Nuclear Fallout map for USA

Doomsday Prepper Forums

Help Support Doomsday Prepper Forums:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Particle Man

New Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2016
Messages
8
Reaction score
6
Location
USA
Hi Everyone, this is my first thread on this site. About a year ago after the shoot down of a Russian aircraft by Turkish forces I became concerned about the potential of a NATO conflict with Russia. After much study I determined that such a conflict was likely and could easily escalate to nuclear, either through accidental means or through interference by a 3rd party. I researched the worst likely outcome (a massive nuclear exchange between Russia and the US) as well as the likely weapons that the Russians would be using, which are mostly ICBM warheads with yields around 250 kts and 750-1000 kts. I created a likely target list of military bases, nuclear power plants, cities over 150,000 and other unique aimpoints for fallout dispersal. Using Nukemap and over a period of several months I began building an effects map. I've just finished and here are the results. I was able to estimate spring wind patterns only approximately so don't take the fallout patterns as fully realistic (many could easily head to the south). I did this mostly as a hobby over time so I can't really just reproduce material like this for every scenario or country. This is basically a worst case, although I'm sure there is much we don't know about Russian weapons as well as American defense capabilities.
 

Attachments

  • FalloutFinal.png
    FalloutFinal.png
    1.8 MB · Views: 57
Hi Everyone, this is my first thread on this site. About a year ago after the shoot down of a Russian aircraft by Turkish forces I became concerned about the potential of a NATO conflict with Russia. After much study I determined that such a conflict was likely and could easily escalate to nuclear, either through accidental means or through interference by a 3rd party. I researched the worst likely outcome (a massive nuclear exchange between Russia and the US) as well as the likely weapons that the Russians would be using, which are mostly ICBM warheads with yields around 250 kts and 750-1000 kts. I created a likely target list of military bases, nuclear power plants, cities over 150,000 and other unique aimpoints for fallout dispersal. Using Nukemap and over a period of several months I began building an effects map. I've just finished and here are the results. I was able to estimate spring wind patterns only approximately so don't take the fallout patterns as fully realistic (many could easily head to the south). I did this mostly as a hobby over time so I can't really just reproduce material like this for every scenario or country. This is basically a worst case, although I'm sure there is much we don't know about Russian weapons as well as American defense capabilities.
Interesting hobby there! I've pretty much come to the conclusion that if we do have a nuke war, in today's world, everyone is screwed. Even if you survive at first, you will get sick eventually. People don't have the intelligence to control this much power.
 
Agreed, one of the things I realized building my map was that Nuclear Plants are targets, and each one hit would be worse than Chernobyl. There was no real way to model that in nukemap and most of the isotopes released would be longer lasting than most weapons (there are parts of Ukraine not liveable today while Hiroshima and Nagasaki are thriving cities). The only way to "survive" is to have a decent sized bunker or shelter in a rural area that is amply stocked with long lasting food and filtration/waste removal which is way beyond the means of the average person. It's also no way to live. It's good to see political will to avoid this potential fate as well, but sometimes the worst case has to be quantified in some way, better than blissful ignorance in my opinion.
 
Agreed, one of the things I realized building my map was that Nuclear Plants are targets, and each one hit would be worse than Chernobyl. There was no real way to model that in nukemap and most of the isotopes released would be longer lasting than most weapons (there are parts of Ukraine not liveable today while Hiroshima and Nagasaki are thriving cities). The only way to "survive" is to have a decent sized bunker or shelter in a rural area that is amply stocked with long lasting food and filtration/waste removal which is way beyond the means of the average person. It's also no way to live. It's good to see political will to avoid this potential fate as well, but sometimes the worst case has to be quantified in some way, better than blissful ignorance in my opinion.
My wife, and others, has said she didn't want to live if shtf. I say I want to keep going as long as possible, but not if it means living in an underground bunker and never being able to breathe fresh air again.
 
The map to a degree has some accuracy though the spring winds are not, the spring winds are not the only winds, we have surface and the jet stream winds, the spring winds blow due East or sometimes due West here not Northeast as shown on the map, plus the targeting is not totally accurate (outdated, too many targets), many of the targets are shown from the old days and doesn't separate primary and secondary targeting.
 
I realized about halfway through that surface winds and jet streams are often in opposite directions AND winds can shift over the time that fallout drifts so none of the 'plumes' would be straight. Russia would likely use many surface detonations to increase fallout and cause maximum fatalities and many of their targets are buried as well (missile silos, bunkers, nuclear power plants). For a 250 kt surface burst the cloud would go very high, but only the top of the cloud would go into the jet stream so most of the surface isotopes would be closer to the surface. I used these sites for reference http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/nuclearwar1.html, this is a good starter, then I used this site for some surface winds http://hint.fm/wind/. Modeling any of the secondary effects of that many nuclear weapons is almost impossible, and what I was going for was a decent visual of the aftermath of an exchange. More relevant was the casualties (fatalities and injuries). I did add up the fallout zones (in sq. mileage) though at the lethal range (the orange and red) and estimated the population living there (based off of census data) to figure out the fallout casualties. There are probably more accurate ways to figure out the destruction caused by that many weapons but the result is always going to be near total in my opinion. Also the target set might be smaller than 1300 warheads, but 450 of those were missile silos, so that leaves about 850 others. It has probably come down in some areas (base closings since the end of the cold war), but gone up in others (cities keep growing). Also I remember looking up a few of the bases in wikipedia and remember all of them being open last I checked and many of the aimpoints I chose simply because many road or rail lines ran through medium sized towns. Any map more detailed than this is probably only available to FEMA or the military.
 
