Prepper Forum / Survivalist Forum banner
1 - 20 of 50 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Discussion Starter · #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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,477 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,514 Posts
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 " .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
711 Posts
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 " .
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
711 Posts
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
181 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
711 Posts
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..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,678 Posts
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 ....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,980 Posts
NE Texas looks pretty active considering the rural landscape.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,529 Posts
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!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
711 Posts
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
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
9,637 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
711 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,172 Posts
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,832 Posts
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?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,832 Posts
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....
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
9,637 Posts
@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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
711 Posts
@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.
 
1 - 20 of 50 Posts
Top