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.
If thermonuclear war were to start in a week and a half would you be ready?
This is a discussion on If thermonuclear war were to start in a week and a half would you be ready? within the Urban and Rural Survival forums, part of the Survivalist, Prepper, Bushcrafter, Forest Rangers category; Originally Posted by rickkyw1720pf
Well this post sure did turn around the fist pages was everyone giving up and the last pages people saying yes ...
02-26-2014, 05:29 AM
You are talking about something different. It seems that most think a thermonuclear war is no big deal. To each his own. I am prepared for a multitude of things but a nuclear war, to me, is a whole different beast. Some think the US being blanketed by nuke warheads isn't much different than dodging bullets. I just tend to think they are wrong.
Originally Posted by rickkyw1720pf
Here is a breakdown of numbers:
Federation of American Scientists :: Status of World Nuclear Forces
So if you think there will only be a couple, I think you are sadly mistaken.
Give up easy? I don't submit well. It's a character flaw. I will fight it to the end.
02-26-2014, 07:45 AM
I agree with you, thermonuclear war is a big deal and I probably will not survive. But there are somethings you can do to increase your chances if you survive the bombardment. No life will not be pleasant, boring as hell waiting till you can go outside again. The most basic natural instinct is survival. I am not one who will roll over and die. Thou shall not murder. I think suicide is murder so what ever it takes, I'm going to try to live.
Originally Posted by inceptor
I know the U.S. and Russia still have enough nukes to cover the planet but I seriously doubt a Cold War scenario will present it's self with the current political state of things. We are no longer posturing like we were, open dialog has gotten better between the U.S. and Russia. The other countries that have nukes do not have the numbers needed to "pepper" the country like the threat we lived under during the Cold War so I believe that level of destruction is unrealistic any more. What we have to face today are a few going off here and there.
The link someone posted where you can put in the size of weapon, location, wind speed and such, I went there just to see. Charlotte NC I think would be the closest place to me that may be targeted in this fashion. If that web site is accurate, with a 100 megaton ground burst, where I live I will get fall out, 10 Rankin per hour. Every day just from the sun we are being exposed to (I think) apx 1 Rankin per hour. Precautions will have to be taken but it is survivable.
Last edited by vandelescrow; 02-26-2014 at 07:48 AM.
02-26-2014, 04:32 PM
100 megaton is huge most war heads are a fraction of that.
I was pretty well unimpressed with the effect of single yields...
now don't get me wrong thats still impressive just not really impresive.
Last edited by Will2; 02-26-2014 at 04:35 PM.
02-26-2014, 04:50 PM
'Who would not want to survive', I agree.
Isn't that what we prep for, to survive whatever comes?
I want to around to help with the rebuilding.
I have skills to help with that.
02-26-2014, 05:38 PM
I'm not sure. One Air Force base I went to while working for HQ ACC, we went there in the Generals jet. He did not tell anyone he will be taking a later flight so the Base Commander and everyone but the band was there to greet us, we felt like the "Dirty Dozen". Any way the Base Commander told us not to go on the flight line, they are going through an Operational Readiness Inspection and they are currently downloading nukes from the B-52's, and he said and I quote "these are not the crowd pleaser's they are only the 50 megatoners". Was he being serious or joking with us, I don't know. Now I'd assume I.C.B.M.s carry bigger warheads then our air craft do.
Originally Posted by Will
But I will tell ya, with how many I saw on one aircraft, considering each nuke can take out an entire city what ever their size is, That is a scary thought.
02-28-2014, 01:28 AM
vandelscrow, that's not actually the case, most large cities would require multiple warheads, and the attack type would have a variety of attack tangents based upon the desired outcome.
None the less, icbms are often mirvs, which mean they carry multiple warheads often of lowever megatonage for instance 8, 5 Mt warheads, which seperate during the main flight.
most blast radius is only a mile or two, which may be enough for small cities but large is another. of course, radiation etc... are all factors of the type of strike.
