This is what scares me about nukes...

Doomsday Prepper Forums

Help Support Doomsday Prepper Forums:

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

MNwr786

Demi-God
Joined
Mar 27, 2018
Messages
1,092
Reaction score
3,229
Location
minnesota
When most people think about nuclear war, they think about mutually assured destruction AND an extinction level event ~ no sun for 3 years, everything contaminated, etc. I am not one of those people. Most radioactive fallout is from the irradiated dust kicked up from surface detonations. Every nuclear power out there knows that nukes are far more destructive detonated above the ground. If you were the person launching, wouldn't you want to maximize destruction while minimizing global fallout levels? Okay, so we are probably not going to block out the sun and kill all the dinosaurs as these will not be surface detonations. On top of that, this planet has already witnessed hundreds of surface tests and, short of some pre-treaty thyroid cancer from the 1960's, we are all still here. So, we already know that we can easily survive hundreds (edit: over 2,000) of them going off, and we also know that they will likely be atmospheric detonations to maximize destruction. The nuclear powers know this, and while they benefit from the fear the idea of war creates, I believe they are far less adverse to actually pressing the button than 99% of the population believes. What are your thoughts?
 
Last edited:
a major problem that most people have in regard to a nuke weapon usage - their envisioning is from a Hollyweird movie where ALLLLL of NYC or LA is destroyed by a single nuke - the 1960s city blockbusting mega-tonnage warheads are gone for the most part - an entire region around a city would be targeted by the 10 small MIRV warheads - maybe 20 primary targets and to ICBMs deployed - unless you're in the residential area within miles of the military/industrial target - your residential area won't be targeted and directly affected by the nuke itself ....
 
The nuclear powers know this, and while they benefit from the fear the idea of war creates, I believe they are far less adverse to actually pressing the button than 99% of the population believes. What are your thoughts?

I think that on the one hand, it would accomplish much of what the globalists would like. A severe reduction in population. A constituency that is begging for help and willing to give up anything to receive it. An opportunity to hit the proverbial "reset" button.
On the other hand, the same could be accomplished with a HEMP attack and a lot less risk to the environment.

A HEMP, would allow them to experience the fruits of their labor within their lifetimes.

NUKEMAP by Alex Wellerstein (nuclearsecrecy.com)
 
I have seen first hand what a nuke can do to a city. Got to visit Hiroshima while I was stationed in Japan on my first ship. Went to the museum there and saw things that should have never happened. A real wake up call, at least for me. Got my thinking about the cold war and the future. Didn't realize it then but it put me on the path to prepping.
 
I have seen first hand what a nuke can do to a city. Got to visit Hiroshima while I was stationed in Japan on my first ship. Went to the museum there and saw things that should have never happened. A real wake up call, at least for me. Got my thinking about the cold war and the future. Didn't realize it then but it put me on the path to prepping.
I saw photos from Hiroshima where silhouettes of people were burned into the concrete, but I've never been there to see it first hand. I do recall hearing that 72% of the population survived and that something like 165 people survived both bombings, that gives me some hope for the people near the target areas at least.
a major problem that most people have in regard to a nuke weapon usage - their envisioning is from a Hollyweird movie where ALLLLL of NYC or LA is destroyed by a single nuke - the 1960s city blockbusting mega-tonnage warheads are gone for the most part - an entire region around a city would be targeted by the 10 small MIRV warheads - maybe 20 primary targets and to ICBMs deployed - unless you're in the residential area within miles of the military/industrial target - your residential area won't be targeted and directly affected by the nuke itself ....
I think another reason for getting rid of the larger ones is that a bomb 100x bigger will not destroy 100x the area. The pressure wave obeys the inverse square law just like radio waves or sound waves, so 100x the fallout for 20x the damage is unwise. Ditching the large bombs for many smaller ones would make sense militarily in many ways.
 
I saw photos from Hiroshima where silhouettes of people were burned into the concrete, but I've never been there to see it first hand. I do recall hearing that 72% of the population survived and that something like 165 people survived both bombings, that gives me some hope for the people near the target areas at least.

I think another reason for getting rid of the larger ones is that a bomb 100x bigger will not destroy 100x the area. The pressure wave obeys the inverse square law just like radio waves or sound waves, so 100x the fallout for 20x the damage is unwise. Ditching the large bombs for many smaller ones would make sense militarily in many ways.

they just didn't have any accuracy - the US was more accurate for quite a few years - the Russians caught up thru NASA and the BS cooperation programs ....

supposedly they can target the 50 yard line and be within a running play of hitting it - you go after a commercial airport you don't need to take out the Herz rental miles away or the remote parking lot >>> you get the terminal building and parked airliners, control tower & radar control, mudhole the runways, fuel storage and some hangers >> job done
 
It’s been in my train of thought especially lately. Always thought BOAKYAG.

