# If thermonuclear war were to start in a week and a half would you be ready?



## Will2

Like the title says
If thermonuclear war were to start in a week and a half would you be ready?

Are you a road warrior to be or a case of duck and cover?






da and cover

has a ring to it.


----------



## inceptor

Not gonna happen.

Oh, and btw, we used to call the put your head between your legs and kiss your ass goodbye. :lol:

There is no surviving a nuclear war unless you are deep inside a mountain.


----------



## ekim

So few would survive after a couple of weeks that it probably won't matter anyhow. Those that do will have plenty to pick from if they are far enough from the blast zones.


----------



## inceptor

The whole purpose of war is to take out your enemy and control their land. With a nuclear war, we would both take out a huge chunk of the other country. Extremely large area's would be uninhabitable for generations to come. Don't think that mutual destruction couldn't or wouldn't happen. If nothing else both the US and Russia have subs capable of counter attacks.

IF war were to happen, it would be conventional.


----------



## Will2

inceptor said:


> Not gonna happen.
> 
> Oh, and btw, we used to call the put your head between your legs and kiss your ass goodbye. :lol:
> 
> There is no surviving a nuclear war unless you are deep inside a mountain.


oh and I bet you didn't think a few Saudis from Germany would blow up the WTC and put a hole in the wall of the Pentagon cause some guy got a speeding ticket and snapped against America, too, huh?!

Do you think Russia will just spread their cheeks as Nato lubes up?

The images this conjures is just aghast.






Oh sorry

uh... like lets not get case specific, sorry just jumping the gun.


----------



## inceptor

There is a huge difference between 2 super powers waging nuclear war and what happened on 9/11. When the Trade Center was attacked it didn't wipe out the biggest part of the US. 

AND if Russia did launch nukes, we would too. If you think it would only be one or two going either way, you are sadly mistaken. There will be hundreds. There would be little left of either country.


----------



## Will2

inceptor said:


> There is a huge difference between 2 super powers waging nuclear war and what happened on 9/11. When the Trade Center was attacked it didn't wipe out the biggest part of the US.
> 
> AND if Russia did launch nukes, we would too. If you think it would only be one or two going either way, you are sadly mistaken. There will be hundreds. There would be little left of either country.


now back to the point, if thermonuclear war happened in a week and a half would you be ready?

road warrior or duck and cover?

check this out..

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/0...l-of-5-of-ukraine-accused-of-neo-colonialism/


----------



## Denton

If a full blown nuclear exchange involving thermonuclear weapons were to occur, you are not going to be ready. I don't care if you are now self sufficient and can stay underground for six months.


----------



## inceptor

Will said:


> now back to the point, if thermonuclear war happened in a week and a half would you be ready?
> 
> road warrior or duck and cover?
> 
> check this out..
> 
> China ?land grab? sees it given control of 5% of Ukraine, accused of ?neo-colonialism? | National Post


Well, since you insist, you won't be either. Those that duck and cover will be in the same boat as the road warrior. Both will be toast.

Try doing some real research on what happens after a nuclear war instead of listening to a douchebag.


----------



## inceptor

The way you ask the question tells me you have no idea about nuclear war.


----------



## pheniox17

all I need is 2 cartons of rum and coke (like a carton of beer except it's rum and coke) a bag of good weed, some ice, I have a good vantage point so will sit back get super drunk, super high and enjoy the show of a lifetime


----------



## Inor

Anybody that claims to be "ready" for full out nuclear war is either a damn fool or a madman.


----------



## bigdogbuc

I'd be part of the hole. There is no need for me to prep for a Nuclear War. I live less than one air mile from a Naval Base one direction, 5 air miles (+/-) from a Nuclear Submarine base the other direction, and about 7 air miles from the base that provides their torpedoes. 

I'm fairly certain we'll be one of the first to be barbecued.


----------



## jc-hunter

All indicators point to North Korea and/or Iran launching an EMP nuclear attack from the south. We are not protected very well from the south like we are on the east and west. 9/10 would die slowly and it would not destroy the land.


----------



## Moonshinedave

In an all out thermonuclear war, the lucky ones will be the ones at ground zero. Nobody will survive, the planet will be poisoned.


----------



## inceptor

jc-hunter said:


> All indicators point to North Korea and/or Iran launching an EMP nuclear attack from the south. We are not protected very well from the south like we are on the east and west. 9/10 would die slowly and it would not destroy the land.


He isn't talking about an emp, he is talking about an all out nuclear war.

The conservative estimate is upwards of 20k warheads out there right now. What do you think will happen?


----------



## Reptilicus

The best way to prepare for a thermonuclear war is "Get Right With GOD" cause your getting ready to meet him!


----------



## Will2

where are all the real preppers at you know the hardcore, we will survive type.

I bet you are all wearing always pads for the aged out there.


would a cartoon lie?


why would the government lie to children?


and I bet you all think santa claus is just a coca cola co employee too, right?

are you telling me its worse than 3 hours on the beach and paparatzi?

I don't believe you why would civil defence trick me?


next thing I know you'll be saying the bomb has long sharp nails a jupiter series rocket and long sharp teeth on it.


----------



## PrepperLite

inceptor said:


> Not gonna happen.
> 
> Oh, and btw, we used to call the put your head between your legs and kiss your ass goodbye. :lol:
> 
> There is no surviving a nuclear war unless you are deep inside a mountain.


I can't believe i am agreeing with Inceptor but, He is correct, you will not survive a nuclear exchange.


----------



## Inor

Will said:


> where are all the real preppers at you know the hardcore, we will survive type.
> 
> I bet you are all wearing always pads for the aged out there.
> 
> would a cartoon lie?
> 
> why would the government lie to children?
> 
> and I bet you all think santa claus is just a coca cola co employee too, right?
> 
> are you telling me its worse than 3 hours on the beach and paparatzi?
> 
> I don't believe you why would civil defence trick me?
> 
> next thing I know you'll be saying the bomb has long sharp nails a jupiter series rocket and long sharp teeth on it.


This is an attempt at sarcasm right?


----------



## pheniox17

Will said:


> where are all the real preppers at you know the hardcore, we will survive type.
> 
> I bet you are all wearing always pads for the aged out there.
> 
> would a cartoon lie?
> 
> why would the government lie to children?
> 
> and I bet you all think santa claus is just a coca cola co employee too, right?
> 
> are you telling me its worse than 3 hours on the beach and paparatzi?
> 
> I don't believe you why would civil defence trick me?
> 
> next thing I know you'll be saying the bomb has long sharp nails a jupiter series rocket and long sharp teeth on it.


Will... most people here understand what the effects of a "thermonuclear" war... and really don't want to be around afterwards...

you have generational mutations (Japan after ww2 is the quickest to look up)
the water table will be extremely poisoned 
acid rain (never looked too much into this)
nuclear fall out
inability to grow healthy food

this is one of the few events where the lucky ones are vaporized in the first few minutes, the unlucky ones live years of pain, disease and suffering....

yep I would prefer to enjoy the show


----------



## Reptilicus

Note to self: Obtain 2 school desk from the cold war era so as to be prepared for thermonuclear war!


----------



## Will2

Inor said:


> This is an attempt at sarcasm right?


what three hours on a beach without sunscreen wasn't bad enough they have to make this


----------



## Inor

Will said:


> what three hours on a beach without sunscreen wasn't bad enough they have to make this


I am not going to watch an hour and a half video to try and figure out what you are trying to say. All I asked was if your previous post was a poor attempt at humor or something else. If it was something else, please explain it to me as I did not understand it.