06-02-2014, 05:45 PM
I don't believe there are any 50Mt nukes in our inventory, and they certainly aren't carried by bombers if there are. I did a bit of digging around on this lately, and it looks that the largest operational device was in the Russian inventory until 2009 - at 20Mt, capping SS-18 M6 candles. Their big boys at this date, and the 800kt warheads on the Topol II and III road mobiles, (SS-25, 27). They have "upgraded" their philosophy to match ours, which says that multiple smaller warheads popped in a pattern are more effective at ctreating a large and uniform overpressure sufficient to kill the target.
China has deployed a 5Mt weapon, but their numbers are paltry compared to ours. The funny thing about the Chinese nukes, depending on where you live, is that they do have issues with bad targeting. So, a miss is good for some, and bad for others.
Overall, using the various blast mapping tools avaialble, and looking at current stockpiles, it looks better now than bad in the day. Russian targeting is better - so thee will be few nukes raining down with "to whom it may concern" painted on the sides.
Nuclear war is the worst case human scenario - no doubt about it. But the after records of the bombs in Japan, the massive heavy isotope contamination of the Chernobyl event, we can see that the rate of decay can drop to levels that allow for things to improve. There would be long term end-of-life issues, and population relocations - but I would be fine with that considering the alternative.
Then again, if I get vaporized, I go "home" and that's cool, too.
All that said, after my digging around, I've concluded that prepping for the LOCAL effects of a fallout cloud, or even the blast wave from something that might land at a certain point near me, is reasonable. Because, not only do such preps assist in getting past the initial nastiness of a heavy nuclear exchange, they are useful for the hot cloud coming over from a small-scale attack from a 3rd world country, a dirty bomb, or even a toxic cloud.
I'm not ready. No. But I know what I would do if I could. And I could be ready if circumstances were different than they are now..... working on it.
I'd post that study I did, but I'm not sure that's allowed for someone so new, and linking to his own site.
If you wish to have a future, plan for it.
06-03-2014, 09:13 AM
This topic never fails to awaken and excite the adherents to the myth of “un-survivability”.
Most if not all of the misinformation about the “un-survivable” nature of nuclear war came from the former Soviet Union in the form of a coordinated propaganda campaign.
Would the effects of a “full scale” nuclear exchange be profound and catastrophic? Yes.
Would these same effects result in an extinction level event (ELE)? It is most unlikely.
Could such an event be survived? Yes, if you are not killed by the initial effects of the blast it is entirely likely that with a modicum of preparation and training many people would survive.
Generally preparedness should to be focused on physical needs rather than specific scenarios. The physical needs following nuclear war will be much the same as those following many other catastrophes. Those preparations unique to the nuclear war scenario include; radiological monitoring equipment &training and radiological sheltering.
If you don’t believe survival is possible or desirable following a nuclear war then make no preparations, that’s your prerogative. However, it is my opinion that it is immoral to try to evangelize others to your point of view.
06-03-2014, 10:20 AM
I would likely put all of my efforts into giving my children and their families any survival advantage I could. Both are early 30s with their own families.
NRA Life Member
NRA Certified Instructor - Pistol
NRA Certified Instructor - Personal Protection in the Home
North Carolina Concealed Carry Instructor
06-03-2014, 10:58 AM
Please check out this site. It clarifies a lot of mistaken ideas about fallout and radiation.
Nuclear Fallout -Nomograph Information- Computing Shelter Stay time
This is a pretty good simulation that can be taylored to your city or area.
NUKEMAP by Alex Wellerstein
By Denton in forum General Talk
Last Post: 02-17-2014, 01:59 PM
By PrepConsultant in forum General Talk
Last Post: 12-31-2013, 10:34 PM
By PrepConsultant in forum General Talk
Last Post: 05-06-2013, 07:05 PM
By Fuzzee in forum General Prepper and Survival Talk
Last Post: 12-15-2012, 12:58 PM
By danz409 in forum Alternative Energy (Wind, Solar, Hydro etc)
Last Post: 12-03-2012, 09:29 AM