I was reading that Russia has bomb shelters literally all over the place. And that almost every apartment buildings or hospitol or school has one in Russia.

Does the US have bomb shelters that citizens can goto in the event of a biological, chemical or nuclear attack?

Does anyone think that we should?

It might be overboard since chances are if you need to use one, the world is probably screwed anyways. But in the event of a terrorirst setting off just one nuke, it could save people's lives who can get underground or into a proper shelter to wait out the fallout and still have a planet to live on when it is all over.

I was just thinking that I dont know of any place I could go if a terrorist ever used a biological, chemical, or nuclear weapon.

Are there places out there?

i doubt they r public knowledge if they exist as they would become targets and would just be blown up if 30 nukes hit it, as for Russia and their shelters well if we know were they are Bunker buster nukes would destroy them so they waste time unless an astreroid hits and people have enough tiime to reach shelters......

Originally posted by Ritual
Does the US have bomb shelters that citizens can goto in the event of a biological, chemical or nuclear attack?

Citizens? We, the sheep? Yer outta luck, bud. If you're not a high government official or top CEO, yer not worth saving.

Welcome to the machine, all you "worthless feeders."

Originally posted by EastCoastKid

Originally posted by Ritual
Does the US have bomb shelters that citizens can goto in the event of a biological, chemical or nuclear attack?

Citizens? We, the sheep? Yer outta luck, bud. If you're not a high government official or top CEO, yer not worth saving.

Welcome to the machine, all you "worthless feeders."

then again, the really, really top level elites wouldn't get holed up
...they'd be 'in-the-loop' and already be in a safe area outside the country,
perhaps on a Diplotmatic Jaunt or a 'fact finding mission' and all at taxpayer expense !

how deliciously wicked

Originally posted by St Udio
then again, the really, really top level elites wouldn't get holed up
...they'd be 'in-the-loop' and already be in a safe area outside the country,
perhaps on a Diplotmatic Jaunt or a 'fact finding mission' and all at taxpayer expense !

how deliciously wicked

Indeed!

During the Cold War I would see several buildings on each base with a sign designating it as a "FALLOUT SHELTER."

As it was stated above, it was mostly gymnasiums and cement/brick buildings.

Haven't seen one in a long time. Perhaps it is because weaponry had advanced to biological and chemical warfare. Naturally, these buildings would be useless.

I think the government is much more concerned with bio/chem warfare than with nukes. There is no immunity for us common folk. Setting up camp in a fortified building would be useless these days. FEMA also reserves the right to use these structures as command centres. We would be told to remain in our own dwellings.

Yes, there are "unaccounted for" nuclear weapons. But the threat of a nuclear attack is much less than a bio/chem attack.

Plus, take a look at 9-11 attack on the Pentagon and WTC. A nuclear bomb wasn't needed to penetrate their structures. Though the debate continues as to whether they were jets or bombs, they were infiltrated and obliterated.

Today's method of warfare is non-conventional, non-traditional, and more unpredictable than days' past. It isn't a debate as to whether or not we are sheep, it is simply the by-product of psychological and information-based warfare.

Dot.

Well would the US use Nuclear weapons if a single Nuclear weapon was used on a US city?

Im not sure because why would they end the world when they could possibly avoid it.

Chernobyl to this day is uninhabitable. 80% of people born within hundreds of miles of that accident has deformed babies.

Dropping Nucleaar weapons is guaranteed to turn that place into waste land for thousands of years ++.

So an enemy might potentially get away with using a small nuclear weapon. The retalitation might be alot of conventional explosives and maybe some small nuclear weapons of their own.

Else anything more and you risk ending life on this planet all together for everybody, not just the victims and the agrressor.

So bomb shelters make sense. I think any logical person is more likely to use a low yield nuclear weapon, versus dozens. And the big one's are not needed, at all.

But cant expect the US Govt. to actually use their brain.

Not many smart people in the world unfortunatly.

My building (pre-war) has a fallout shelter. Nobody really thinks of these things anymore, MAD is pretty much done with. If the needs arises, most people can find some sort of safety somewhere. I doubt there's food stocked up, though.

The signs are awesome, though. I'm thinking about *NOT* taking it when I go to college.

It is scary that the US doesnt bomb the hell out of anyone who test Nuclear weapons.

It is poor for the environment.

