It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Media-Blackout Regarding Nuclear War?

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 08:15 PM

This page contains a link to a publication FEMA-196 titled, "Risks and Hazards: A State by State Guide". The cover of the .PDF says September 1990.

Here is a graphic from this publication. It shows FEMA's estimate of what California would look like in case of nuclear war.

external image
link to full sized image

I would like to obtain an actual copy of this publication rather than accept it as real off the Internet but I have read elsewhere that FEMA isn't mailing these publications out anymore, like the door to the ark is closed or something. If this publication is real, then I would ask the following: Since most American citizens have not seen these maps, isn't there a conspiracy to keep these images out of our heads?

I count less than 100 red dots here on the Pacific Coast which means that in spite of SALT or any such warhead-reduction efforts, there'll still be enough warheads to take out a lot of people.

If this imagery seems new and scary to city-dwellers, doesn't that mean they have been conditioned away from certain aspects of reality? Is there a media-blackout regarding the continued risks of nuclear war?

[edit on 3-3-2005 by smallpeeps]

(mod edit to reduce large image)

[edit on 1-11-2005 by pantha]


posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 07:17 PM
That PDF is legitimate, but out of date so retired. The maps are based around NATO information on former soviet primary targets.
If modern day Russia were to nuke us, the largest blasts we would get hit with would be 1 MegaTon or less, and they would be airbursts far above major cities to radiate a wide area EMP. Everything that hit the ground would be 180kiloton or less, to surface blast and crater major runways, highways, all military and governmental operations, our silos, etc. The populated cities mainly only get hit because they contain government operations buildings. In those images notice the "dense pack" areas [such as Missouri] where the majority of our silos are located. Everything downwind of those areas would be glowing for a while.

The initial attack hurts pretty bad yes, but it's not as detrimental to life as the radiated fallout that floats back down for weeks to follow, but if you are prepared you can survive.

[edit on 4-3-2005 by apc]

posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 07:31 PM
Thanks for the info, APC. Can you tell me why this retired pamphlet seems to be the only way to find out what places are dangerous to live? If the data is outdated, why hasn't there been a new version of these maps? Why aren't Americans given the data so that they can reasonably decide where they should raise their families?

This data is not available at the library. I had to dig to find these maps. To me, this stinks of a conspiracy to keep Americans on the front lines (read: in the cities) of WW3. In other countries, as FEMA196 says, citizens have civil defense awareness programs and have state-provided bunkers to jump into. In America, it's almost 180 degrees in the other direction. This bothers me.

Am I the crazy one here? Shouldn't people be more concerned about why the subject of nuke-war is not acceptable dinner-conversation?


posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 09:01 PM
Many people dismiss it as cold-war history, left in the past. Most don't realize how close we really are. Im sure when the fear level is appropriate the US gov will restart an ad campaign on the dangers of nuclear war to raise the fear level up another notch.

The outdated images are still a good guide as today we don't really know where the nukes would come from or how many. If it were Russia take the images as a guide just scale them down a bit, their blast zones are for soviet warheads maxing out around 10MegaTons. This very well could be the same thing China would fling at us if we ever got in a conflict, but we don't really know for sure.

Best way to find a safe place to live is just reason what would be a target to an enemy capable of striking it. Any runway longer than 7000ft is a good start on what to stay far away from, plus all the silo areas and everything expected to receive heavy fallout. Above all simply knowing how to construct a shelter capable of protecting you and your family from several weeks to a few months of radiation from fallout can mean survival.

posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 05:08 PM

APC said: Im sure when the fear level is appropriate the US gov will restart an ad campaign on the dangers of nuclear war to raise the fear level up another notch.

Do you really think the media will make nuke-war an issue again? I think they've got too much to lose if they do so. They want people to keep working away in the cities and any duck-and-cover media would cause too much disruption, IMO. What do you mean by "when the fear level is appropriate"? I'd say the time is now, not at some future point. We're currently posturing with Russia (again) with Iran in the middle. I feel that the lack of media coverage and lack of education regarding nuclear war survival is planned and is designed to keep the sheeple happy and calm. Those in the cities will be sacrificed while the administrators (Bush, Rummy Cheney) head for their bunkers or higher altitudes in their jets. It seems pretty clear to me that the media wants us to focus our fears on terrorists but not on nuclear war. The total elimination of these FEMA maps in America should be a warning klaxon for any observant American.

