is a dream shared by the Elephant and the Leopard. It is, however, a dream. This surface nuisance will have to be eradicated from the outside.
What humanity? Yeah probably, either that or just evolve into a series of different species.
I am not a prepper. And I fail to see any news at all. I only see propaganda from the 80ies.
O.K.
Actually, you have failed to mention the three factors that are most likely to kill you in a post apocalyptic United States.
Which would be?
Exactly. And, again I ask you to think about it. What is the obvious solution to that problem were you suddely appointed minister of food at day +25.

Just to give you some facts: At 1200 kcal/day you die slowly of starvation, but you might live for up to a year. At three times that you are even able to work alittle. Check out how little that actually is.
I'm aware of caloric requirements what are you hinting at?
Or you could simply find the least populated forrest possible and buy a small cabin, a rifle and a book on edible plants.
Then the rifle breaks or you run out of ammunation and then things just keep going down hill from there during the Nuclear Winter of '23 ;) .
 

Doc

Well-known member
RiffRaff said:
Doc said:
RiffRaff said:
My shelter guides include information on air circulation and filtering. It's not difficult, but you do have to understand what you're doing and why.

You dont actually need an air-filter. You just need something dust-proof. I would guess that your house already is.
:lol:
Yeah, with a cat and a dog, our 60 year-old house is completely dust free.

Duct-tape in 3 pack.
I had to Google that. Thank you for the correction.

Njema problema and my pleasure! Destilling is a common misconception I see floating around prepper-blogs. Everyone's a physicist. Stop and think. If it was that easy, why arent the Japaneese doing it to purify the thousands of tons of contaminated water in Fukushima?
 

Doc

Well-known member
apollonights said:
Name such an doomsday agent, please?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosafety_level#Biosafety_level_4
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_biological_weapons_program#List_of_Soviet.2FRussian_BW_institutions.2C_programs_and_projects

That's not even getting into the more mundane outbreaks that would occur, or the threat of designer plagues by non-government institutions, or black projects we don't know about, the fact that old diseases without vaccines would quickly run rampant again etc.

Again, name one. The one you belive is the most dangerous?
 

RiffRaff

Deputy Director
Staff member
Doc said:
apollonights said:
Name such an doomsday agent, please?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosafety_level#Biosafety_level_4
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_biological_weapons_program#List_of_Soviet.2FRussian_BW_institutions.2C_programs_and_projects

That's not even getting into the more mundane outbreaks that would occur, or the threat of designer plagues by non-government institutions, or black projects we don't know about, the fact that old diseases without vaccines would quickly run rampant again etc.

Again, name one. The one you belive is the most dangerous?

Smallpox, for example. It has been eradicated in the wild, but supposedly samples still exist in the lab environment for both military and non-military research purposes. If that is true and it were to escape into the wild during an unrelated cataclysm such as a nuclear war, could easily wipe out a huge percentage of war survivors.
 

Doc

Well-known member
RiffRaff said:
Doc said:
apollonights said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosafety_level#Biosafety_level_4
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_biological_weapons_program#List_of_Soviet.2FRussian_BW_institutions.2C_programs_and_projects

That's not even getting into the more mundane outbreaks that would occur, or the threat of designer plagues by non-government institutions, or black projects we don't know about, the fact that old diseases without vaccines would quickly run rampant again etc.

Again, name one. The one you belive is the most dangerous?

Smallpox, for example. It has been eradicated in the wild, but supposedly samples still exist in the lab environment for both military and non-military research purposes. If that is true and it were to escape into the wild during an unrelated cataclysm such as a nuclear war, could easily wipe out a huge percentage of war survivors.

Not supposedly. Russia and the US both kept samples.

Smallpox will only affect those not vaccinated. Thus it would not effect any military serviceman. The unvaccinated would have to touch the lesions on a victim and then refrain from simple hygenics to get infected.

At the rebirth of European civilization in the 1800s, these principles of hygienics were rediscovered in the west. Outbreaks were then usually urban and the death tolls measured in the hundreds, sometimes thousands. Doctors and nurses treating the victims got to retire. Among those infected the mortality rate in an othervise healthy individual has to be expected below 20 %. In an individual radiated to the level where the immunosystem takes a hit, anywhere above 2Sv, the mortalityrate would theoretically climb. Bigger parts of the US population would recieve well below 2Sv.

