Survivalist: Nuclear Fallout Survival

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 06:52 AM
link   
Actually, I think the possibility of MAD is more probable now more than ever. We have better tracking systems, and more countries with nukes. France, NK, Israel, Pakistan, India, etc. all have ICBMs and axes to grind. Let's say that one quasi-communist/fascist tinpot dictator finally LOSES it. He launches at the US, or US assets. Regardless of whether the nuke strikes or not, a whack of countries are going to notice a nuke flying around, not neccesarily knowing where it's coming from.

Now, should the US attempt a counterstrike (NK is my BIG worry here) and the Russians see it, they have but a few seconds to decide whether that nuke is headed to Pyongyang or Vladivostok. Or maybe the CHinese see it, etc. Do they take it on faith, or launch? If they launch, France sees it, Iran...and we have a chain reaction of colossal screwups.

As for Ol' Blighty...well, best of luck my limey homeboys. I'd be surprised if there was enough of the Isles left to stand on once the smoke clears.

DE




posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 09:18 AM
link   
I tend to disagree DuesEx for exactly some of the reasons you point out. The heavily militarized nations (US, former USSR, China and Western Europe) have significantly more sophisticated launch detection and tracking capabilities. Any massive attack would necessitate ICBM's. The origin and targets of these could be determined accurately within just a minute or so of their 20min+/- flights. That gives the nation on the receiving side ample time to launch a devastating counter attack. What nation could survive that?

Let's say, for discussion, China decides to go for it. We detect launches but at the same time China's subs start SLBM launches. Our hunter-killer subs detect the preparations to launch. They know they are Chinese (by their sonar signatures). Some will successfully launch others will be sunk in the process. In the meantime our SLBM's, ICBM.s and longrange nuclear bombers would proceed to devastate every Chinese city, seaport, industrial center, power generation facility, military installation, airport and anything else of value. Our roaming hunter-killer subs would proceed to sink every Chinese vessle they could find. Others, having been tracked by satellite since leaving port, would be attacked by cruise missles. We would be heavily damaged, no doubt. But the attacking country would be devasted as well. Who wins? No country would risk it. There's simply no margin in it.

There are very few countries in the world that have sufficient nuclear stockpiles to be able to launch a truly devastating attack. Those with a small number of weapons would essentially be erased if they decided to attack us. So again, I don't believe the 50's/60's MAD scenario is at all likely in this day and age. Not impossible, mind you, but a far smaller risk than it was back then. I reiterate my concern, however, that a non-affiliated organization (like al-Qeda) would be willing to attack us by pre-positioning weapons. Who would we retaliate against? They aren't a country.



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 09:36 AM
link   
Wanna hear mine? I'm going to devote my life to changing the world instead of focusing on the negative and in turn manifesting it into reality. As long as we sit around and dwell on this something that is going to happen, then the more probability there is that it will happen. Don't let it happen, don't live in fear. Have a voice of peace, love, reason, and change.

♥~Infinite love and eternal peace~♥

[edit on 19-10-2006 by UbiquitousInfiniteReality]



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by jtma508
I tend to disagree DuesEx for exactly some of the reasons you point out. The heavily militarized nations (US, former USSR, China and Western Europe) have significantly more sophisticated launch detection and tracking capabilities. Any massive attack would necessitate ICBM's. The origin and targets of these could be determined accurately within just a minute or so of their 20min+/- flights. That gives the nation on the receiving side ample time to launch a devastating counter attack. What nation could survive that?


I would say that 20 minutes is not enough time. If NK launches, and US subs counterlaunch, how long do the Chinese have until the missile potentially strikes Vladivostok or Beijing? Not twenty minutes, I daresay. Plus, I thought ICBMs were deliberately made to counter tradjectory tracking stuff. They'll know the missiles are there, but where they are going or where they came from...

As for your points about AQ and similiar organizations, I would say that there IS a target for counterstrikes. Hezbollah is, for instance, an Iranian proxy, as AQ was an Afghani one. With the current situation deteriorating rapidly in Pakistan (recent coup attempts) we could see a MAD scenario or WMD armed terrorists running about sooner rather than later.