On a side note, it is ACCIDENTAL launch that is the big risk. A Pacific coast failure in any of the C3I components (Command, Communications, Control, Intelligence) will be very bad for anyone who lives in these cities. The issue of nuclear weapons is a global one and it is interrelated.

What amazes me is how much trust people put in machines in regard to failure or the lack thereof. For example, prior to the Challenger disaster, the NASA scientists gave the odds of a shuttle failure as 1 in 100,000. In fact, it took only 25 missions for one of them to suffer catastrophic failure. How interesting that the smartest guys in the world had no concept of statistical failure in complex systems.

During the investigation after the shuttle exploded, Richard Feynman said that 1 in 100 was more realistic and that 1 in 1000 may have been attainable with lots and lots of testing of all the interrelated components (o-rings, hatches, etc) but that 1 in 100,000 was sheer fantasy.

Feynman said:

"It is true that if the probability of failure was as low as 1 in 100,000 it would take an inordinate number of tests to determine it; you would get nothing but a string of perfect flights with no precise figure [...] But if the real probability is not so small, flights would show troubles, near failures, and possibly actual failures with a reasonable number of trials, and standard statistical methods could give a reasonable estimate. In fact, previous NASA experience had shown on occasion just such difficulties, [...] all giving warning that the probability of flight failure was not so very small." [...]

"It would appear that, for whatever purpose - be it for internal or external consumption - the management of NASA exaggerates the reliability of its product to the point of fantasy."

In my opinion, we are all riding on a space shuttle when it comes to the issue of nuclear weapons. I personally believe that our leaders are as ignorant as the NASA scientists were but even if they are not, they will not inform the American people. Domestic tranquility is too valuable.

I mean don't you think that 1 in 100,000 number was in the Challenger crew's heads (and their families' heads) when they went up? They had been decieved and I think we are too.

[edit on 10-3-2005 by smallpeeps]

posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 06:13 PM
Where did you get that map? Is there one for all of North America? How is Montanna & North Dakota affected? Cause I live just across the border in Saskatchewan! These two states are full of nuke silo's.

posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 06:36 PM
Although the map is outdated it brings up an interesting point: remember to thank the government for deciding that strategic military targets should be placed in major cities. I assume they do this because it leaves the enemy with no illusions about making a "limited strike" and getting away clean. Still it doesn't seem like a good deal to me, since I live live just outside of an orange area between two bases East of LA (Edwards and some long-closed base that now hosts only reservists and an airport.) Hopefully the Russians have updated their launch plans to account for the fact that the nearest base to my location is no longer operating.

Then again though- for anyone who has actually tried to drive in Southern California recently- that map might have a bit of a positive side to it
. Me- I think I'll just move back to Palm Springs and kick it with President Ford to watch the war on TV. The wind doesn't usually blow so much from the North, so I think I'd get away fall-out free, even though 29 Palms is marked for a hit. When the smoke clears I'll go take a drive up the I-10 to LA, just to see what it's like to break the speed limit in what should be gridlock.

posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 08:11 PM

Where did you get that map?

It's from a FEMA document. The link is posted above. Apparently it was taken away from the American public due to it being "outdated". I think that's a load of crap because what other info would we want if not this map? Not only that but if it's outdated, then where's the replacement? Does it's being outdated mean that San Jose, Long Beach, Port Hueneme don't have strategic targets anymore? From what I can tell, nothing much has changed in that regard.

I can't seem to find any other US nuclear target maps anywhere. Why are we kept in the dark regarding this subject?

