Is your location one of survival in a total nuclear war? - Page 2

Welcome to the Prepper Forum / Survivalist Forum.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Is your location one of survival in a total nuclear war?

This is a discussion on Is your location one of survival in a total nuclear war? within the Preppers Retreat and Lodge forums, part of the General Prepper and Survival Talk category; NE Texas looks pretty active considering the rural landscape....

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 50
Like Tree48Likes

Thread: Is your location one of survival in a total nuclear war?

  1. #11
    Senior Member


    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Northeast Texas
    Posts
    11,325
    NE Texas looks pretty active considering the rural landscape.
    I will choose to enjoy the journey that God has prepared for me. Hidden Content

  2. #12
    Super Moderator


    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    20,675
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonya View Post
    The targets for my state are the same for the 1990 Fema map so I think it is accurate. In fact they are exactly the same, which makes me wonder if they took the Fema data and made a new map with prioritization.

    One would think there would be some changes in 20 years, bases and plants have closed etc..
    1990. The world was different, 26 years ago. That map was suspected targets of the Soviet Union. I doubt the map is accurate.

    I simply stick with general, strategic concepts.

    Financial centers will be targeted. Kill the money.

    Target transportation hubs, including ports. Immobilize the targeted country.

    Target command and control of both the government and the military. Cut the head off the snake.

    Target communication, both civilian and military.

    Target strategic military installations, obviously.

    While civilians might not be specifically targeted, all transportation hubs, as an example, are also large population centers.

    Figuring it this way, you can get a pretty good idea if you are near a target.

    Another thing to keep in mind. The U.S. and the Russian military know that not all items will detonate, so more than one item will be targeted to heighten the chance of a successful strike.

    Happy joy!
    Sonya and Prepared One like this.
    Hidden Content
    "Reality is almost always wrong."
    Dr. Gregory House

  3. #13
    Senior Member


    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Middle Georgia
    Posts
    711
    This study on the expected fatality rates is very interesting. They run through the numbers on a few different attack scenarios and use very practical specific data, such as no sheltering, sheltering a house etc...

    They estimate a limited attack of maybe 500 warheads focused on military targets would kill about 50 million. If 2000 warheads were used to target large populations they estimate 130 million would be killed. They also acknowledge that the deaths from starvation and disease would likely equal or exceed the bomb fatalities.

    The sheltering factor, a factor by which the instantaneous dose rate is divided to account for the protection against fallout offered by various structure types, was varied between 1 (no sheltering), 4 (an average single-story, residential structure), 7 (an average multistory structure) and 40 (basement environments).

    Fallout casualties were calculated using probability functions for severe radiation sickness and mortality, choosing a conservative value of 4.5 Sieverts (Si) for the 50%-lethal dose Under the maximal assumption of high fission fraction (80%) and no sheltering, the resulting four million fallout casualties represent less than 10% of the total casualties from the 2,000-warhead scenario. The area of fallout zones in which a 50%-lethal dose occurs does not vary substantially by month, and decreases the greater the effective sheltering of the population.
    www.ippnw.org/pdf/mgs/7-2-helfand.pdf
    Last edited by Sonya; 10-23-2016 at 12:29 PM.
    Denton likes this.

  4. Remove Advertisements
    PrepperForums.net
    Advertisements
     

  5. #14
    Senior Member


    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    7,145
    All that being said, it's still about power and control. Why wipe out a majority of the country? Why get rid of a potential infrastructure you can utilize and exploit? Why eliminate a potential workforce?

    If their goal was to make the US a third world country and let it go, yes then the above is possible. But if conquering your adversary can enrich you and add to your empire, what's the point? 3 easy examples come to mind. The Roman Empire, Napoleon and the USSR. All conquered but utilized the resources they gained.
    Sonya likes this.

  6. #15
    Senior Member


    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Middle Georgia
    Posts
    711
    Quote Originally Posted by inceptor View Post
    All that being said, it's still about power and control. Why wipe out a majority of the country? Why get rid of a potential infrastructure you can utilize and exploit? Why eliminate a potential workforce?

    If their goal was to make the US a third world country and let it go, yes then the above is possible. But if conquering your adversary can enrich you and add to your empire, what's the point? 3 easy examples come to mind. The Roman Empire, Napoleon and the USSR. All conquered but utilized the resources they gained.
    Plus massive devastation of the US could lead to a nuclear winter, that theory is controversial and they aren't sure how bad it would be, but since it seems likely to have some effect I don't think the Russians would want to risk a 30 degree drop in temp. It is already pretty cold over there.