Being 40 miles from 3 potential targets got me researching. The largest one ever tested could possibly get to me. Most in use are bigger that Hiroshima, but smaller than Tsar.

Surviving the fallout is the key. Simple steps really if you can stay inside from my distance For long enough. Came up with a plan for us, came up with a plan for the dogs. Had to write off the horses.

I won’t miss SF, OAK, or SJC. But I will do what I can to survive
 
I sit in a good location, I don't have a close target I am at least 40 outside the blast range,,,,, I just have to wait out the radiation 2 to 3 weeks and it will be safe outside

https://modernsurvivalblog.com/nuclear/us-nuclear-target-map/
1648340014233.png
 
According to the map I'm pretty much screwed. LOL
sorry,,, I am in Arkansas it won't be all that bad here,, pretty good chance of surviving,,,, the USA will never be the same there will be dead zones,,, I think California if hit hard enough will fall into the OCEAN,,,,, DC and a lot of Politicians will be gone that is a major plus
,,,,,,,,,,, I would rather it did not happen, if it does I lose almost all my family
 
According to the map I'm pretty much screwed. LOL

And I would be really screwed. Problem with some maps is they are off scale.
I am not picking on this one, just trying to use as an example.
Where I grew up, the teachers always said we were #9 on the nuke list. That city 50 years later isn’t even listed as a target. That city probably isn’t a threat anymore.
Scales of the map are usually off. This one lists SF well north of where it is. It’s listing my house in the middle of nowhere a civilian target and/or infrastructure target. Infrastructure could be a couple of reservoirs that supply a city they want to wipe out anyway.
Its somebodies opinion. I look at what I would do militarily to inflict the most damage.
 
The problem with all of those maps for us in Texas (and I suspect everywhere), depending on the time of year the upper level winds change, which means the direction of the fallout will also change with things like incoming hurricanes or strong weather systems.

I have seen maps that follow the jet stream and maps like the above that seemingly do not. Its a crap shoot at best. Most maps I have seen has our BOL in either a minimal area requiring no shelter or a gap with no fallout, so hopefully, will be okay there.

My understanding from researching is that a first round strike will likely be preceded by an EMP to cripple radar/electronic surveillance, and possibly vehicles. Then first strike strategic targets will be hit like DC, and other major areas of military strategic importance. Followed closely by second strikes on infrastructure like ports, refineries, and financial centers. A third strike will target larger urban population centers and civilian infrastructures like dams (Hoover dam for one), manufacturing and production.
This would mean if you are NOT near the first two strike areas, at least you may have time to bug out (if you have a working vehicle or other means of transportation).
 
Who is 100% confident that pedo biden would even respond if Russia hit us with an EMP and destroyed our infrastructure? Dr. Peter Vincent Pry is making the case we might not be able to respond. He also makes the case that we might not know “who” did it.

This recent interview of Dr Pry is very eye opening!

 


Maps not totally accurate. There are a lot of military installations not on that map. If you think you(anyone) are not in a hot zone prepare like you were. Not shown are all of the nuke power plants that could melt down depending on the loyalty of the people running them. That would add to the fallout sources.

Have goggles, masks and hazmat/painters Tyvek suits, Iodine pills on hand. You also want plastic sheeting and duct tape to cover all windows and doors.

Here are some links for a wind map and a nuke power plant map.

NUKEMAP by Alex Wellerstein (nuclearsecrecy.com)

Wind Map (hint.fm)


I will attach some nuke books.
 

Attachments

  • 1 Nuclear-War-Survival-Skills.pdf
    18.9 MB · Views: 12
  • 11_Steps_to_Nuclear_Survival.pdf
    929.4 KB · Views: 3
  • 120_Cities.pdf
    52.2 KB · Views: 3
  • Biological and radiological effects of fallout from nuclear explosions 1964.pdf
    3.8 MB · Views: 4
  • DCPA - July 1975 - Introduction To Civil Preparedness (CPG 1-1).pdf
    5.2 MB · Views: 2
  • Defense against radioactive fallout on the farm.pdf
    992.4 KB · Views: 3
  • Fallout radiation effects on livestock and food crops - part A and B - annual report 1969 ORNL.pdf
    3 MB · Views: 4
  • Nuclear_Weapons_Effects_-_handbook.pdf
    2.5 MB · Views: 2
  • Recovery_From_Nuclear_Attack.pdf
    2.8 MB · Views: 4
  • You_Will_Survive_Doomsday_-_Bruce_Beach.pdf
    2 MB · Views: 5

Latest posts

Back
Top