[edit on 10-3-2005 by smallpeeps]

posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 09:29 PM

Originally posted by smallpeeps
Apparently it was taken away from the American public due to it being "outdated". I think that's a load of crap because what other info would we want if not this map? ...
Does it's being outdated mean that San Jose, Long Beach, Port Hueneme don't have strategic targets anymore? From what I can tell, nothing much has changed in that regard.

I can't seem to find any other US nuclear target maps anywhere. Why are we kept in the dark regarding this subject?
[edit on 10-3-2005 by smallpeeps]

It would seem likely that the map was taken out because there was concern about it causing undue panic, but that's not to say that it isn't also outdated. Several things could affect the reliability of such a forecast:

1. The number and type of weapons available to the enemy, not to mention the most likely enemy. Such changes might be censored to keep a lid on new military developments. For example if the enemy has fewer nukes, fewer ways to deliver them, or alternate weapons such as lasers, the map could be hopelessly inaccurate and might even result in FEMA making the wrong preparations for the wrong locations. Suppose that the single greatest danger we faced was that China might use biological weapons on Los Angeles. Considering that communications might be down during an attack, we don't want FEMA's main plan for a missile attack to be moving nuclear decontamination equipment to San Francisco when we are more likely to need biological decontamination in Los Angeles. I know it's out there, but you have to remember that manuals like this come from bureaucracies, so wierd decisions do have a way of happening.

2. Base closures and new technologies re-define strategic targets. Just for example, Edwards AFB is now a shadow of its former self, and is an Army Reserve Base. That probably makes it a lower priority target. Meanwhile there might be a secret new facility somewhere- FEMA can't just put a new dot on the map next to the secret base can they? Then there is the technological aspect- considering the decreased importance of bombers in nuclear warfare, fighters lose some strategic importance. Therefore the odds of massive strikes against airbases decreases in many scenarios if we assume that the aggressor is attempting to launch a "limited strike".

So yeah, it's probably pure BS, but they could be BSing us for a reason- for example that the military wont give FEMA the info they need to modernize their plans. That would be a bit of a scandal wouldn't it? "Pentagon refuses to help plan for preventing civilian casualties". That would be one reason they might BS us.

posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 10:00 PM

The Vagabond wrote: So yeah, it's probably pure BS, but they could be BSing us for a reason- for example that the military wont give FEMA the info they need to modernize their plans.

Actually it's not really news. This is from Wikipedia under the heading "Nuclear War":

During the Cold War the USSR invested in extensive protected civilian infrastructure such as large nuclear proof bunkers and non-perishable food stores. In the US, by comparison, little to no preparations were made for civilians at all, except for the occasional backyard fallout shelter built by private individuals. This was part of a deliberate strategy on the Americans' part that stressed the difference between first and second strike strategies. By leaving their population largely exposed, this gave the impression that the US had no intention of launching a first strike nuclear war, as their cities would clearly be obliterated in the retaliation.

The US also made a point during this period of targeting their missiles on Russian population centers rather than military targets. This was intended to reinforce the second strike pose. If the Soviets attacked first, then there would be no point in destroying empty missile silos that had already launched; the only thing left to hit would be cities. By contrast, if America had gone to great lengths to protect their citizens and targeted the enemy's silos, that might have led the Russians to believe the US was planning a first strike, where they would eliminate Soviet missiles while still in their silos and be able to survive a weakened counter attack in their reinforced bunkers. In this way, both sides were (theoretically) assured that the other would not strike first, and a war without a first strike will not occur.

So here we see that the idea of keeping people in the cities (and near military bases) is part of a deliberate strategy designed to make us look like we wouldn't use nukes, but this strategy isn't revealed to Americans. This theorizing in regard to Nuclear War is cute but as a citizen I'd prefer if my government didn't use cities as pieces on some poorly devised chessboard, particularly when they keep us purposefully in the dark about it.

But this policy is actually contradicted by the actions of our leaders:

Very recently (December 2003) we learned that Nixon had actually tried to bluff with nukes in 1969 in an attempt to make the Chinese/USSR think he was totally nuts. He and Kissenger called this The Madman Theory.