DE



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by UbiquitousInfiniteReality
Wanna hear mine? I'm going to devote my life to changing the world instead of focusing on the negative and in turn manifesting it into reality. As long as we sit around and dwell on this something that is going to happen, then the more probability there is that it will happen. Don't let it happen, don't live in fear. Have a voice of peace, love, reason, and change.


Fine, hug a thug, snuggle up to a tree. You've added absolutely nothing of worth to the conversation. In the meantime, the rest of us are preparing for a potential bump in the road ahead.

DE



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 09:52 AM
link   
Prepare for war and war you will create. On the contrary, prepare for Heaven and love, and it is Heaven and love that will arrive. Survival is of preperation; then prepare for that, that entails eternal survival and not a temporary illusion of solution.

♥~Infinite love and eternal peace~♥

[edit on 19-10-2006 by UbiquitousInfiniteReality]



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 10:10 AM
link   
Wow, vague words. See how much it helps us? See how much it contributes?

NOT AT ALL!

Again, if you want to wish away the evils of the world, do so somewhere else. We're here to discuss actual, physical scenarios and preparations for radiological issues. Curling up in a fetal ball and wishing for world peace and love has really worked these lo twenty thousand years, hasn't it?

Back on topic.

In the case of the 'dirty bomb', how far would the fallout spread? Would it keep spreading if weather conditions helped it along? What about a localized nuclear war, how much fallout would that put into the general atmosphere, capable of reaching North America? I'm thinking of, of course, India and Pakistan. Pakistan, ever teh troublemaker.

DE



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 10:11 AM
link   
If someone detonates a dirty bomb at a football game, would you need to worry about fallout?



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 10:13 AM
link   
Well I am happy that I have found several others who are interested in this topic beyond myself.

Some great comments by some, some not-so-great by others.

To rebutt those who suggest that preparing for a possible scenario such as this (which the majority of these preparations could be utilized in multiple non-nuclear scenarios) is a waste of time/effort or creates fear. Let me ask those people a question. Do you have a contigency plan if your house burns down? How about a plan just in case you get into a horrible car accident and can't work for some time? Have you ever thought about what you would do if you were driving during a thunderstorm and saw a tornado touch down heading your way?

I really see no difference, a contingency plan is a contingency plan. If you do not think its going to happen and don't want to make plans, that is your perogative. But don't preach to us that we're wrong in our thoughts. If we would like to gather togeather in this thread and brainstorm, let us. If you do not have anything constructive to add to this thread, don't. I did not start this thread asking for opinions on if a nuclear attack on US soil is a possibilty or if it is fearmongering. I asked for people to post information on how to prepare IF such a scenario would happen.

I myself care about my family enough to do whatever I can to protect them from anything that I percieve as a possible life-threatening event. Be it a natural or, in this case, a man-made disaster.

[edit on 19-10-2006 by DropInABucket]



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 10:14 AM
link   
dirty bombs have a max 100km footprint
India and Pakistang fighting a full scale nuclear war should not affect North America, or even Europe. (think about all the nuclear tests made in USA, Russia and pasific)



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by DeusEx
Wow, vague words. See how much it helps us? See how much it contributes?

NOT AT ALL!

Again, if you want to wish away the evils of the world, do so somewhere else. We're here to discuss actual, physical scenarios and preparations for radiological issues. Curling up in a fetal ball and wishing for world peace and love has really worked these lo twenty thousand years, hasn't it?

Back on topic.

In the case of the 'dirty bomb', how far would the fallout spread? Would it keep spreading if weather conditions helped it along? What about a localized nuclear war, how much fallout would that put into the general atmosphere, capable of reaching North America? I'm thinking of, of course, India and Pakistan. Pakistan, ever teh troublemaker.