Never the less; smallpox is not very contagious, easy to protect against, the inclubation period is short (just over a week), it is not very deadly and while it might be a big problem in a hypothetical refugee camp on Staten Island, it is an unefficiant weapon and not even close to being a threat of the magnitude that you might imagine if you listen to hollywood or the hysterical prepper-world. Smallpox is not even close to being the agent of any kind of doomsday scenario. Except for those crowding togeather to eat, shit and rape eachother in the Louisiana Superdome, smallpox is a modern fear porn actor.

In a post nuclear world Smallpox could actually be good news, as it would be a threat only to those individuals oblivious to said principles.

22e942217f9b53cd63dc873b71663ab1.jpg


-Hygieia. Daughter of Asclepius. Worship her and you will be safe from smallpox. Those who do not is at risk. This is the way of the Gods.
 

RiffRaff

Deputy Director
Staff member
Assuming, of course, the strain hasn't been "improved upon" by those who tinker with such things. But I take your point. I could have sworn the mortality rate for small pox was higher than that. Anthrax? Polio? Rubella?
 

DEFCON Warning System

Director
Staff member
RiffRaff said:
Smallpox, for example. It has been eradicated in the wild, but supposedly samples still exist in the lab environment for both military and non-military research purposes.

Very likely places where smallpox is stored are already targeted by nuclear weapons. Not for the disease itself, but because the area is a military or economic target.

After nuclear war, smallpox is pretty low on the list of problems.
 

Doc

Well-known member
RiffRaff said:
Assuming, of course, the strain hasn't been "improved upon" by those who tinker with such things. But I take your point. I could have sworn the mortality rate for small pox was higher than that. Anthrax? Polio? Rubella?

Anthrax? Hard to get. Easy to kill.
Polio? Vaccinations all around.
Rubella? Same as above.

I had the pleasure of working with a Hemorrhagic fever a few years back. After getting to know it, my anxiety fell by metric tons. I now fear it alittle bit more than I fear the flu. The dangers of bioweapons have been a hollywood hype.

[Youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNOzVkvRU1w[/Youtube]

The biggest post nuclear bio-danger would be people contracting desease and shitting in eachothers wells.

And that is actually a potential threat if you are in a city. 1 million corpses rotting and 2 million with violent diarreha. Except, of course, that studies from Ukraine seem to indicate that a post-nuclear enviroment will be very low on bacteria. Bacterias have one of the highest DNA turnover in the biosphere, so it would make sense that they are sensitive to radiation. Thats probably why this is the preferred method of complete sterilization.

Who knows - one problem might cancel the other one out?
 

Obreid

Power Poster
Doc said:
RiffRaff said:
Assuming, of course, the strain hasn't been "improved upon" by those who tinker with such things. But I take your point. I could have sworn the mortality rate for small pox was higher than that. Anthrax? Polio? Rubella?

Anthrax? Hard to get. Easy to kill.
Polio? Vaccinations all around.
Rubella? Same as above.

I had the pleasure of working with a Hemorrhagic fever a few years back. After getting to know it, my anxiety fell by metric tons. I now fear it alittle bit more than I fear the flu. The dangers of bioweapons have been a hollywood hype.

[Youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNOzVkvRU1w[/Youtube]

The biggest post nuclear bio-danger would be people contracting desease and shitting in eachothers wells.

And that is actually a potential threat if you are in a city. 1 million corpses rotting and 2 million with violent diarreha. Except, of course, that studies from Ukraine seem to indicate that a post-nuclear enviroment will be very low on bacteria. Bacterias have one of the highest DNA turnover in the biosphere, so it would make sense that they are sensitive to radiation. Thats probably why this is the preferred method of complete sterilization.

Who knows - one problem might cancel the other one out?

Brad Thor wrote a book that pivoted around a biological weapon that Hannibal brought with him to use against the Romans that was supposedly lost in the Alps. It was a chimaera disease of the plague and rabes. Both would kill of course but the rabes insured the rapid spread and lethality of the outbreak.
Much like the behavior of the infected in WWZ.
Theirs an outbreak of hemorrhagic fever in the Congo right now. WHO and CDC is all a dither. If a fatal illness could be manipulated by gene editing which the technology is their now to either become contagious quietly for a long period of time while it could spread or some means of marking it encourage the host to inflict the illness on others. Wait I'm not writing a novel for another zombie apocalypse here. You get the idea!
 

