I couldnt see this anywhere, thought id post it up.
Kinda scary really playing around with this.
http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/
Kinda scary really playing around with this.
http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/
Nuke Simulation
- Thread starter Hunter Valley Preppers
- Start date
Help Support Homesteading & Country Living Forum:
Yeah I was playing with this a few months ago (I think before I joined the forum) and tested them on the closest big targets in my region. Tsar Bomba mode is really scary. Glad I live in a rural enough area that it wouldn't be worth their time and is far away from most of those kinds of places.
Well, I'm good unless they detonate the largest available "Tsar Bomba" 100Mt in MPLS, MN. I'm WELL outside the thermal radiation radius for anything smaller...all I'd have to worry about is the fallout!
I am toast !
If they sent a Tsar Bomba 100mt to Fort Bragg I would be far enough away. That is about the only place I see them sending one here in N.C. Then again I live down the road from a very small, not busy State port as well. Not likely they would send one there. I highly doubt any of us will ever see a mass amount of nuclear missles. Small dirty bomb is way way more likely.
Run VERY fast!!!
Thank goodness I am in the middle of nowhere.
Wow. Well I'm happy the Tsar Bomba is "taken out of business". Does no longer exist.
I hope so. I know laser guided missiles are better than blowing everything up and hoping you got something.
quite scary 
Scary, but also reassuring (if you are far enough away from a target). I've looked at many simulators, and this one has always been my go to one. (Nukemap). It is probably safe to assume that any major target is going to get hit with a 5mt or less weapon, so anything more than this is unlikely. Where we are, we're good until about an 8mt weapon hitting the closest target. At that point, we may see fallout, but not if less than this. Of course, multiple hits may change it, but to be honest, with the reduced world arsenal, it's a lot more unlikely than it was.
A nuclear threat is far more likely from either a terrorist detonation (and likely a ground explosion, greatly reducing the radius vs. the air burst in the simulator) or from a nuclear power plant meltdown (like from permanent power loss). Before really looking into it, I (like many) simply assumed we're done for if nukes start dropping. Not so fast though....if you do the research, you'll see it is quite survivable, in the right place and circumstances.
A nuclear threat is far more likely from either a terrorist detonation (and likely a ground explosion, greatly reducing the radius vs. the air burst in the simulator) or from a nuclear power plant meltdown (like from permanent power loss). Before really looking into it, I (like many) simply assumed we're done for if nukes start dropping. Not so fast though....if you do the research, you'll see it is quite survivable, in the right place and circumstances.
These large weapons were made for "show" more than anything else...back during the Cold War, when each side was trying to intimidate the other. They really aren't practical.
Checking again, and factoring for wind, if it's going in the wrong direction, we could see fallout from a weapon of around 5mt hitting our closest major target, accounting for wind-blown radiation. May not be much, but still, something to consider. Going to hope if something does hit, that it is smaller than this.
Don't forget low altitude and ground burst devices have two way shock waves.
Flash, EMP, Heat / Light / Radiation, Blast ( outward) Vacuum, Blast ( inward), sound, debris, fallout IIRC ?
And you get almost zero fallout from air burst devices, the fireball needs to touch the ground to create a crater thus scooping up thousands of tons of material that is irradiated then scattered.
Flash, EMP, Heat / Light / Radiation, Blast ( outward) Vacuum, Blast ( inward), sound, debris, fallout IIRC ?
And you get almost zero fallout from air burst devices, the fireball needs to touch the ground to create a crater thus scooping up thousands of tons of material that is irradiated then scattered.
True, on the airburst and reduced fallout, and this is pretty much what the majority of the modern nukes are designed to do. So really, a nuclear war today would be far more survivable than in the Cold War era.
Considering that, (an airburst), we're fine radiation wise, and should be far enough from the target to avoid the other effects. (though not by a huge margin)... Of course, always the chance it misses the mark a bit, but can't plan for everything.
Considering that, (an airburst), we're fine radiation wise, and should be far enough from the target to avoid the other effects. (though not by a huge margin)... Of course, always the chance it misses the mark a bit, but can't plan for everything.
