Mandating fallout shelters (Split from COVID-19 March, 2021)

DarkNoon

Power Poster
This common core math is giving me a head ache.. For the record, if the us mandated fallout shelters, it would cost the "new home owner" $3,000.00 more than it would cost the guy in Switzerland based on the exchange rate as of 11march 2021 1314hrs. (assuming the low end cost from Defcon Warning System's post.) on a $200,000.00 home this seems like a drop in the bucket to me..
Yea trust me ive been trying to make the math exact or at least comparable to show here... Where not gonna get a definite answer. The only thing ive come through is that the US will pay out of pocket gov/citizen more.
 
Yea trust me ive been trying to make the math exact or at least comparable to show here...
You cannot make the math exact or comparable. You are trying to compare apples and oranges, using the definition of a grape. It just does not compute. Green energy devices, residential home sprinkler systems, etc get local/state/federal government rebates because they are NOT required by law. Things like breaker boxes and other "mandated safety devices" do not, because they ARE required by law. you are trying to shove a hypothetical regulatory requirement into the same box as a recommendation, or a suggestion. the reason there are rebates and incentives for those items IS because it is not law.
 

megalos

DEFCON Staff
Staff member
before i go any furhter, i HOPE AND PRAY we DON'T get nuked, EVER... it would be a world many of us wouldn't want to live in anymore.... now, with that disclaimer in place...... since no one has said it, let me say it now... do we *REALLY* want EVERYONE to survive the blast? i mean, we here at DWS are prepared in some fashion.. some more than others... but the point is, we are THINKING that way... the old parable of the ant and the grasshopper comes to mind... sometimes a little chlorine in the gene pool isn't a horrible thing.. besides, JUST BECAUSE they have the mandated bunker, i guarantee you, they wouldn't have the supplies for the bunker such as water, food, and other necessities... just saying. plus resources would be scarce after the blast, less people wouldn't be a bad thing necessarily....
 

megalos

DEFCON Staff
Staff member
as an aside to my comments above.... we may finally be able to get rid of some of these product warning labels if not everyone had a shelter... ..
 

DEFCON Warning System

Director
Staff member
do we *REALLY* want EVERYONE to survive the blast?
I'm sure there are some who think the gene pool needs a little chlorine.

But are you thinking that the world needs a population reduction, or are you looking at a more selective culling?

For example, a nuclear war will kill far more Democrats than Republicans. So a US that emerges from that war will see quite a political shift.

I know there are people who know the dangers, see the warnings, and still do nothing. Yeah, they're dead even if they survive initially. That may not be attributable to stupidity, though. Economic circumstance may have prevented them from preparing. I won't penalize them for that.

This thought processes makes me uncomfortable. Being in rescue, I save everyone and let God sort them out.
 

megalos

DEFCON Staff
Staff member
i was just merely floating another idea that no one addressed, which is merely there are a LOT of idiots out there, and would a lot LESS then.. nothing much more than that... certainly not supporting or being a proponent of the worst, just recognizing that many people could be forced to have a bunker, and still fail to go the further distance as would be required... wanted to stir the pot a little too.
 

Obreid

Power Poster
Doesn’t really matter right/wrong, ought or nought.
the population will be reduced either way. Even if significantly more people survive the blast period. There will be more casualties after people come out.
They might even have prepared well for the shelter. But few will be prepared for the after.
Katrina x 50
Think nationwide triage.
 

megalos

DEFCON Staff
Staff member
You know, it's funny.. i never thought of the "selective culling" or who would surviuve, democrats, vs republicans, but that is certainly an intersting observation as to differing outlooks and how they respond or fail to respond as the case may be.
 

DEFCON Warning System

Director
Staff member
that is certainly an intersting observation as to differing outlooks and how they respond or fail to respond as the case may be.
It's also concentration of population. More Democrats are in cities which are targets. Republicans are more spread out and in rural areas which will escape the initial attack.
 
Top