Prepper Forum / Survivalist Forum banner

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

10K views 49 replies 22 participants last post by  MaterielGeneral 
#1 · (Edited)
I found this the other evening. Many of you may already have it, but I felt it was accurate and up-to-date enough to give a pretty clear idea of the areas that would be most impacted from a partial or total nuclear war - the cause of which can be debated elsewhere.

Compiled by FEMA and others, it is their best guess as to what would be targeted by the enemy in 2 nuclear scenarios, 1 - 2000 device attack and 2 - 500 device attack. Knowing Russia has more than 20000 nuclear devices, understand that the maps implication is most-likely best-case scenario no matter the scale.

There is reason to believe that radiation from such an attack will not be a concern due to the use of nuclear fusion weapons. These provide all the bang (some say more) of a fission nuke, but with a fraction of the harmful, long-term radiation. The land and fixtures will remain usable and habitable. If you can survive the heat and blast waves, you have a good chance of surviving the worst.

World Ecoregion Map Font Atlas
 
See less See more
1
#4 · (Edited)
I am closer to strike sight than I like. However being Pittsburgh will not affect much on a national scale IMHO. I grew up during the Cold War and with the rest of the kids watched nuclear tipped Missle drills on the next hill designed to take out a Soviet bomber force headed to Pottsburgh (actually made a lot of steel back then). A Missle strike most likely would be difficult to survive where I am located. I believe the effects will range further than what we are told.
 
#5 ·
I would have 50-50 chance , maybe . Being only 50+ miles from Ft. Bragg . After watching the Doomsday show on Friday night on " a nuke attack " .
 
#6 · (Edited)
I think 50 miles is actually a petty safe distance. They would probably hit with 150 kt missiles, maybe an 800 kt Topol. If you are not down wind from the fallout you may not have any real effects at all.

If you are down wind you would at least need to shelter in your house for a few days, but probably wouldn't need an actual bomb shelter.

IMO most ALL info geared towards the public, especially movies and tv shows, greatly over estimate the real damage in large part to scare people into pushing for nuclear non-proliferation policies. The data provided by and for government agencies is much much less dire. The emergency response manuals deal with real risks and practical casualty rates even in the event of a full scale nuclear war.
 
#7 · (Edited)
FYI I joined this forum just to find people to discuss the nuke threat with, so yeah I will likely flood threads on the topic with posts.

The map above uses triangles to show a 500 bomb scenario, and the black dots represent a 2000 bomb scenario. I tend to think the triangles are the main worry. If the current estimates on Russia's arsenal are correct it doesn't seem like they would use 2000 warheads on us, they will need to save some for Nato bases too.

ETA the count below does not include bombs in silos, so yeah they could easily use 2000 on us and have plenty to spare.

Product Font Parallel Electric blue Rectangle
 
#21 ·
FYI I joined this forum just to find people to discuss the nuke threat with, so yeah I will likely flood threads on the topic with posts.

The map above uses triangles to show a 500 bomb scenario, and the black dots represent a 2000 bomb scenario. I tend to think the triangles are the main worry. If the current estimates on Russia's arsenal are correct it doesn't seem like they would use 2000 warheads on us, they will need to save some for Nato bases too.

ETA the count below does not include bombs in silos, so yeah they could easily use 2000 on us and have plenty to spare.

View attachment 27777
That chart is totally wrong.
The US has enough nuclear weaponry aboard the Trident submarines alone to completely destroy the world. Possibly several times over. Half of the fleet is at sea at any given time, and each one of an individual sub's missiles has 4 or more warheads.
A nuclear war between the US and Russia means the end of the world. Literally.
 
#8 ·
I'm gonna have to call BS on this map without a cited source. I know my area. Some of the closer ones seem accurate, the local AFB is marked with top 2000, the closest international airport top 500. I would think it would the other way around, but close enough.
This one on the other hand...
Map Land lot Screenshot Hinterland Terrestrial plant

Pure nonsense. I don't see much of a military target half way in between a nature preserve and a small town with a median age of about 72.
 
#9 · (Edited)
I'm gonna have to call BS on this map without a cited source. I know my area. Some of the closer ones seem accurate, the local AFB is marked with top 2000, the closest international airport top 500. I would think it would the other way around, but close enough.
This one on the other hand...

Pure nonsense. I don't see much of a military target half way in between a nature preserve and a small town with a median age of about 72.
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..
 
#10 ·
there's all kinds of "what ifs" when it comes to targeting and the Russian delivery systems .... the tertiary targeting is mostly to the portable launchers that'll be reloaded - if possible - after their initial primary launch ... the tertiary target bombing are also on the plot for the Russian bomber fleet - what that consists of today .... alot of the secondary targeting are small cities with municipal airports - hitting them will depend on any post nuke strike military activity ....
 
#13 · (Edited)
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
 
#14 ·
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.
 
#15 · (Edited)
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.
 
#17 ·
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?
 
#19 ·
@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.
 
#20 · (Edited)
@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.
 