In late December, 2003 declassified documents published by the National Security Archives disclosed a worldwide secret nuclear alert Nixon and his national security adviser, Henry Kissinger, stage-managed from 13 Oct. to 25 Oct., 1969. The alert consisted of a series of actions to ratchet up the readiness level of nuclear forces hoping to jar Soviet officials into pressing North Vietnam to meet U.S. terms in peace negotiations. The move caused no change in Soviet policy towards North Vietnam.

The nuclear alert was based on a diplomacy-supporting stratagem Nixon called the Madman Theory, or “the principle of the threat of excessive force.” Nixon was convinced that his power would be enhanced if his opponents thought he might use excessive force, even nuclear force. That, coupled with his reputation for ruthlessness, he believed, would suggest that he was dangerously unpredictable.

...I am regularly amazed at how quickly people experience dissonance in regard to the subject of nuclear war. Americans are in total denial regarding the subject.

[edit on 10-3-2005 by smallpeeps]

posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 08:33 AM
I remember seeing maps of this type on Steven Quales website. He used to appear on Art Bells show "Coast to Coast." Im sure you can do a google and get the actual site as my memory this morning is a tad clouded. Hope this helps.

posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 06:55 PM
Yeah, Steven Quale's got a map on his site and it's pretty lo-tech compared to the maps from FEMA.

...Not really very scientific. I fail to see why Americans shouldn't demand to know more about nuke-war but I suppose most Americans think they'll just be instantly killed by a nuke so they shrug their shoulders and go on. Unfortunately HEAT arrives first with a nuke so on the outskirts of the blast, those people will combust like little matchheads before the blast wave hits seconds later. Perhaps as many as six or seven seconds later.

I guess people are cool with their last images being that of seeing their family members roasting. In heaven, all pain gets healed, right?

posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 01:02 AM

Originally posted by BattleofBatoche
Where did you get that map? Is there one for all of North America? How is Montanna & North Dakota affected? Cause I live just across the border in Saskatchewan! These two states are full of nuke silo's.

The Dakota area would get hit the worst according to that document. Look at the full document link. Almost half the state would get nuked inch for inch.

Where I live is apparent ground zero for a nuclear attack, and I dont live in a city or even within 25 miles of one. Dont nuke the suburbs! We are just slaves to capitalism and the rat race!

Maybe my backyard shed is a nuclear silo.

posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 01:32 AM
The town I live in is surrounded by Nuclear power facilities...... OH JOY

posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 12:58 PM
I am bumping my own thread because I think it's important.

Does anyone know if document FEMA-196 exists somewhere? I want to obtain a physical copy of it.

Does anyone have any comments on how little is being said about nuclear war? Do you think this is a normal way to live, ignoring the one issue that may screw humanity in a complete way?

Bird flu will leave lots of humans and life will go on. Terrorism also will not kill humans entirely. Only giant bombs pushing radioactive fire can erase us.

I went to my local library and they couldn't help me find this document. I want to see it, touch it, and know that it exists. Then, I am going to want to know why it was eliminated from the American conciousness.

I think history will look back at us and laugh its ass off. I mean, for people living in a so-called modern civilized world, we seem to be experiencing collective dissonance regarding the issue of our own mass deaths.

[edit on 16-10-2005 by smallpeeps]

posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 02:16 PM

This is the FEMA ordering document with instructions.
Write, call, or FAX, cost unknown.
I think the FEMA-196 is listed as:

Risks And Hazards (Perfect Bound)
8-0897 FEMA 196 (P-BOUND)
Publication Date: 9/1/90 Limit: 50

Also available in soft-bound, I think.
I could not find a PDF of this one at any government website.
The PDF from the download site looks like a decent copy to me.

Also listed at:

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 1990, RISKS AND HAZARDS--A STATE BY STATE GUIDE: FEMA Publication 196, 130 p. Available from FEMA, P.O. Box 70274, Washington, D.C. 20024.

[edit on 16-10-2005 by ZPE StarPilot]

[edit on 16-10-2005 by ZPE StarPilot]

posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 09:20 PM
Well I'm pretty well screwed! Damn california!

top topics


log in