----------



## Conundrum99

Agreed, Uncle Sam trained me in NBC (nuclear, chemical and biological) warfare. My statement to my instructor was that I hoped if nuclear war started that the first missile landed in my back pocket. Seen what radiation does not pretty.


----------



## Notsoyoung

inceptor said:


> The whole purpose of war is to take out your enemy and control their land. With a nuclear war, we would both take out a huge chunk of the other country. Extremely large area's would be uninhabitable for generations to come. Don't think that mutual destruction couldn't or wouldn't happen. If nothing else both the US and Russia have subs capable of counter attacks.
> 
> IF war were to happen, it would be conventional.


I must disagree with your premise that the purpose of war is to take out your enemy and control their land. There have been many cases where wars were fought for control of contended areas and the victor was not only uninterested in the land of those they vanquished, but tried to make that land uninhabitable. When Rome defeated Carthage and gained dominance of the Mediterranean, they destroyed the City, plowed over the sight, and salted the ground so that nothing would grow on it for decades. There are many cases like this.


----------



## DogSoldier

Nope. Dont even have the first clue as to how or even if I want to survive a nuke holo.

This is one area I believe is the crux[?] for me.

John


----------



## tango

Wars are fought over real estate and over religion, or both.


----------



## Notsoyoung

Although a full blown nuclear war could very well be what is considered a "mass extinction event", there are a few things that are a little confusing. There have been 2 cities that have been on the receiving end of a nuclear weapons attack, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Are they radiated wastelands devoid of all life today? No. They are both cities with populations of over a million people each. Furthermore, out of those people who survived 6 months after the initial blast, their life expectancy was 10 years less then the average Japanese, which put it somewhere in their sixties. As I said, a little confusing. Allot would depend on where you live, how close to a detonation you live, the size of the weapon, wind, and terrain would all be a few of the factors. I believe that there very well could be pockets of people that would survive, but just where those pockets would be would be almost impossible to foretell.


----------



## Mike45

It depends on if its just a few zealots with two or three bombs, or we finally piss Russia off bad enough to launch on us. It also depends on where you live and where the wind takes the fallout. If you live close to a military base, pop open a beer and wait for the flash. If you live in a major metropolitan area, pop open a beer and wait for the flash. 
No matter where you are, hope whoever it is doesn't drop one of these:


----------



## inceptor

Notsoyoung said:


> I must disagree with your premise that the purpose of war is to take out your enemy and control their land. There have been many cases where wars were fought for control of contended areas and the victor was not only uninterested in the land of those they vanquished, but tried to make that land uninhabitable. When Rome defeated Carthage and gained dominance of the Mediterranean, they destroyed the City, plowed over the sight, and salted the ground so that nothing would grow on it for decades. There are many cases like this.


You are correct on that point.

My point was too generalized. Both China and Russia would like to have the resources of the US. China really needs it and it would be a boost to Russia. Why would they want to make an uninhabitable parking lot?

With minimum of over 200 nukes heading this way, do you think any part of the land will survive? The conservative estimate is there are over 20k nukes available. I would guess the majority are owned but the US and Russia. The missile exchange, I believe, would wipe out both countries.


----------



## retired guard

All you have to do is place head firmly between legs and kiss your butt good by!


----------



## Mike45

I think we would all like to think we are ready for something like that. We have what we need to survive for a while in the event something like that happened. But what you could not prepare for is the psychological shock of it, especially if it happened close to you and you survived. If you were home you would probably be evacuated, because leaving on foot would not be feasible due to radiation. Your vehicle would most likely be disabled because of the EMP. However there would be the mental trauma of A. seeing something like that. B. everything you were familiar with destroyed in the blink of an eye. C. Losing family/friends, etc. D. The unknown, will it happen again-where are my family and friends/did they survive?


----------



## dsdmmat

Inor said:


> Anybody that claims to be "ready" for full out nuclear war is either a damn fool or a madman.


I am ready, already painted the X on my roof so they have a good aiming point. LOL


----------



## DogSoldier

Like most everyone I have thought about this more than a few times. I do not believe that I can,could or would want to figure this one out. I dont have any death wishes or anything like that,but I just as soon go looking for the next "life" if this goes down. In the mean time Im prepping for just about anything else that comes down the line. In a way Im glad I dont waste any of my time,money etc,etc on this issue. It allows me to work on the problems that I know I can solve. Food,water,guns and ammo,shelter,clothing,Coms,transportation,fuel,hunting,fishing,food preservation,scavenging,inventing,overcoming,adapting. These are the things that I think I can control and work with and thru.

John


----------



## Notsoyoung

inceptor said:


> You are correct on that point.
> 
> My point was too generalized. Both China and Russia would like to have the resources of the US. China really needs it and it would be a boost to Russia. Why would they want to make an uninhabitable parking lot?
> 
> With minimum of over 200 nukes heading this way, do you think any part of the land will survive? The conservative estimate is there are over 20k nukes available. I would guess the majority are owned but the US and Russia. The missile exchange, I believe, would wipe out both countries.


I seriously doubt if either Russia or China would start either a nuclear or conventional war with the U.S. over our natural resources. It's just not worth it. I COULD see them going to war with us over unfettered dominance of Asia, the Pacific, Europe, Africa, or the Middle-East. I believe that if you think that they wouldn't attack the U.S. because they wouldn't have access to our resources, you are wrong. One example is that when the Japanese attacked the U.S. they never had any intention of actually invading the mainland to have access to our resources, and at the time we were the largest producer of oil in the world. They wanted control of the Pacific and Asia.


----------



## tango

Remember MAD, mutually assured distruction?
Any attack will be met with a massive response.

If you want to take a country for it's resources, what good will it do if you are also destroyed?


----------



## inceptor

Notsoyoung said:


> I seriously doubt if either Russia or China would start either a nuclear or conventional war with the U.S. over our natural resources. It's just not worth it. I COULD see them going to war with us over unfettered dominance of Asia, the Pacific, Europe, Africa, or the Middle-East. I believe that if you think that they wouldn't attack the U.S. because they wouldn't have access to our resources, you are wrong. One example is that when the Japanese attacked the U.S. they never had any intention of actually invading the mainland to have access to our resources, and at the time we were the largest producer of oil in the world. They wanted control of the Pacific and Asia.


What i was saying is that a conventional war is possible AND has been hinted at more than once. China does need our natural resources and Putin would just like to control the US. Imagine the Soviet Union on an even more massive scale.

I don't believe any of the big 3 would attempt a nuclear holocaust. That would be madness of the highest magnitude.

ETA: Russia right now has an abundance of oil and natural gas. Imagine if he gained control of the US and controlled those resources here. Putin and Russia would be far greater than OPEC and be able to control the price. Add to that, Russia would have a hold on China also.


----------



## paraquack

I seriously wonder if another nation would want to F%&K up the world with an all out nuclear exchange, when a few well located nukes in the Ionosphere could create EMPs capable of destroying the US. Most pundits I read, say 90% of the US would be dead in a year or less if an EMP or Geomagnetic storm of a large enough scale were to hit the US.


----------



## Denton

I don't think for a minute that an attack would be in order to gain our country's resources. The U.S. isn't the keeper of all resources. However, our government, in its attempt to maintain dollar superiority over the world, is pushing hard against those wanting to break free of it. Currency wars can go really violent, and resources aren't the main concern.