#24 ·
The notion that the world will be destroyed several times over is a myth, just as is nuclear winter. These myths were designed to strike fear in the hearts of the citizens. I certainly don't mean to sound as if a nuclear exchange would be a walk in the park; it would be brutal.
Sane leaders will steer very far from it, and Putin is very sane. On the other hand, who actually rules the U.S.? I do not believe it is ruled by those we elect.

The elite globalists are not loyal to country or countrymen. Both are expendable, and I believe this has been proved time and again.

The U.S. is burdened with incredible debt. Way more is imported than is exported. We are service oriented rather than manufacturing, therefore we produce little. We consume, but how long can we consume when there are so many who are unemployed or underemployed? In other words, what good are we to the elite? They have found other workers and know our time for buying their crap might very well be limited.

Another problem with Americans is we still cling to the notion of individual rights. Even the moronic liberals who think they are socialists resist the notion that their rights should be taken. This means we are a hindrance to the concept of a new world order with a central, global rule by the elitists. That places the American citizens in the same boat as Putin.

I guess you can see where I am going with this.
 
#25 ·
The one book that gives a more than reasonable scenario, . . .

Says that the EOTWAWKI will be centered around the middle east, . . . particularly Israel.

The United States is NOT mentioned in the scenario.

Libya, Ethiopia, Egypt, Israel, Syria, and by default due to location, . . . Iraq, Lebanon, and Iran, . . . all are mentioned.

The world's scene will be dominated by a "one world leader", . . . who will eventually have to go to war against a 200 million man invading force that will be utilizing horses in their "battle plan / equipment" scenario.

IF, . . . and I'll just emphasize that word again, . . . IF there was a nuclear exchange between NATO and Russia, the US and China, . . . sorta the "4 biggies", . . . and IF in that exchange all sides attempted to bust the other side with EMP type strikes, . . . we could see a world where electricity would be at a premium, . . . thereby making 95% of the services and things we enjoy today, . . . non existent.

In that world, . . . we could easily see the nations mentioned above as coming through it somewhat unscathed, . . . and again IF they retained their own infrastructure and resources, including electricity, . . . THEY could be the ones who would then become the center of world power, . . . while the rest of the globe struggles to survive on wood stoves, oil lamps, and horse/oxen power as they did in the mid 1800's.

Many will say that it cannot, . . . will not, . . . is not remotely possible to happen.

It is exactly the type of scenario the Lord, Jesus Christ, and His followers have predicted.

May God bless,
Dwight
 
#27 · (Edited)
<snipped for focus>

IF, . . . and I'll just emphasize that word again, . . . IF there was a nuclear exchange between NATO and Russia, the US and China, . . . sorta the "4 biggies", . . . and IF in that exchange all sides attempted to bust the other side with EMP type strikes, . . . we could see a world where electricity would be at a premium, . . . thereby making 95% of the services and things we enjoy today, . . . non existent.
Except I have heard, but can't find a source to verify, that Russia and possibly China have already protected their power grid from EMPs. Israel is working on it as we speak.

Russia, and that area of the world, sees a lot more EMF activity and has suffered numerous effects so they have been aware of the danger for a long time. They have also openly bragged about their EMP bombs and how it would decimate the US. If they invested in a 400 mile long underground bunker I would expect they also put money into hardening their grid.

Big question is how hardened is our military equipment? They say it is hardened, but I get the impression most really isn't. If most of our military equipment is actually vulnerable and they know it, that it would be a "free shoot" for them.

Scary part is if they know an EMP would take us out quickly and easily now, but it may not work in 10 years, then logic says use it now before that option goes away. At the rate the US is going we will continue to be a problem until we are stopped.

ETA I found an article on Russia's grid, which actually isn't a grid but small local power stations serving 2 mile radius neighborhoods in most areas. The equipment is ancient but perhaps the localized nature of it would be a benefit in an EMP strike. http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060010742
 
#26 ·
With the vast number of larger ICBMs, new countries with the bomb, scads of plutonium disappearing when the Soviet Union fell and the insanity of the jihadists, I don't there is a safe place on earth.

Even if there was two and a half acres just outside of Topeka that had a fall-out free vortex, everything will be dusted, plants, animals and water plus decades of nuclear winters.

In a major exchange, we're all toast.
 
#31 · (Edited)
I misread your post, the silos are operational and your point is they WILL be empty during a first strike?

They may not be empty by the time Russian ICBMs arrive. The US could very easily only fire a few back and not all, which means they have to be targets.

If it makes you happier, just convince yourself the Russian's won't target them because they see it as pointless just like you do.
 
#40 ·
Assume the US is targeted with a single Soviet missile, or there is a surprise attack by a nuclear capable terrorist organization. If the target were Washington, DC, I would not be all that upset. The loss of innocent lives would be horrible, but overall in the long run the country might be better off. I hate to say this, but I've felt this way for some time.
 
#44 · (Edited)
If you live near any heavy industry, then your town is a target for nukes: things like steel mills, or other metal plants, won't be spared.
If you live near a major railroad yard, it has been targeted by Russia and China both.
I used to live in Huntington WV and I can think of 2 or 3 targets there; a steel plant, a nickle plant and a major railroad yard.

If you live in any major metro, then it is a target too, the whole is dis-heartening in ways.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top