DE


Thank you for your reply. That is also what I am here to discuss and am discussing. If you wish for war then continue to focus your interests in it. If you wish for love then spread love and love will be created. Do you see the difference between the two of us? You are spreading war and fear. I am spreading love and happiness with confidence. This is beyond fact and happen, it is a matter of reality and consciousness.

♥~Infinite Love and Eternal Peace~♥

[edit on 19-10-2006 by UbiquitousInfiniteReality]



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 10:36 AM
link   
In regards to a Dirty Bomb, the affectted area is rather small, basically as far as the conventional explosives can project the radioactive material. Anyone downwind for a limited distance (a few miles) may be at risk of radiation poisoning and would need to either evacuate quickly (going perpendicular to the wind) or make for thier local fallout shelter until given the all clear by thier local authorities. A dirty bomb is made to irradiate a "stratigic" area, in the current football stadium threat the stratagy would be just to kill as many people as possible with the radiation.

On the other hand a nuclear device, depending on the size, can send fallout (radiation soaked particles of dust/dirt/rock) miles into the atmosphere. The larger particles of fallout fall closer to the explosion (think the dust that settled in the reletively small section of NYC after the towers collapsed, but on a larger scale depending on the KT rating of the device) this close area has a much higher radiation concentration then the effected areas downwind, but the areas downwind for hundreds of miles may still be at risk of life-threatening fallout.

Also fallout varies depending on if the bomb is atmospherically detonated (icbms, or bombs dropped from planes) versus a ground detonated (truckbomb, shipping container). The ground detonated, though the initial blast damage is not as much as a atmo det nuke, the ground det will create a large crater and throw much more dirt and dust into the air, thus creating much more fallout.

The prevailing winds run west to east, so if you are west of the explosion you are at a much lower risk of fallout.

***edited for typos***

[edit on 19-10-2006 by DropInABucket]



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 10:41 AM
link   
Situation 'X' is a very real and probably a very near threat to us, all due to the fact we were dumb enough to elect mentally unstable leaders for our countries.

No matter what happens when a Nuclear bomb detonates, there is always a backlash of radiation, ecological and sizemic problems that will effect us all.

Depending on the weather etc, radiation will spread over the world quicker or slower.

Ecological problems of contamiation, destruction of the areas surrounding the inital blast point.

Sizemic problems if it was a land blast. (eg earthquakes etc)

There is no molly-coddling, its a frightning fact that we got into ourselves, and unless we can figure out a way to stop nuclear production....were screwed.

As for survival.

Yes, masks, radiation suits, underground bunkers etc will work for a time being...but we all require one thing....AIR.

To gain air there must be a recycling unit...and thats probably been contaminated by the radiation.

There is a good film/program out a few years ago called 'On the Beach'

It was about a nuclear fallout and the following few months of what happens etc.

Very emotion, very scary and probably coming to a planet near you very soon!



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 11:32 AM
link   
What about high-altitude nuclear strikes? That would be another concern, I
suppose. Would it be reasonable to assume that nukes used as EMP weapons would have their radioactive content too widely distrubuted to constitute an immediate threat to your personal safety?

DE



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 01:46 PM
link   
Thanks for your post.

Of course you do realise that I was saying all this with my tongue very much in my cheek.

I was trying to make the point that many people throughout the world, regard Mr Bush as little more than a trained monkey, and not a very well trained mnokey at that! His willingness to solve problems with military action leaves a lot to be desired and the continual warnings to Iran that military action is still on the table and threatening North Korea with sanctions are to me, akin to red rags to a very blinkered bull.

However, I do believe that when he leaves office, US foreign policy will shift more towards political solutions than military intervention which hopefully, will be good for all of us.

I bow to your wisdom and accept your very mild manered rebuke re political spoutings on this thread and apologise unreservedly if I caused offense.

As to my reposte about the exchange of UK/US weapons if we do not get our independence back.................well come on! That was a joke!


With regards to the chap who tragically flew into a building, I thought he was a pop star and did not realise he was a baseball pitcher.

Incidentially, those specs for the 'fallout trench and shelter' were what I used to teach my guys during NBC lessons, and are still taught today - well at least the trench bit is.