Green

Active member
This article describes the effects of a 300 kiloton nuclear blast...
You would not survive
https://www.wagingpeace.org/the-effects-of-a-300-kiloton-nuclear-warhead-detonated-above-washington-d-c/
 

Doc

Well-known member
Green said:
This article describes the effects of a 300 kiloton nuclear blast...
You would not survive
https://www.wagingpeace.org/the-effects-of-a-300-kiloton-nuclear-warhead-detonated-above-washington-d-c/

I would. I am not in Washington DC. Who knows? My life might even improve?
 

DEFCON Warning System

Director
Staff member
Green said:
This article describes the effects of a 300 kiloton nuclear blast...
You would not survive
https://www.wagingpeace.org/the-effects-of-a-300-kiloton-nuclear-warhead-detonated-above-washington-d-c/

It depends on how close you are to the blast, where you are in relation to fallout, what kind of shelter you have...

So many factors. It really isn't one-and-done.
 

RiffRaff

Deputy Director
Staff member
Green said:
This article describes the effects of a 300 kiloton nuclear blast...
You would not survive
https://www.wagingpeace.org/the-effects-of-a-300-kiloton-nuclear-warhead-detonated-above-washington-d-c/

NukeMap figures don't quite add up the same by running a simulation with the yield and altitude stated in the article, although they're close. For instance, the article claims the fireball would be "more than a mile in diameter," while NukeMap places it at less than a mile (.86) in diameter. The article's thermal effects distances are slightly greater than NukeMap's as well, but everyone out in the open within a five mile radius is going to be killed or severely injured, so I'm not sure the differences are worth reporting.

NukeMap doesn't have a function for the negative phase of the overpressure wave or for mass fires, but the firestorm description is certainly a possibility.

The entire purpose of this site and others like it is to stay informed on the risk of a nuclear war on a daily basis. If I'm lucky enough to have an hour to bugout before bombs affect my city, I already have a pre-planned route that keeps us outside the minimum safe distance range from every primary, secondary, and tertiary target between us and the Canadian border. And I always keep enough fuel on hand to make it there using that route. If I can get us into the Canadian Rockies with all supplies intact, our chances for short-term survival are excellent and our chances for long-term survival are certainly higher than most people who don't educate or prepare themselves for such a possibility. Is it possible we'll be killed en route? Of course. But our odds of survival inside our city boundaries are just about zero. Even a 10% chance of survival is higher than what we would face by staying put.

As for nuclear winter and long-term fallout effects, we'll cross that bridge when we get there.
 

Green

Active member
I guess the big question is, are you within 60-80 miles of a strategic target?
There are likely bigger badder nukes out there that we don't know about...
If not this brings up the question of what protective gear you have on hand?
The bare minimum would be a chemical suit, a Geiger counter, an effective NBC gas mask with spare NBC rated filters, potassium iodide tablets and lots duck tape. Unless you are able to bug out fairly quickly hunger and thirst would quickly become a big problem.
In the event of a nuclear exchange against russia or china many 1000s of nukes will likely be detonated across the planet.
Like you said the odds of survival are not nessesarily zero, they are however very low unless you are extremely prepared, itd be pretty easy to forget something important in your bug out bag only to realize it when it's too late..
 

Doc

Well-known member
Green said:
I guess the big question is, are you within 60-80 miles of a strategic target?
There are likely bigger badder nukes out there that we don't know about...
If not this brings up the question of what protective gear you have on hand?
The bare minimum would be a chemical suit, a Geiger counter, an effective NBC gas mask with spare NBC rated filters, potassium iodide tablets and lots duck tape. Unless you are able to bug out fairly quickly hunger and thirst would quickly become a big problem.
In the event of a nuclear exchange against russia or china many 1000s of nukes will likely be detonated across the planet.
Like you said the odds of survival are not nessesarily zero, they are however very low unless you are extremely prepared, itd be pretty easy to forget something important in your bug out bag only to realize it when it's too late..

This is often overthought. To survive the warheads themselves you need:

1) Not to burn up
2) Not to be blown up
3) Uncontaminated water.
4) Less than 2 Gy.

And that's it.

All four can easily be achived by manipulating your geographical position or your physical surroundings or a combination.
 
Top