That being the case, it isn't necessary at all to pepper an entire country with hydrogen bombs. I don't know about all the places, but I know I wouldn't want to live in D.C., New York or Colorado if things wen't glowingly horrible. Not to mention the west coast.


----------



## Notsoyoung

China needs the resources of Africa, the Middle-East, and the rest of Asia much more then they need ours. What China needs from us is we buying their products. As for Russia, it would be much easier for Russia to invade Europe then it would be to invade us. I doubt that either one of them would seriously consider invading the U.S. for our natural resources because there are areas that have much more and would be much easier to invade. As for none of them going nuclear, I for one wouldn't count on it. Madness would be to invade a nuclear capable country who decides that they are willing to take you down with them.


----------



## inceptor

paraquack said:


> I seriously wonder if another nation would want to F%&K up the world with an all out nuclear exchange, when a few well located nukes in the Ionosphere could create EMPs capable of destroying the US. Most pundits I read, say 90% of the US would be dead in a year or less if an EMP or Geomagnetic storm of a large enough scale were to hit the US.


That is the most likely scenario. A couple of nukes launched just off the coast, set off at a high altitude. There would be no time to take them out. Iran and I think NK have both threatened this. That would knock us back into the 1800's in the blink of an eye. I have heard some talk about if an EMP did occur, the US would be back online in a matter of months. I don't think that is even remotely possible.


----------



## paraquack

All depends on how big the EMP or EMPs were, their location, etc. Too many variables to make a prediction about anything. Hell, maybe nothing will ever happen and my wife will fesss up to being anti-prepper and say, "I told you so!" The only people I believe that are of a mind set to lay waste to everything the US is and stands for is the radical Muslims out there. From what the Israelis say, it will be quite a few years before they could accumulate enough nukes to lay nuclear waste to the US. But then again, do they have to? They could smuggle in and plant nukes in all the major cities, transportation hubs, etc. and detonate them all at once for shock and awe. Or maybe just detonate one in DC and wait for all the EMS people, military, etc. to come to the rescue and then detonate a few more nukes and really cripple the response system we've put in place to deal with an attack on a major city. I've always thought a good day would be on the 4th of July to make a statement but better would be the first work day after a holiday to kill more people. Remember 9 11, if they did it on a Sunday or a holiday, it wouldn't have resulted in nearly as many deaths.


----------



## MI.oldguy

We all (the world) would be smoked anyway,what would it really matter?.I would rather die with my family in a flash than suffer the tragedy of living and being a piece of human toast.


----------



## rickkyw1720pf

I didn't think I would have found so many defeatist attitudes on a prepper site. If you aren't in the blast area and know what to do, a thermonuclear war is just as survivable as any other major disaster. You just need to have the knowledge and the preparation. The ideal that a nuclear war isn't survivable comes from the government because they didn't want to keep spending on civil defense structures. Other major powers do not believe that and have prepared there cities and many areas for nuclear war. Switzerland can get their entire population in underground shelters. Russia has been upgrading their shelters at a frantic pace.


----------



## paraquack

I agree Ricky. Even in the heyday of the cold war, it was estimated that only about 25% of the US population would die in an all out attack. It would be followed by another 25% dying from radiation. That leaves a lot of people who will be fighting for food, etc. and need to get their collective prepping a$$es to work.


----------



## inceptor

rickkyw1720pf said:


> I didn't think I would have found so many defeatist attitudes on a prepper site. If you aren't in the blast area and know what to do, a thermonuclear war is just as survivable as any other major disaster. You just need to have the knowledge and the preparation. The ideal that a nuclear war isn't survivable comes from the government because they didn't want to keep spending on civil defense structures. Other major powers do not believe that and have prepared there cities and many areas for nuclear war. Switzerland can get their entire population in underground shelters. Russia has been upgrading their shelters at a frantic pace.


Yeah, you and Will are probably right. I mean, how much damage can a nuke really do, right? The idea of a nuclear devastation and the possibility of a nuclear winter is all propaganda. The govt is really paying off scientists to say that. It's all another govt plot.

Okay then, being just an old *******, I will be Mad Max. :grin: Or maybe just his pissed off grand daddy.






And just think how cool this would be for a prepper.


----------



## rickkyw1720pf

inceptor said:


> Yeah, you and Will are probably right. I mean, how much damage can a nuke really do, right? The idea of a nuclear devastation and the possibility of a nuclear winter is all propaganda. The govt is really paying off scientists to say that. It's all another govt plot.
> 
> Okay then, being just an old *******, I will be Mad Max. :grin: Or maybe just his pissed off grand daddy.
> 
> I would rather rely on facts then a mad max movie. 25 years after Chernobyl the animal life is doing just fine. Even the abandoned house cats adapted and the 3rd generation is doing just fine even though wolves and bears have moved back in the city. There isn't the mutations that movies always predicted either.


----------



## Arizona Infidel

I will survive or I won't.


----------



## ekim

rickkyw1720pf said:


> inceptor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, you and Will are probably right. I mean, how much damage can a nuke really do, right? The idea of a nuclear devastation and the possibility of a nuclear winter is all propaganda. The govt is really paying off scientists to say that. It's all another govt plot.
> 
> Okay then, being just an old *******, I will be Mad Max. :grin: Or maybe just his pissed off grand daddy.
> 
> I would rather rely on facts then a mad max movie. 25 years after Chernobyl the animal life is doing just fine. Even the abandoned house cats adapted and the 3rd generation is doing just fine even though wolves and bears have moved back in the city. There isn't the mutations that movies always predicted either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chernobyl wasn't a nuke being set off. I believe there may be a difference. But then Japan did survive two atomic bombs! They say there is a difference between an atomic bomb and a thermonuclear bomb though. I'd rather not find out if I can help it!
Click to expand...


----------



## inceptor

rickkyw1720pf said:


> inceptor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, you and Will are probably right. I mean, how much damage can a nuke really do, right? The idea of a nuclear devastation and the possibility of a nuclear winter is all propaganda. The govt is really paying off scientists to say that. It's all another govt plot.
> 
> Okay then, being just an old *******, I will be Mad Max. :grin: Or maybe just his pissed off grand daddy.
> 
> I would rather rely on facts then a mad max movie. 25 years after Chernobyl the animal life is doing just fine. Even the abandoned house cats adapted and the 3rd generation is doing just fine even though wolves and bears have moved back in the city. There isn't the mutations that movies always predicted either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I forget, how many nukes did we drop on Chernobyl?
Click to expand...


----------



## inceptor

Wow, I just watch the vid! Who knew Russia created a preppers Utopia ::clapping::

So maybe a dropping a few nukes would be a good thing.


----------



## Scotty12

I was born in 1965 (I'm old) and even when I was in the military that threat was real. I wonder how many ICBMs does Russia still have?

Worldwide Ballistic Missile Inventories | Arms Control Association


----------



## ekim

Scotty12 said:


> I was born in 1965 (I'm old) and even when I was in the military that threat was real. I wonder how many ICBMs does Russia still have?
> 
> Worldwide Ballistic Missile Inventories | Arms Control Association


Born in 1965, your still in your prime by my standards.


----------



## inceptor

Scotty12 said:


> I was born in 1965 (I'm old) and even when I was in the military that threat was real. I wonder how many ICBMs does Russia still have?