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Berketex
No matter what happens when a Nuclear bomb detonates, there is always a backlash of radiation, ecological and sizemic problems that will effect us all.


How much reading up on Nuclear Weapon detonations and thier after effects have you read? From your post, I figure not much if any. A Nuclear Weapon going off nearby is not the end of world. The radiation from fallout decreases by a 7:10 scale, as in if the radiation reading was initially 1000 R/hr within 7 hours it would be 100 R/hr (still pretty bad), in 49 hours it would be 10 R/hr (much better, you could go outside for several hours without getting sick), in 343 hours (14 days), the reading would be 1 R/hr so miniscule that you wouldn't feel a thing. And remeber this is radiating from dust/dirt-like particles that can be washed off of stuff to decontaminate them.


Yes, masks, radiation suits, underground bunkers etc will work for a time being...but we all require one thing....AIR.


If you had ever looked at any design for fallout shelters, you would see that air is easily avaliable, it just needs to be filtered to make sure that no radioactive fallout particles enter the shelter. A simple furnace filter would do the trick for this.


To gain air there must be a recycling unit...and thats probably been contaminated by the radiation.


You really don't know much about radiation. Say you have a radioactive fallout particle stuck in a filter for an air system. It isn't going to blow out radioactive air, its going to blow out the air and that particle that is radiating won't be floating in the air to get stuck in someone's nose or lungs.

Time to stop believing the myths about nuclear winter and the end of the world.

Look at the ebook link in my sig...they dispell some of those myths.



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeusEx
What about high-altitude nuclear strikes?


The high altitude bursts would create minimal radioactive particles (not many solid particles up there). And being detonated so high up for maximum EMP coverage (if done correctly can wipe out communications for 1000+ miles) the particles would float among the stratosphere where they radiation would decay before they ever, if ever touched the ground.



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 02:55 PM
link   
Yes im aware its not the end of the world!

(unless the nuke smacks you on the head!)


Unlike some people on this board i am not completly paranoid about recent events..

we got ourselves into this mess, and we'll need to make it out one way or another.

As for Nuclear warhead yeilds....WTF would i want to read up on it?

And the airborne particles...yeah i know....i never said they would dispel radiactive air....i just said it would be contaminated.

Im not a gun/armour/war crazed person who is looking for faults in what people say all the time....im stating a little information i know...yes it may be wrong but i have every right and intention to speak my mind.

And in your, OH SO CONDENSENDING MANOR, i do read a lot....just not about things that will kill me because some moronic twat pushed a big red button!

[edit on 19-10-2006 by Berketex]



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by jtma508
these would likely be in the 200kt range.

Sure, please explain how someone would be able to smuggle a 200kt nuke??
Better yet..a "suitcase" bomb would not reach the 10kt...at best, so unless you live downtown of a major US city (the obvious and clear target of an attack) There won't be much fallout of radiation you will have to worry about...



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 03:34 PM
link   
I apologize if I was condicending, and looking back I was a bit. Not usually like that, but thats not an excuse. *waiting patiently for his mod warning*

I was not questioning your intelligence, just your knowlage of the topic. Deny Ignorance and all that jazz. Also just trying to state that there are a lot of myths out there that people believe to be true in regards to nuclear weapons, fallout, and the like. Nuclear Winter, and the effects of fallout seem to be the main ones.

I don't concider myself a gun/armor/war crazed person in the least. War is the last thing that I want, I find the idea of killing others for political/religious/economical reasons repugnant. I just happen to have a bit of knowlage through research regarding this topic, and I'm always open to learn new things. And I know that there are many on the boards that know much more then me on the topic. Just waiting patiently for them to have the time to post.

I simply want to protect the ones I love. And spread the word that this scenario is possible so others might jump on the bandwagon and be prepared just in case.

Only a couple of pages and this thread has already derailed quite a bit. Lets get back on topic. And please if you would like to add to the conversation, make sure that you clearly seperate facts from opinions.





top topics
 
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join