    I don't see an immediate armed invasion as likely or practical. I think they would use an EMP and in a few months that would decimate at least half the US population. Sheesh our government has a hard time handling the unruly hoards in Ferguson, if that happened in every major city it would be a nightmare to control even for a foreign army that shows no restraint. Better to let us die off on our own and come in when things are easier to manage.

    China would jump at the chance to take over, they could come offering "aid" 6 months after the attack and take the place over with no resistance. As far as ruining the potential work force, I doubt if either power would want 300 million Americans, losing half would not be a big deal. China would rather utilize their own people anyway. Heck I don't think our own government would care if we lost a hundred million, they could easily get new "better" citizens from south of the border.

    One thing I have noticed, and maybe it is the sources i follow, but the utter disdain for the government seems to be reaching a fever pitch these days. Most comments I see support Russia's viewpoint in this mess and think our own government is a bunch of worthless corrupt liars.
    Last edited by Sonya; 10-23-2016 at 08:02 PM.

  7. #16
    Senior Member


    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Western PA
    Posts
    6,366
    Fall out combined with lack of food distribution and an almost total reduction in available gas, oil, propane PLUS collapse of the economy and dollar... if you live dead center in a blast zone it might be easier... just a thought
    rice paddy daddy likes this.
    Be a Berean

  8. #17
    Senior Member


    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    North Dakota
    Posts
    1,238
    The problem I have with this map is twofold... the targets in and around me are Nuke silos and a Nuke bomber base.. why target them if what is there is designed to be counter-launched in the event of incoming nukes... why bomb empty silos and an AFB where many of the bombers are already airborne with their payloads?
    -IN OMNIA PARATUS

  9. #18
    Senior Member


    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    North Dakota
    Posts
    1,238
    targeting silos is only feasible if you can hit them before they can launch... and thanks to Hillary, we know that time is 4 minutes.... we will have 20+ minutes warning after a soviet launch.. I call BS as to many of the military nuke targets....
    Maine-Marine likes this.
    -IN OMNIA PARATUS

  10. #19
    Senior Member


    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    7,145
    @Sonya I agree with a fair amount of that.

    All you have to do is google what happened when the EBT system went down for 12 hours. Now imagine what would happen if it went off for good. I really don't know what our population is but you can expect more than half will be gone within the first six months. Darwinism at it's finest.

    As to getting more of a workforce from south of the border, that will take time. People will want to see what happens first. You can bet that many here will flee south and home when the SHTF. They won't return until they see how things turn out. If conditions south are better than here, they won't come back until the situation improves.
    Sonya likes this.

  11. #20
    Senior Member


    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Middle Georgia
    Posts
    711
    Quote Originally Posted by inceptor View Post
    @Sonya I agree with a fair amount of that.

    All you have to do is google what happened when the EBT system went down for 12 hours. Now imagine what would happen if it went off for good. I really don't know what our population is but you can expect more than half will be gone within the first six months. Darwinism at it's finest.

    As to getting more of a workforce from south of the border, that will take time. People will want to see what happens first. You can bet that many here will flee south and home when the SHTF. They won't return until they see how things turn out. If conditions south are better than here, they won't come back until the situation improves.
    My comment about being happy to replace 100 mil was part snarkiness. I meant they feel no sense of loyalty towards their own people, we are replaceable, in fact they are actively working to change the population/demographics on a mass scale by importing foreigners now.

    In comparison countries like Russia, Japan, Korea, Hungary, Iran etc... feel a strong sense of cultural and ethnic identity, they share the same blood and history, their countrymen are literally extended family. They feel a sense of obligation towards their own people and the last thing they would want to do is kill off their own so they could bring in a foreign replacement population that would drastically change their ethnic/cultural makeup.
    Last edited by Sonya; 10-24-2016 at 08:17 AM.
    MaterielGeneral likes this.

 

 
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Russia: Nuclear War Could Be Imminent
    By Denton in forum News & Links
    Replies: 202
    Last Post: 12-15-2016, 05:58 PM
  2. Russia tells citizens ‘nuclear war with the West could happen soon’
    By split in forum General Prepper and Survival Talk
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-05-2016, 09:40 AM
  3. What is more important in nuclear war?
    By Not Crazy Yet in forum General Prepper and Survival Talk
    Replies: 63
    Last Post: 07-07-2015, 10:36 AM
  4. Nuclear War Survival Skills
    By SoCal92057 in forum General Talk
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 06-02-2014, 05:35 PM
  5. Nuclear War
    By JessPrep in forum UFO's, Zombies, 2012, Aliens, Mayan, End of the World, Apocalypse
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 04-01-2014, 08:07 PM

Search tags for this page

location for nuclear war

,

nuclear war

Click on a term to search for related topics.

Tags for this Thread

Back to Top