I haven't seen the numbers broken down but the current conservative number is more than 20k worldwide. If you figure the majority of those are in the US and Russia, well, many here think I'm nuts but that's a lot of nukes. Even if they only launch 20% that's still more than enough to take out both countries.

But there are those who think only one or two in each direction may go and then it will be party time. Adult beverages, something to munch on and the show may be nearly as good as American Idol.


----------



## vandelescrow

inceptor said:


> Extremely large area's would be uninhabitable for generations to come.


Not true, I believe it is the Neutron bomb that you can put boots on the ground soon after.


----------



## rickkyw1720pf

inceptor said:


> rickkyw1720pf said:
> 
> 
> 
> I forget, how many nukes did we drop on Chernobyl?
> 
> 
> 
> It released around 400 times as much radiation as the Hiroshima bomb. So if you are not in the blast range it wouldn't be as bad as Chernobyl but if you think a nuclear war is unsurvivable nothing will change your mind so why worry about it. I do believe it is quite survivable and have some preparation for it.
Click to expand...


----------



## Will2

rickkyw1720pf said:


> inceptor said:
> 
> 
> 
> It released around 400 times as much radiation as the Hiroshima bomb. So if you are not in the blast range it wouldn't be as bad as Chernobyl but if you think a nuclear war is unsurvivable nothing will change your mind so why worry about it. I do believe it is quite survivable and have some preparation for it.
> 
> 
> 
> So what sorts of preps have you done?
Click to expand...


----------



## alterego

No one in the blast zone will be. Dont care what preps you have. You would not be able to survive under ground or in space that long.


----------



## Denton

vandelescrow said:


> Not true, I believe it is the Neutron bomb that you can put boots on the ground soon after.


Are we talking about the neutron bomb or the hydrogen bomb (thermonuclear)? Totally different critters, as are reactor meltdowns.

No nation has received an attack in which hydrogen bombs were used. Yet.


----------



## PaulS

The typical ballistic missile carries multiple 2.5 megaton warheads. Each is aimed at a different target. They are typically detonated between 1.5 and 2 miles above the target. There are three things to be concerned with:

1. heat blast (infrared radiation); anything within 2.5 miles of ground zero is gone - vaporized unless you are in a deep heavy bunker; The "fire zone" goes out to about 5 miles from ground zero where anything flammable will ignite and burn; Out to about 10 miles from ground zero your skin will suffer 1st and second degree burns. beyond that there is little energy left in the heat blast.

2. Concussive blast and the implosive blast; These are blast waves that travel out from the bomb at the speed of sound but dissipate quickly. These will knock buildings down and topple trees out to about 5 miles from ground zero but do not act the same on all buildings. Steel reinforced concrete buildings will shade each other from this wave as it moves out first and then comes back in to fill the void from the rising air that has been heated. The higher the structure is above ground level the more prone to pressure damage it is on the side facing the blast unless there is another building between it and the blast.

3. Radiation; there are three kinds:
1. Alpha radiation; it can't penetrate the skin or mucus membranes - washing after exposure will clean it off.
2. Beta radiation; It can only partly penetrate the skin and if you have clothing on it will not penetrate clothing. A piece of newspaper or aluminum foil will protect you from this form of radiation unless you inhale it or swallow it. A particulate mask like painters use will protect you.
3. Gamma radiation; This will penetrate most materials and mass is the best defense you have against it. Every two hundred pounds per square foot will reduce the level that reaches you to 10% of what is on the other side. With 400 pounds of material (lead, concrete, sand, dirt etc.) per square foot you receive only 1% of the original level.
Gamma radiation protection to reliably safe level at 10 miles from ground zero would require a wall about four feet thick made of sand, concrete or dirt. At 25 miles from ground zero a one foot wall would be enough to give you the same level of protection. If there is a steel reinforced building between you and the blast you wouldn't need any other protection from the Gamma radiation.

Fall-out does not occur unless the bomb is a ground level detonation. Modern nuclear devices don't leave a cloud of fissionable material behind like the bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Those bombs were detonated too low and caused a lot of fall-out from the unused fissionable products of the bomb. In a city that was made of light wood and paper homes only 10-15% of the population was killed by the blast. Another 5-10% were killed in the following weeks because they drank the "black rain" which was rain that fell through the cloud of radioactive dust. The rest of the population survived to at least 60 years old. There were no genetic mutants because anyone was exposed to enough radiation to destroy DNA were already dead.

People remained in the area after the war and built new cities over the old. It was never uninhabitable.


----------



## Denton

I'm assuming this is from FAS, Paul?


----------



## vandelescrow

Denton said:


> Are we talking about the neutron bomb or the hydrogen bomb (thermonuclear)? Totally different critters, as are reactor meltdowns.
> 
> No nation has received an attack in which hydrogen bombs were used. Yet.


So because no nation has received an attack with them, they are not open for discussion based on the OP's question?

There are different types weapons using different detonation methods and different core material. Each detonation method has different results, each type of core also has different results. Of which one of them does not leave radiation behind. Targeting a major city on the east end of Russia will kill the inhabitants yet leave all the factories fully functional, so we can move in, start making tanks on their soil and not worry about fall out reaching the U.S.

Now that you are a little more educated, my original post you so eloquently tried to discount, still stands.


----------



## Denton

vandelescrow said:


> So because no nation has received an attack with them, they are not open for discussion based on the OP's question?
> 
> There are different types weapons using different detonation methods and different core material. Each detonation method has different results, each type of core also has different results. Of which one of them does not leave radiation behind. Targeting a major city on the east end of Russia will kill the inhabitants yet leave all the factories fully functional, so we can move in, start making tanks on their soil and not worry about fall out reaching the U.S.
> 
> Now that you are a little more educated, my original post you so eloquently tried to discount, still stands.


No, I believe you are not understanding what I am saying. There is a difference between the hydrogen bomb and the neutron bomb. That is what I am saying. The opening post was regarding the hydrogen bomb (thermonuclear). One was to target enemy tanks on a large battlefield, the other to target cities or other strategic areas. Also, there is a difference between both of these and a catastrophic event at a nuclear power plant.

At no time did I discount, or even agree with, the OP. What I am saying is that each is very different.

Now that _you_ are more educated in what I was saying....:lol:

I suppose I was not clear.


----------



## rickkyw1720pf

Will said:


> rickkyw1720pf said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what sorts of preps have you done?
> 
> 
> 
> The most important thing is having a radiation meter, (I have an old reconditioned one but I think I will get a new model) Also I have some IOSAT (potassium iodide) pills. Then the rest of the stuff is your normal prepping items. But knowledge and having the information about radiation and the effects is very important. If you can find a place and stay put for awhile the radiation levels drop quickly.
> Copied and pasted the following.
> The danger of radiation from fallout also decreases with time, as radioactivity decays exponentially with time, such that for each factor of seven increase in time, the radiation is reduced by a factor of ten. For example, after 7 hours, the average dose rate is reduced by a factor of ten; after 49 hours, it is reduced by a further factor of ten (to 1/100th); after two weeks the radiation from the fallout will have reduced by a factor of 1000 compared the initial level; and after 14 weeks the average dose rate will have reduced to 1/10,000th of the initial level.[15]
> 
> So after just 7 hours you may be able to go out for short periods, After one day you could probably go out for a long time. But without a radiation meter you wouldn't have any ideal what the radiation lever is.
Click to expand...


