Nuke Simulation

Prepper & Survivalism Forum

Help Support Doomsday Prepper Forums:

Altani

Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2013
Messages
45
Reaction score
41
Location
Ohio
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.
 

DavyRocket

Active Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2013
Messages
346
Reaction score
301
Location
Wilmington N.C
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.
 

rudyc

Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2012
Messages
222
Reaction score
88
Location
Houston Texas
I hope so. I know laser guided missiles are better than blowing everything up and hoping you got something.
 

Gazrok

A True Doomsday Prepper
Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
7,475
Reaction score
9,100
Location
Florida
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.

Wow. Well I'm happy the Tsar Bomba is "taken out of business". Does no longer exist.​
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.
 

Gazrok

A True Doomsday Prepper
Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
7,475
Reaction score
9,100
Location
Florida
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.
 

Silent Earth

A True Doomsday Prepper
Joined
Sep 25, 2013
Messages
6,926
Reaction score
11,013
Location
watching from afar
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.
 

Gazrok

A True Doomsday Prepper
Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
7,475
Reaction score
9,100
Location
Florida
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.
 
Last edited:

Maverick

Top Poster
Global Moderator
Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2013
Messages
10,653
Reaction score
26,608
Location
Washington State - between 2 mountains and a river
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 ;)
 

Maverick

Top Poster
Global Moderator
Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2013
Messages
10,653
Reaction score
26,608
Location
Washington State - between 2 mountains and a river
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 ;)
 

Silent Earth

A True Doomsday Prepper
Joined
Sep 25, 2013
Messages
6,926
Reaction score
11,013
Location
watching from afar
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.
 

Maverick

Top Poster
Global Moderator
Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2013
Messages
10,653
Reaction score
26,608
Location
Washington State - between 2 mountains and a river
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.
 

Silent Earth

A True Doomsday Prepper
Joined
Sep 25, 2013
Messages
6,926
Reaction score
11,013
Location
watching from afar
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? :)
 

Latest posts

Top