Last edited:
Since most ICBMs are MIVs all MIVs will be in the KT range anything above the KT range (MT) are going to be reserved for hardened structures like Cheyenne Mountain Complex, NORAD/USNORTHCOM headquarters at Peterson Air Force base, DC, Camp David and other military structures not necessarily cities, most of the larger MT range nukes are going to be use for EMP attacks at high altitudes not a big threat unless one requires electricity to survive, if one isn't near the blast zone then gamma and fallout are going to be the biggest problem with gamma being the biggest concern if within 40 miles of the blast overall though fallout is very survivable just pay attention to the winds
Realistically 300-500kt MIVs are going to be the norm for cities with airports having runways of 10,000ft, large rail systems like Union Pacific in Portland Oregon, major interstate highways with bridges, shipping ports (anything that can be used for mobilization) all primary and secondary targets, the Tsar is unrealistic, it's to heavy to slow can be brought down with modern defenses. If one isn't near a primary target then use the program to check for your vulnerabilities using the range of 300-500kt
Why would the Russians or who ever want to nuke essential industrial infrastructure even in a full blown war?? it does not make sense, but three or four sub kiloton air burst devices enhanced for EMP does, EG all your local power transformers popped out, street lights, any loco built after 78 with dash 2 electrics will grind to a halt but be fixable by your new masters, telecoms, cell towers, many PC systems etc toasted. that makes sense a blind, deafened, hungry, thirsty country is better place to take over instead of a radioactive wasteland.
airports, rails and interstates move equipment and troops, an EMP only strike would cause a retaliatory strike that would not be in kind, bearing factories have long been secondary nuclear targets, I don't see airports, rails and interstates changing from any target list, as in all nuclear strike war planning 1. retaliatory threat 2. command & control 3. logistics, an EMP wouldn't prevent the silos from launching an EMP strike is used to kill communications.
an EMP strike is used to kill communications.
And when the Silos have launched and the wind from the now destroyed target starts to blow back , eg like Fukushima is blowing crap over the US west coast?
though two different situation
In almost all cases, radioactivity blowing across the world would deteriorate enough in two weeks to be safe to go outside given the half-life of radiation, the problem with fukushima is that the core is still producing iodine-131 unlike nuclear weapons once exploded the deterioration process begins thus nuclear power plants are more dangerous because it continues to keep producing. I am more concern about the high doses of iodine-131 300 mile out from japan then the debris that wash up on our shores the half life of iodine-131 is 8 days it takes longer for debris to float in from japan then 8 days. Our geiger counter hasn't chirped once, my son took it to the coast been no problems there.
And when the Silos have launched and the wind from the now destroyed target starts to blow back , eg like Fukushima is blowing crap over the US west coast?
In almost all cases, radioactivity blowing across the world would deteriorate enough in two weeks to be safe to go outside given the half-life of radiation, the problem with fukushima is that the core is still producing iodine-131 unlike nuclear weapons once exploded the deterioration process begins thus nuclear power plants are more dangerous because it continues to keep producing. I am more concern about the high doses of iodine-131 300 mile out from japan then the debris that wash up on our shores the half life of iodine-131 is 8 days it takes longer for debris to float in from japan then 8 days. Our geiger counter hasn't chirped once, my son took it to the coast been no problems there.
Sorry Mav my last post was an attempt at humour ,
I know that was more of a insight for others that may read this, some of the people on the west coast are all freaked out regarding fukushima
that was more of a insight for others that may read this, some of the people on the west coast are all freaked out regarding fukushima
The newer cars would receive an greater affect then the older vehicles because of the massive amount of unprotected wiring that is in newer vehicles and wither the vehicle is running or not, for the most part it won't destroy the vehicle though all is dependent as the were the vehicle was at the time of the attack, age of the vehicle and if the vehicle is running at the time and then add into the power of the nuclear blast and at what altitude. A lot of variables at play as it is now the consensus is no one really knows so it is best to plan for the worse. For the most part smaller electronics won't get hit as hard providing the power is off and like vehicles the variables are at play.