----------



## pheniox17

there is a docco called "the art of war" 
it mentions the nuclear weapons capability at the hight of the cold war
"the USSR has enough to destroy every inch of land mass twice over, the USA 10 times over"

fast forward to today, the numbers of weapons are dropping but their destructive ability is increasing...

there is a active nuclear cold war going right now, between Pakistan and India, food for thought 

yes surviving a nuclear war is possible, but it's one of the few major events that I would prefer to be wiped out in the first wave... 

maybe if I win lotto or powerball the thought will change, pumping a million+ into a bunker will give the long term survivability that makes the hell worth it


----------



## Scotty12

Luckily where I live it's all hollows and hills. You can get in an old coal mine if you need to (don't mind the bats) and that's my only plan for a nuclear detonation. I'm not rich enough to buy a bunker but I do have a methane tester.


----------



## vandelescrow

Denton said:


> No, I believe you are not understanding what I am saying. There is a difference between the hydrogen bomb and the neutron bomb. That is what I am saying. The opening post was regarding the hydrogen bomb (thermonuclear). One was to target enemy tanks on a large battlefield, the other to target cities or other strategic areas. Also, there is a difference between both of these and a catastrophic event at a nuclear power plant.
> 
> At no time did I discount, or even agree with, the OP. What I am saying is that each is very different.
> 
> Now that _you_ are more educated in what I was saying....:lol:
> 
> I suppose I was not clear.


So because the OP did not specifically ask about the other types I shouldn't comment that they will be used also? I don't get it.

Sorry for trying to contribute.


----------



## Will2

vandelescrow said:


> So because the OP did not specifically ask about the other types I shouldn't comment that they will be used also? I don't get it.
> 
> Sorry for trying to contribute.


oh by all means we can expand this to.... insert WMD of choice here, however with the A side of ABC's. or N side of NBC's. Ideally what is in the Russian or Chinese arsenals.


----------



## jimb1972

If the exchange were limited I might be prepared enough for it depending on the targets hit. There is no guarantee that a nuclear war would be with Russia, maybe Kim Jong Un gets his panties in a bunch one morning, or finds out he has a terminal disease and does not want to die alone. Maybe Pakistan moves a little farther to the extremist side, or Al-Qeada smuggles half a dozen bombs bought from some baltic mafia obtained from former USSR stores in from Mexico. There is no way of predicting or absolutely ruling out the possibility. It is not the primary thing I am preparing for but it is still on the list.


----------



## Will2

jimb1972 said:


> If the exchange were limited I might be prepared enough for it depending on the targets hit. There is no guarantee that a nuclear war would be with Russia, maybe Kim Jong Un gets his panties in a bunch one morning, or finds out he has a terminal disease and does not want to die alone. Maybe Pakistan moves a little farther to the extremist side, or Al-Qeada smuggles half a dozen bombs bought from some baltic mafia obtained from former USSR stores in from Mexico. There is no way of predicting or absolutely ruling out the possibility. It is not the primary thing I am preparing for but it is still on the list.


so what types of preps have you done?


----------



## Denton

vandelescrow said:


> So because the OP did not specifically ask about the other types I shouldn't comment that they will be used also? I don't get it.
> 
> Sorry for trying to contribute.


Stop taking things personally. Again, I was merely pointing out the differences between the various weapons, and that they are also different than the reactor incidents. It is my fault, I should have pointed this out when I replied with your quote. I should have known better to do that without pointing out I was just bouncing off of your thoughts.

I apologize.


----------



## MrsInor

Bacon anyone? I have too many other things to prep for - nukes are low on the list.


----------



## Denton

Will said:


> so what types of preps have you done?


I'll tell you what I think is a plausible scenario. Rather than multiple thermonuclear strikes, I would have hand or truck carriable items near particular targets suck as transportation hubs and ports. I would detonate them in concert while using maybe two hydrogen bombs; one over D.C. and one over New York. By doing this, I would cripple the chain of command while disabling the nation's transportation system.

This scenario doesn't change my prepping, so I can run with it.


----------



## Will2

Denton why would you blow up New York and Washington?

couldn't a few car accidents do as much in any major city in the states?


you figure if you have a few people per day per city you could indefinately stop traffic or even just breaking no accident required.

I've seen that happen all the time around toronto.


----------



## ekim

I can not believe how ignorant some people seem to be. Stop feeding the un educated. Can a mod close this thread!


----------



## jimb1972

Will said:


> so what types of preps have you done?


Not really anything specific, but I do have gas masks for the entire family and spare filters which would help prevent breathing radioactive dust, lots of food and water, enough duct tape to seal windows and doors, Potassium iodide tablets, but most of the things I have will only protect you if you are outside the blast area. I have a couple mechanically injected diesel vehicles that are EMP resistant and a couple spare parts in a faraday cage.


----------



## Scotty12

I'm kind of with MrsInor. If it comes to all out cold war style thermonuclear warfare it would be over anyway. Protecting myself from a nuke is a tertiary concern due to the actual reality of simple survival that and the consequences of more likely events the way I see it. I think it's more likely an economic collapse is going to be our nail. Of course I say that and some idiot shows up with a suitcase bomb.


----------



## ordnance21xx

Bend over and kiss my ass goodbye


MOLON LABE


----------



## tango

One possible source of an attack that could lead to big trouble, IMO, is Isreal against Iran, or vice versa.


----------



## Pacombatsurvivor

Thermonuclear war, yeah if that happens and I am unfortunate enough to survive the blast think I will have a few shots of Jim Beam, then a date with the .45 , cause things are not gonna be getting livable anytime soon.


----------



## vandelescrow

Denton said:


> I'll tell you what I think is a plausible scenario. Rather than multiple thermonuclear strikes, I would have hand or truck carriable items near particular targets suck as transportation hubs and ports. I would detonate them in concert while using maybe two hydrogen bombs; one over D.C. and one over New York. By doing this, I would cripple the chain of command while disabling the nation's transportation system.
> 
> This scenario doesn't change my prepping, so I can run with it.


Taking out D.C. will not hinder the chain of command, with the flip of the proverbial switch, NORAD will take over. If NORAD is taken out there are a slew of other installations that can take over almost immediately. To cripple the chain of command you need to take out the communications. By preventing the lower echelons from receiving their orders will neutralize whom ever is in charge.

To use one over New York is also a waste. You take out the major transit hubs the city will starve, there is no way for a city of that size to sustain it's self. You will also be tying up allot of other resources across the country trying to save them.

Best way to achieve both of these objectives is by use of EMP. Check out the book One Second After by William R Forstchen. Not only will New York be starving, but so will every major metropolitan, before long rural areas will be starving also. I.E. most hog/cattle/chicken/dairy farms do not grow their own feed, it's trucked in. Use EMP to knock out transportation, even the live stock will only benefit a few.

If there is an exchange as predicted during the Cold War, your only protection is time and distance.

Time: as someone else pointed out the decay rate of the radiation. Also to consider the amount of time exposed, shorter the better

Distance: The distance you are from the detonation (alpha, Beta), then the distance you are from the fall out (Gamma). Someone commented a coal mine.

For most of the country I'd give it 30 days before you can start venturing out for limited time. But you will need respirators/ gas masks or some other means so you are not inhaling the fallout and you will have to do decontamination of everything that enters the environment.