We should wage war on anyone who does on the notion that we were one of the firsto test them and we found out how hazardous they are to the planet.

We should give people enough evidence and then if they dont want to heed to the warning, we should wage war.

Hopefully Russia and China dont test these things anymore.

For all we know radioactive isotopes could try and "reform" into their prior selves and release some kind of pollutant that turns the Earth's atmosphere into toxic gas over the hundreds of years.

That stuff is way too scary, and as humans we just cant play with it like there is no danger.


All of the Nuclear capable countries shoudl make an agreement to not test weapons, or they all wage war.

Originally posted by Ritual
It is scary that the US doesnt bomb the hell out of anyone who test Nuclear weapons.

It is poor for the environment.

We should wage war on anyone who does on the notion that we were one of the firsto test them and we found out how hazardous they are to the planet.

We should give people enough evidence and then if they dont want to heed to the warning, we should wage war.

Hopefully Russia and China dont test these things anymore.

For all we know radioactive isotopes could try and "reform" into their prior selves and release some kind of pollutant that turns the Earth's atmosphere into toxic gas over the hundreds of years.

That stuff is way too scary, and as humans we just cant play with it like there is no danger.


All of the Nuclear capable countries shoudl make an agreement to not test weapons, or they all wage war.

What's your name? Remind me not to vote for you.

Waging war JUST because they have weapons is absurd. You wage war because they attacked you, or are a serious threat to you and it is worth attacking early (before they are 'fully operational')

I see a lot of contradictions here. Namely, the "this is really dangerous, we can't just play around with it" combined with the "bomb the hell out of anyone who has em." that's the least productive option, BECAUSE they have nukes. Just the environment? What about human life for centuries to come?

Also, I think everyone understands what happens when you use a nuke BECAUSE we tested them first.

Sending radioactive isotopes into the atmoshphere which then floats over my head and gives us all the chance of contracting cancer or birth defects is not an attack?

That is an attack as far as I am concerned.

Maybe you should pass the 5th grade before trying to contradict someone.

Remind me to never allow you into a position in any of my intelligence agencies.

Originally posted by Ritual
Maybe you should pass the 5th grade before trying to contradict someone.

You might want to read what you write, it could do you some good.

I won't argue with you here, we're off topic. Feel free to message me if you want to carry on, I might enjoy it.

You said I would wage war on anyone with the weapons. So it is you who needs to learn how to read.

No I said to wage war on anyone who detonated them, even if it meant testing them out int he middle of nowhere.

Please go listen to your Marilyn Manson and depress about how you just got OWNED> Turn all of your angry energy you get listenting to your dumb music by unplugging your internet ocnnection for good. Thank you.



[edit on 26-3-2005 by Ritual]

Originally posted by Ritual
You said I would wage war on anyone with the weapons. So it is you who needs to learn how to read.

No I said to wage war on anyone who detonated them, even if it meant testing them out int he middle of nowhere.

Please go listen to your Marilyn Manson and depress about how you just got OWNED> Turn all of your angry energy you get listenting to your dumb music by unplugging your internet ocnnection for good. Thank you.

I bet someone's pressed an "IGNORE" button by now. Grin.

The United States continues to detonate and test weaponry on a daily basis. With that frame of thought, we'd have been wiped off the map long ago.

It is pathetic that when our allies test their weaponry, the US remains mum. When a nation that is not under our thumb begins testing, we sometimes impose sanctions and "punish" the nation.

True, some of these nations's leaders are considered rogue and psychotic, and that is where I can see your point. But the United States must take into account the general populace of these nations. Most of them are either blissfully unaware, or are terrified to act upon their leader.

(A liberal might argue that our nation has these similarities...grin)

But we can't go around bombing countries for their injustices. I personally think that testing a weapon in a controlled situation is not an injustice. It is an injustice when tested on its people.

There are simply too many nations. If we were to do so, we would be accused once again of trying to enstate a New World Order.

(Which a liberal might argue that our nation is already doing)

Hence, we have The United Nations.

(Which a liberal might argue is a pointless organization guilty of breaking its own rules...if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.)

Tracking who has what is also impossible.

Dot.

ps... Brian Warner is quite intelligent, and has revealed more of his intelligence in recent years. His method of expression confuses most, but he's actually a decent, quiet man.


[edit on 26-3-2005 by dotgov101]