The 2012 study as comprehensive as it was it was flawed on many levels, the testing wasn't done across the whole frequency spectrum that an EMP bomb resonates at and didn't emulate the power of a EMP nuclear device, another point, the vehicles that was tested was on loan and needed to be returned in working condition and that the commission had to guarantee no permanent damage would be done to the vehicles. An EMP transfers into all these forms of; electric field, magnetic field, electromagnetic radiation, electrical conduction causing broader effects then just electric field as the 2012 test was done in and only test the vehicles against electric field not electrical conduction or magnetic field disruption
Vehicles don't make a good farraday cage otherwise cell phones and GPS wouldn't work from inside the vehicle.
White Sands Missile Range Public Affairs Office
"Today's automobiles have published standards for electromagnetic shielding, but there is not much consistency in shielding requirements. You can check this list from Clemson University for a partial list of the many and varied standards for electromagnetic shielding of automobiles. Most automobiles and trucks have a similar appearance, at least close enough that we can tell when a object is an automobile or a truck just by looking at it. When it comes to wiring and electronics, however, the differences are much more striking. This fact makes generalizations about vehicles and EMP very difficult. Even if every make and model were tested on one occasion in an EMP simulator, the EMP resistance could be changed dramatically just by moving a wire or by changing the way that a cable is routed. This makes statements about the EMP resistance of any particular make and model nearly meaningless. This is why you will not find a listing anywhere of which makes and models of vehicles are EMP resistant."
"I also must re-emphasize the fact that during Soviet high-altitude nuclear tests over Kazakhstan in 1962, rugged diesel generators having no solid state parts were burned out by E1 EMP. In an important international electromagnetics conference in 1994, after the breakup of the Soviet Union, General Vladimir Loborev delivered an important technical paper in which he stated, "The matter of this phenomenon is that the electrical puncture occurs at the weak point of a system. Next, the heat puncture is developed at that point, under the action of the power voltage; as a result, the electrical power source is put out of action very often." This illustrates that even vehicles without an electronic ignition or other electronic components are not immune from EMP."
"The main advantage of a well-maintained older vehicle may be that it is likely to be much easier to repair if it does sustain EMP damage. The Soviet experience is a warning to keep critical electrical spare parts on hand for the older vehicle. This includes things like ignition coils, mechanical distributors, generators and starting motors."
"Finally, it would be appropriate here to say something about the effects on vehicles of the real nuclear EMP tests that were done in 1962. There have been reports of damage to automobiles in both the United States and Soviet high-altitude tests in 1962"
"Today's automobiles have published standards for electromagnetic shielding, but there is not much consistency in shielding requirements. You can check this list from Clemson University for a partial list of the many and varied standards for electromagnetic shielding of automobiles. Most automobiles and trucks have a similar appearance, at least close enough that we can tell when a object is an automobile or a truck just by looking at it. When it comes to wiring and electronics, however, the differences are much more striking. This fact makes generalizations about vehicles and EMP very difficult. Even if every make and model were tested on one occasion in an EMP simulator, the EMP resistance could be changed dramatically just by moving a wire or by changing the way that a cable is routed. This makes statements about the EMP resistance of any particular make and model nearly meaningless. This is why you will not find a listing anywhere of which makes and models of vehicles are EMP resistant."
"I also must re-emphasize the fact that during Soviet high-altitude nuclear tests over Kazakhstan in 1962, rugged diesel generators having no solid state parts were burned out by E1 EMP. In an important international electromagnetics conference in 1994, after the breakup of the Soviet Union, General Vladimir Loborev delivered an important technical paper in which he stated, "The matter of this phenomenon is that the electrical puncture occurs at the weak point of a system. Next, the heat puncture is developed at that point, under the action of the power voltage; as a result, the electrical power source is put out of action very often." This illustrates that even vehicles without an electronic ignition or other electronic components are not immune from EMP."
"The main advantage of a well-maintained older vehicle may be that it is likely to be much easier to repair if it does sustain EMP damage. The Soviet experience is a warning to keep critical electrical spare parts on hand for the older vehicle. This includes things like ignition coils, mechanical distributors, generators and starting motors."
"Finally, it would be appropriate here to say something about the effects on vehicles of the real nuclear EMP tests that were done in 1962. There have been reports of damage to automobiles in both the United States and Soviet high-altitude tests in 1962"