Provided you have enough food and water to last till you can harvest your first crop of food it will be allot of hard work. EMP did happen so vehicles will not work, nor farm or construction equipment. That is a shame because you will need a grater or bulldozer to remove about 6 inches of soil before planting. That top 6 inches of soil will be radiated and can not sustain your crop. Now for large parts of the country your stuck with clay, your best top soil is no good. Thanks to the seed companies we are reduced to heirloom seeds, seeds provided by seed companies these days are genetically altered so they can not be used to grow seed for the next year.

During the Cold War, there would be indicators days, weeks or even a month prior that the pot was about to boil over so you can prepare (use a bulldozer and pile dirt up against your house = distance). But with rogue nations / elements getting access to nuclear technology/materials, I don't think we will have warning. The best thing you can do to prepare is what your already doing, stockpiling what food/water you can. Learn ways to do things with out electricity or make your own that has been protected by a faraday cage.


----------



## paraquack

The Potassium Iodide pills are mainly for use for kids. 
As was stated: Alpha particles (a relatively weak form of radiation) from fallout can be stopped by very thin shielding, even newspaper, and is not considered very dangerous unless you *ingest or inhale *the fallout giving off the Alpha particles, then it is extremely serious. It can only be gotten rid of by medical treatment.

Fallout is composed of blast debris blasted high into the air within the mushroom of the nuclear explosion cloud. Fallout is made radioactive by the nuclear explosion. Radiation, no matter the source, will only affect *living tissue*. The closer the source of radiation, the stronger the effects. Think of it like sitting next to a campfire, the closer you are, the hotter it feels, get too close for too long and you get burned. The longer you stay in the radiation the more you absorb which makes the radiation sickness develop faster or become worse. Remember you can't feel, see or taste radiation. If someone is outside and gets fallout on him, he does not become radioactive. However the fallout on him is radioactive and unless removed, it will cause radiation sickness to him and those near him. He must be de-contaminated as quickly as possible. Remove all clothing. Now is not the time to be bashful. Do not allow the contaminated clothing inside the shelter. Bag it if possible, to contain and prevent the fallout from spreading and leave it outside the shelter. The person must take an EXTREMELY THOROUGH SHOWER (outside the shelter). Wash any areas of the body that were exposed so as to remove any fallout from the skin and hair. Since you probably don't have a device to check for radiation, I can not stress the life and death dependency on showering effectively and thoroughly, especially the areas of the body that were exposed (hair, hands, etc.). Remember, if he develops radiation sickness, he cannot spread radiation to you unless he has *inhaled or ingested the fallout.* People showing signs of radiation sickness should be moved away from the general population of the group, since they may have inhaled or ingested fallout. You need a Geiger counter to tell for sure.


----------



## Denton

vandelescrow said:


> Taking out D.C. will not hinder the chain of command, with the flip of the proverbial switch, NORAD will take over. If NORAD is taken out there are a slew of other installations that can take over almost immediately. To cripple the chain of command you need to take out the communications. By preventing the lower echelons from receiving their orders will neutralize whom ever is in charge.
> 
> To use one over New York is also a waste. You take out the major transit hubs the city will starve, there is no way for a city of that size to sustain it's self. You will also be tying up allot of other resources across the country trying to save them.
> 
> Best way to achieve both of these objectives is by use of EMP. Check out the book One Second After by William R Forstchen. Not only will New York be starving, but so will every major metropolitan, before long rural areas will be starving also. I.E. most hog/cattle/chicken/dairy farms do not grow their own feed, it's trucked in. Use EMP to knock out transportation, even the live stock will only benefit a few.
> 
> If there is an exchange as predicted during the Cold War, your only protection is time and distance.
> 
> Time: as someone else pointed out the decay rate of the radiation. Also to consider the amount of time exposed, shorter the better
> 
> Distance: The distance you are from the detonation (alpha, Beta), then the distance you are from the fall out (Gamma). Someone commented a coal mine.
> 
> For most of the country I'd give it 30 days before you can start venturing out for limited time. But you will need respirators/ gas masks or some other means so you are not inhaling the fallout and you will have to do decontamination of everything that enters the environment.
> 
> Provided you have enough food and water to last till you can harvest your first crop of food it will be allot of hard work. EMP did happen so vehicles will not work, nor farm or construction equipment. That is a shame because you will need a grater or bulldozer to remove about 6 inches of soil before planting. That top 6 inches of soil will be radiated and can not sustain your crop. Now for large parts of the country your stuck with clay, your best top soil is no good. Thanks to the seed companies we are reduced to heirloom seeds, seeds provided by seed companies these days are genetically altered so they can not be used to grow seed for the next year.
> 
> During the Cold War, there would be indicators days, weeks or even a month prior that the pot was about to boil over so you can prepare (use a bulldozer and pile dirt up against your house = distance). But with rogue nations / elements getting access to nuclear technology/materials, I don't think we will have warning. The best thing you can do to prepare is what your already doing, stockpiling what food/water you can. Learn ways to do things with out electricity or make your own that has been protected by a faraday cage.


Sorry about the "chain of command" confusion; I should have said political leadership.
I wouldn't see a hydrogen bomb wasted on NYC as it is an important political city, as well as port. Two birds, one big stone.

As far as fallout, radiation, etc., that is all hinged on particular warhead an elevation.

EMP isn't something that concerns me. Not, unless our government is in concert. That being the case, maybe I should be concerned


----------



## vandelescrow

Denton said:


> I wouldn't see a hydrogen bomb wasted on NYC as it is an important political city, as well as port. Two birds, one big stone.


Yes but if I were to attack I'd want to do the most damage and tie up as much resources as possible for as long as possible. By not destroying the city outright, but the hubs of transportation and hopefully the means to repair those hubs, the city will very quickly run out of food, lots of resources will be required just to get the food to the city, resources that can not be brought to bear on me. Now imagine two EMP's spaced evenly out over continental U.S., New York, Chicago, LA etc all running out of food.


----------



## tango

If you live anywhere near a military base, a large population center, a financial district, a nuke plant, you are toast.
If you live remotely from any of the above, you may have a chance, if, you are prepared to deal with the aftermath.
If it's to be an EMP, all bets are off.


----------



## Denton

I didn' t say destroying the hubs outright. Matter of fact, I said hand or truck carried. You'll disrupt the hubs plenty enough, without destroying the city. D.C. and NYC aren't needed by the next empire, and smashing the head of the old would he to their benefit.
It'll take more than a couple high altitude detonations to take out the grid system, though I suppose it is possible. 

None of the scenarios are very good. Our myopic outlook on life would be forever more shattered.


----------



## inceptor

I'm just wondering why Will is so fixated on a nuke war in the US. That is unless he is hoping it will happen. He has stated his distaste for Americans.


----------



## Will2

inceptor said:


> I'm just wondering why Will is so fixated on a nuke war in the US. That is unless he is hoping it will happen. He has stated his distaste for Americans.


I wonder why you think I'm fixated...

as I'm not.


----------



## inceptor

Will said:


> I wonder why you think I'm fixated...
> 
> as I'm not.


I would call 2 threads about the same thing somewhat fixated.


----------



## Will2

inceptor said:


> I would call 2 threads about the same thing somewhat fixated.


dude there arn't two threads on preparation for nuclear war started by myself.

anyway lets not derail


----------



## spokes

I think that there would be plenty of survivors to Nuclear war. As of now there is no device that will end the world as in Dr. Strangelove. (BTW the dedication of character played by Chill Wills was unforgettable.).

The land will be poor but probably would recover well enough. Looking at Chernobyl, the land although hot radioactively, does sustain some animal and plant life. Would life spans be the same, no, but death happens to all of us at some point.