Also I noted this as "low damage" for several reasons. First, Russian warheads could have higher yields. Second, the Russians have more than 1300 warheads. Third, the US might launch its ICBMs first and so Russia wouldn't target empty missile silos.
 
You guys appear to be missing out the fact that nearly everyones nukes US or Russian, french, british etc are mainly air burst devices which means no fallout, it came about when everyone realised that using a ground burst device on the enemy simply meant that even if they did not retaliate the fallout created would eventually come back around and poison those who fired the missile.
 
This is probably the only thing I would bug out for. Radiation is one thing you can't hide from, fight or survive.

Yes heavy fallout requires us to bug out, but light fallout can often be washed away in wet climates by rain obviously so long as its not in high doses. But a nuke detonation is not in itself an automatic bug out trigger. EG a nuke is still just a big bomb, that means if you are shielded by buildings, hills, curve of he earth etc from the heat, light, blast and radiation you may be able to stay put fairly safely. Its only bad generally if its a ground burst device that creates lots off fallout and your house is downwind of it.
 
not a pretty picture is it,but if and I do say if you rule out ground detonations and you have a bunker and the vast majority of people will not you can survive ,you may be a very lonely person but you can survive,,,,,it will be just me and the dog here
 
You guys appear to be missing out the fact that nearly everyones nukes US or Russian, french, british etc are mainly air burst devices which means no fallout,

This is a pretty valid point.

Some other factors to consider.

1. We do have a ballistic missile defense system, BMDS, so this could mean far less actually detonate.

2. The yields on modern nukes are less than the Cold War numbers.

3. Russia and China haven't really spent enough to ensure their arsenal is as fire-ready as they'd like the world to believe. The actual number of serviceable nukes is less than public figures.

4. Modern tech has pretty much negated the advantage of mobile launchers.

5. We have far more subs for a quick blow to an enemy in less time.

6. The rest of the world knows all of the above, and knows that war with us is essentially committing suicide. Mutually Assured Destruction isn't so mutual anymore. Why do you think Putin's been so nervous, and that nonsense about the SATAN missile? Oh sure, they could roll them out (we're talking Cold War tech level here)...if they won some international lottery maybe, and didn't mind breaking every nuke treaty they ever signed.
 
The US missile shield obviously isn't big enough (only 44 interceptors) and wouldn't be 100% effective. I also assumed that the Russians would use many ground bursts to create more fallout and be more lethal in the long term to get people trying to 'ride out the storm'. Like I said earlier there are about 850 targets that aren't missile silos. China could assist in a strike and their arsenal is growing. A few years ago they had only a few dozen warheads that could reach us. In 10 years it could be 300 or even 400 warheads with their new DF-41 ICBM. North Korea is a threat as well. Right now it's not really bad but the threat will only grow in the future. It's great that Trump has been elected and this threat has lessened with Russia, but it will come back some time next decade from the China/NK axis.
 
Why would any enemy want to destroy and put out of reach the very territory and assets they would seek to take for themselves, also knowing that much of what they irradiate for the next 250,000 is likely to also blow back over them.

China? Why would they nuke a country that owes China BILLIONS and much of its investments and assets are American?

BTW of all the countries with nuclear weapons only ONE has used them in anger.
 
China could come under a more militant leadership in the future, in fact its current leader Xi is more military focused than his predecessor, Hu. At some point the global economy could falter which could cause a wave of nationalizations in China and in retaliation, the US. Finances can shift very quickly in this house of cards world. A superpower or near superpower China might then seek revenge on a US, which could itself be faltering within 10 or 15 years. As much as I like Donald Trump he has likely only delayed WW3 by about decade, which is a great thing but the world has some major long term problems.
 
China could come under a more militant leadership in the future, in fact its current leader Xi is more military focused than his predecessor, Hu. At some point the global economy could falter which could cause a wave of nationalizations in China and in retaliation, the US. Finances can shift very quickly in this house of cards world. A superpower or near superpower China might then seek revenge on a US, which could itself be faltering within 10 or 15 years. As much as I like Donald Trump he has likely only delayed WW3 by about decade, which is a great thing but the world has some major long term problems.


Good point PM, We never know whats round the corner.
 
More than just interceptors. Ground-based, sea-based, space-based defense systems for the BMDS.

BTW of all the countries with nuclear weapons only ONE has used them in anger.

Wasn't in anger. It was to prevent the need for an invasion that would have been far more costly in lives on BOTH sides. The sacrifice of those two targets did so many things:

1. It forced Japan's hand to end the war.
2. If forced the rest of the Axis powers to realize the futility of continuing it.
3. It showed the world the destructive power of such weapons, such that they would never want to see their use again in war.

Dropping those two bombs is still one of the most strategic moves in all of history. We have this moment to thank for the fact that we haven't seen another global confrontation since then.
 
I fear a nuclear war between the US and China, but I do not know how to prepare for it. I have a bug out location outside of a direct fallout zone, but I live in south Oklahoma City. Is there anything I can do to prepare?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Latest posts

Back
Top