Us living in Missouri isn't the best choice. Lots of air bases.


----------



## pheniox17

well I have to say this, since its taken a slight twist

plan with a atlas a nuclear attack on the USA, the goal is rapid dominance and control, without setting a lot boots on the ground...

to add to the plans, you want farming land still viable in the next 10 or so years, and a established port, or the ability to build a port (look up history books, I bet there are a few places worth putting a port into) 

natural resources that are worth wile (large mines, oil reserves etc) keep in mind with your plan..

you will have to do this a full American nuclear arsenal (this just gives you a good base, every nuclear power has something comparable to the USA)

don't post your plans just have a think about it, I done the same with Australia in one of my board states, and it wouldn't take many to completely cripple any worth wile defense, and take out a good % of the population, and will come with grate reward (nukes are expensive, so after first plan, then work out a cost effective plan, using nukes) 

but the perfect weapon is a bio weapon, no residual radiation, plenty of air born bugs that kill quick but die quick also, and all buildings, infrastructure and such is undamaged....


----------



## paraquack

pheniox17 said:


> ... but the perfect weapon is a bio weapon, no residual radiation, plenty of air born bugs that kill quick but die quick also, and all buildings, infrastructure and such is undamaged....


Nice to see someone else worries about the same thing I do. The way our ports are so poorly protected, I can just imagine a shrimp boat pulling into a southern port with tons of shrimp covering the necessary chem tanks with all the stuff THEY need to mix up a quick batch. But I think the Muslim extremists would rather have the shock and awe of a bunch of nukes going off all over the US. 
We (the idiots running DC) have become so complacent, and now were getting ready to cut the military down 450,000, I can foresee (God forbid) something happening.
I just hope when it happens we make the Middle East into a glass parking lot.


----------



## SAR-1L

I really can't take the OP's question seriously. Prepare for a nuclear war... 

Most likely in the first few lobs of nukes you are dead or you aren't, and either you are in a hotzone or out.
The only thing you can really do is keep clear of drifting radiation if you are lucky.

If you survive that it is the usual SHTF. Anything else you are just dead, very very dead.


----------



## Silverback

NUKEMAP by Alex Wellerstein

Here is a fun site I have played with. You can select the size of the nuke and the ground zero for it to hit. While nuclear war is scary, play with this site a bit. Get a real feel for the destruction and fallout that would happen with a nuke on a high profile target in your area. Yes you can put the map to your home town. See how the fallout would effect your home, what directions are the wind? Would you be in the blast zone? How far would you need to move if a nuke was coming?

I personally believe that while it would suck, it is survivable and knowing the exact damage a nuke would cause you your area is nice to know. I was actually surprised at how little damage would be done in my own town.

Most nukes are clean, and if you remember the 7-10 rule (every 7 hours from the initial blast radiation is 1/10th is potency) position yourself correctly when buying a home or land. prepare shelter and food. You may be surprised at how likely survival can be.

(Kicks the hornet nest on his way out)


----------



## SAR-1L

Silverback said:


> NUKEMAP by Alex Wellerstein
> Here is a fun site I have played with.
> 
> (Kicks the hornet nest on his way out)


In regards to thermonuclear sized nuke my previous comment still stands.

_"Most likely in the first few lobs of nukes you are dead or you aren't, and either you are in a hotzone or out.
The only thing you can really do is keep clear of drifting radiation if you are lucky.

If you survive that it is the usual SHTF. Anything else you are just dead, very very dead."_

When it comes to a terrorist nukes though I feel pretty damn great about my odds. 
It is the current Chinese ICBM's that would rick roll my shit.


----------



## slewfoot

pheniox17 said:


> all I need is 2 cartons of rum and coke (like a carton of beer except it's rum and coke) a bag of good weed, some ice, I have a good vantage point so will sit back get super drunk, super high and enjoy the show of a lifetime


IF it was really too happen this my friend is about all you can do about it.


----------



## jimb1972

Awful lot of people ready to roll over and die for a survivalist website.


----------



## inceptor

Thanks Silverback. I learned something. ::clapping::


----------



## PaulS

Unless you are within 25 to 50 miles of a target you will be more afraid than injured. Any food you have canned using the modern plastic lids will be safe and the land around you will also be safe to grow food in. If you are in the plume of a ground burst then you will have fallout challenges to workout.

I am less concerned about a tactical or strategic nuclear attack than a single low yield device detonated in orbit causing a widespread (if not continental) HEMP. It would take more than 20 years to begin recovery and the recovery could take many more decades. The "government" would remain in power and could do all the things they want to do with little knowledge or permission of the people.

Think about it; No transportation without power to run fuel distribution, no internet or news, no computers, radar, radio or TV. No food distribution system, no manufacturing, no stores no natural gas or propane. Even though there would be no injuries from the blast 140 miles above us people would start dying immediately from lack of infrastructure. No emergency care, no oxygen for those with COPD, no breathing aids, no dialysis, not even an X-ray machine. 

All this takes one small nuke from one little country where the other way would take thousands of medium size nukes all over the USA just to cover the military and missile sites. North Korea has demonstrated the ability to launch a payload into orbit and they have nukes that they have demonstrated will function.


----------



## rickkyw1720pf

Well this post sure did turn around the fist pages was everyone giving up and the last pages people saying yes it can be survivable. I guess I am in the survivable group.


----------



## Silverback

PaulS said:


> HEMP


So I was gaming a few nights ago (yea VALORIOUS!!!!), and in the starting scenario a EMP was blasted over China, the look and feel of what happened with the people and in the city is exactly what I would expect. Bravo to the team in designing that game, it actually gave me chills.

Edit Game = Battlefield 4


----------



## PaulS

What did an HEMP do to people?


----------



## spokes

It makes them eat cookies.


PaulS said:


> What did an HEMP do to people?


----------



## Silverback

Pretty much just cookies.... (High Altitude) electronic magnetic pulse.... your squadmate in the game is yelling to reassure the chinese that it will not harm them right after it went off. The Explosion and results were well done.

Edit: The civil unrest that followed was where the damage took place.


----------



## spokes

Silverback RE-civil unrest.
Lets bring it on. they will first have to find us, then try to figure a way down the blockaded roads. Let the withering begin.

Being prepared and already bugged out (in) has its advantages. We would be fighting for our home. They would move on to easier pickens.


----------



## pheniox17

jimb1972 said:


> Awful lot of people ready to roll over and die for a survivalist website.


even survivalists have limits... if you plan on surviving the said event grate, but in reality would you really want to??


----------



## PaulS

As a prepper / survivor why would I not want to survive anything that came?

"Never give up, never surrender." 

If you are going to give up when it gets tough do us all a favor and give up now. The country, and possibly the world, will need people they can count on - especially when things get tough. I see no reason that I can survive and every reason to do so.


----------



## pheniox17

PaulS said:


> As a prepper / survivor why would I not want to survive anything that came?
> 
> "Never give up, never surrender."
> 
> If you are going to give up when it gets tough do us all a favor and give up now. The country, and possibly the world, will need people they can count on - especially when things get tough. I see no reason that I can survive and every reason to do so.


hey if I did survive I would do everything I can to stay that way, the original post is a full nuclear exchange...

i still stand by the statement the lucky will die in the blast

the evaluation of this thread has slightly moved to one or two nukes, emp attack and so forth, all worth surviving and not a lot of luck needed.... and long term medical issues will be a lot less...

nothing wrong with thinking everything is survivable, but nasties like this a expectation (as negative as it is) is worth wile... full nuclear war is the worst nightmare of all nightmares


----------



## inceptor

rickkyw1720pf said:


> Well this post sure did turn around the fist pages was everyone giving up and the last pages people saying yes it can be survivable. I guess I am in the survivable group.


You are talking about something different. It seems that most think a thermonuclear war is no big deal. To each his own. I am prepared for a multitude of things but a nuclear war, to me, is a whole different beast. Some think the US being blanketed by nuke warheads isn't much different than dodging bullets. I just tend to think they are wrong.

Here is a breakdown of numbers:
Federation of American Scientists :: Status of World Nuclear Forces

So if you think there will only be a couple, I think you are sadly mistaken.

Give up easy? I don't submit well. It's a character flaw. I will fight it to the end.


----------



## vandelescrow

inceptor said:


> You are talking about something different. It seems that most think a thermonuclear war is no big deal. To each his own. I am prepared for a multitude of things but a nuclear war, to me, is a whole different beast. Some think the US being blanketed by nuke warheads isn't much different than dodging bullets. I just tend to think they are wrong.
> 
> Here is a breakdown of numbers:
> Federation of American Scientists :: Status of World Nuclear Forces
> 
> So if you think there will only be a couple, I think you are sadly mistaken.
> 
> Give up easy? I don't submit well. It's a character flaw. I will fight it to the end.


I agree with you, thermonuclear war is a big deal and I probably will not survive. But there are somethings you can do to increase your chances if you survive the bombardment. No life will not be pleasant, boring as hell waiting till you can go outside again. The most basic natural instinct is survival. I am not one who will roll over and die. Thou shall not murder. I think suicide is murder so what ever it takes, I'm going to try to live.

I know the U.S. and Russia still have enough nukes to cover the planet but I seriously doubt a Cold War scenario will present it's self with the current political state of things. We are no longer posturing like we were, open dialog has gotten better between the U.S. and Russia. The other countries that have nukes do not have the numbers needed to "pepper" the country like the threat we lived under during the Cold War so I believe that level of destruction is unrealistic any more. What we have to face today are a few going off here and there.

The link someone posted where you can put in the size of weapon, location, wind speed and such, I went there just to see. Charlotte NC I think would be the closest place to me that may be targeted in this fashion. If that web site is accurate, with a 100 megaton ground burst, where I live I will get fall out, 10 Rankin per hour. Every day just from the sun we are being exposed to (I think) apx 1 Rankin per hour. Precautions will have to be taken but it is survivable.


----------



## Will2

100 megaton is huge most war heads are a fraction of that.

I was pretty well unimpressed with the effect of single yields...

now don't get me wrong thats still impressive just not really impresive.


----------



## tango

'Who would not want to survive', I agree. 

Isn't that what we prep for, to survive whatever comes?
I want to around to help with the rebuilding. 
I have skills to help with that.
Don't you?


----------



## vandelescrow

Will said:


> 100 megaton is huge most war heads are a fraction of that.


I'm not sure. One Air Force base I went to while working for HQ ACC, we went there in the Generals jet. He did not tell anyone he will be taking a later flight so the Base Commander and everyone but the band was there to greet us, we felt like the "Dirty Dozen". Any way the Base Commander told us not to go on the flight line, they are going through an Operational Readiness Inspection and they are currently downloading nukes from the B-52's, and he said and I quote "these are not the crowd pleaser's they are only the 50 megatoners". Was he being serious or joking with us, I don't know. Now I'd assume I.C.B.M.s carry bigger warheads then our air craft do.

But I will tell ya, with how many I saw on one aircraft, considering each nuke can take out an entire city what ever their size is, That is a scary thought.


----------



## Will2

vandelscrow, that's not actually the case, most large cities would require multiple warheads, and the attack type would have a variety of attack tangents based upon the desired outcome.

None the less, icbms are often mirvs, which mean they carry multiple warheads often of lowever megatonage for instance 8, 5 Mt warheads, which seperate during the main flight.

most blast radius is only a mile or two, which may be enough for small cities but large is another. of course, radiation etc... are all factors of the type of strike.


----------



## Lifer Prepper

I don't believe there are any 50Mt nukes in our inventory, and they certainly aren't carried by bombers if there are. I did a bit of digging around on this lately, and it looks that the largest operational device was in the Russian inventory until 2009 - at 20Mt, capping SS-18 M6 candles. Their big boys at this date, and the 800kt warheads on the Topol II and III road mobiles, (SS-25, 27). They have "upgraded" their philosophy to match ours, which says that multiple smaller warheads popped in a pattern are more effective at ctreating a large and uniform overpressure sufficient to kill the target.

China has deployed a 5Mt weapon, but their numbers are paltry compared to ours. The funny thing about the Chinese nukes, depending on where you live, is that they do have issues with bad targeting. So, a miss is good for some, and bad for others. 

Overall, using the various blast mapping tools avaialble, and looking at current stockpiles, it looks better now than bad in the day. Russian targeting is better - so thee will be few nukes raining down with "to whom it may concern" painted on the sides. 

Nuclear war is the worst case human scenario - no doubt about it. But the after records of the bombs in Japan, the massive heavy isotope contamination of the Chernobyl event, we can see that the rate of decay can drop to levels that allow for things to improve. There would be long term end-of-life issues, and population relocations - but I would be fine with that considering the alternative.

Then again, if I get vaporized, I go "home" and that's cool, too.

All that said, after my digging around, I've concluded that prepping for the LOCAL effects of a fallout cloud, or even the blast wave from something that might land at a certain point near me, is reasonable. Because, not only do such preps assist in getting past the initial nastiness of a heavy nuclear exchange, they are useful for the hot cloud coming over from a small-scale attack from a 3rd world country, a dirty bomb, or even a toxic cloud.

I'm not ready. No. But I know what I would do if I could. And I could be ready if circumstances were different than they are now..... working on it.
I'd post that study I did, but I'm not sure that's allowed for someone so new, and linking to his own site.


----------



## kmussack

This topic never fails to awaken and excite the adherents to the myth of “un-survivability”. 

Most if not all of the misinformation about the “un-survivable” nature of nuclear war came from the former Soviet Union in the form of a coordinated propaganda campaign.

Would the effects of a “full scale” nuclear exchange be profound and catastrophic? Yes.

Would these same effects result in an extinction level event (ELE)? It is most unlikely.

Could such an event be survived? Yes, if you are not killed by the initial effects of the blast it is entirely likely that with a modicum of preparation and training many people would survive.

Generally preparedness should to be focused on physical needs rather than specific scenarios. The physical needs following nuclear war will be much the same as those following many other catastrophes. Those preparations unique to the nuclear war scenario include; radiological monitoring equipment &training and radiological sheltering.

If you don’t believe survival is possible or desirable following a nuclear war then make no preparations, that’s your prerogative. However, it is my opinion that it is immoral to try to evangelize others to your point of view.


----------



## Pir8fan

I would likely put all of my efforts into giving my children and their families any survival advantage I could. Both are early 30s with their own families.


----------



## paraquack

Please check out this site. It clarifies a lot of mistaken ideas about fallout and radiation.
Nuclear Fallout -Nomograph Information- Computing Shelter Stay time
This is a pretty good simulation that can be taylored to your city or area.
NUKEMAP by Alex Wellerstein


----------

