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.


Nuclear preparedness and some general questions...

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 01:18 PM
I know this subject is common here but I would like to ask some additional questions.

First, where do you think/known would be likely targets in North America, assuming a large scale nuclear strike against NATO/USA.

Secondly, assuming cities, ports and large military bases are hit in the 1-5Mt range, how far from the epicenter of the strike do you anticipate for reasonable chance of survival (including fallout) assuming you had proper supplies and knowledge of how to shelter yourself until safe to surface.

Thirdly, outside of an underground shelter, what would be the safest place to barricade yourself in a semi-urban area, what about an apartment? I would assume anywhere without windows and as close to the center of the structure as possible?

And lastly, with current events and pressure mounting in Iran, how likely do you think an escalation if events leading to a nuclear exchange is? And at what degree of inconvienance are you willing to put yourself at today in order to increase your chances of surviving (moving?).

For discussion sake, I live in Halifax, a major port city on the east coast of Canada. While I know Canada would not be in the middle of any such conflict, I'm sure our status in NATO and proximity to the US would have my city on one of the first strike target lists.

posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 01:28 PM
Just privately, I dont think anyone would waste a nuke on Canada. And Im not even joking. Why on earth would anyone want to hit Canada? After all the US involvement in the middle east over the last few decades, Id think theyd save the nuke for another US target..just seems logical.

posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 01:40 PM
I'm talking 100% about a large scale global nuclear war. Not islamic (or other) terrorists. I have little or no worry about being the victim of some suitcase bomb because like you said, they have no reason to attack canada, let alone a smaller city like mine.

But during the cold war, there were many many Canadian targets on the Russian strike lists. Most of the Northeastern united states imports its power from Canada, as well as the major ports on the East and West coast that the American Navy uses during wartime.

Of course the likelihood of some sort of cold-war style situation X is much less likely than a single terrorist cell activating a suitcase or dirty bomb in the states, it is much more frightening. And in such an exchange there would most certainly be many nukes hitting Canadian soil. It's not like Russia (for example) doesn't have enough nukes to wipe out every major city in the US, Canada and the UK and still have tons left over.

[edit on 29-8-2007 by koytetsu]

posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 12:21 PM

Let me see if I can answer your questions, and also give you some links for some tools that may help your quest for knowlage on the subject.

First, the primary targets in a massive attack would be our nuclear silos and larger military installations to minimize retaliatory strikes to the agressor, secondary targets would be smaller bases and possibly large cities. Now with a Terrorist style nuclear attack it would be cities that would be the primary targets.

Second, to get an idea of damage that a bomb would do to a city, here's a link to a damage calculator for a nuclear weapon, its interesting, and you can put any city on it (given you know its coordinates, and adjust the yield of the hypothetical bomb: Nuclear Detonation Simulator
Here is a link to a sample fallout map from FEMA : External Picture Link

Thirdly, I have an ebook link in my signature that has all sorts of helpful info on impromptu/expidited shelters including how to turn your house into a shelter.

Lastly, I do not think that a full scale nuclear exchange would ever come from Iran. The main worries of large scale would be from china/russia still. In my opinion, the most we could even imagine to see from Iran is small tactical terrorist attacks using

posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 02:21 PM
Thanks for those great links, drop.

What I meant with Iran is an escalation branching from a conflict in Iran. I wouldn't worry at all about Iran itself but if the US were to use nuclear weapons or even invade Iran, it could set off a chain of events angering and involving the real nuclear powers in the region.

posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 02:28 PM
We accually discuss some of that in the Nuclear Fallout Survival Thread. If you haven't read that one, as long as you weed through the ramblings of a anti-preparedness naysayer that is no longer an issue in our forum, there is a lot of good information on this whole subject.

posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 08:59 PM
Your first question can only apply to Russia, so I will respond only to that. The reason for this, every other nuclear power can not take on America AND NATO. there isn't enough warheads in the other countries counting China.

You have to think in terms of WW3 not WW2. There is a big difference. WW3 is a first strike only then try to absorb the return hit. Everything is already built and in place for this war. That means military bases, naval ports, military airfields, and missile silos. The cities would be held in response to a second or third wave attack. There is nothing that says, "ALL missiles will be launched the first day, first week, or first month". We have subs and so do the Russians. Both countries will be extremely p**sed at one another and both will try to take out the remaining military / government in place.

The blast damage depends on several factors, you can find resources all over the internet for this. I live about 10 miles from the center of a large city I would deem a target on a second strike. I have a reinforced basement that I believe will stand up to a one megaton blast from that range. Whether a five megaton bomb would be used on my city, I'm not a Russia military planner. It would make more sense to have five of them targeted for my city in a ring pattern. One may or may not make the trip due to any number of failures that could happen. Five failures of different warheads is highy unlikely.

There are any number of sites that provide information on shelters. Some are simple and some are very elaborate.

Iran is nothing. Don't fall for the propaganda from either side. Even if they happen to build a bomb and mount it on a missile, they have too many neighbors, not including Israel, that will handle them. China and Russia will fall under their missiles long before they have the capability to have missiles that can reliably hit the USA.

Now for you, go look at Ebay and look for dosimeters (and the charger) and CDV-700 Geiger counters. The State of Kansas is selling pallets of this stuff from the Civil Defense program. For less than $100, you can have yourself fairly well covered for any nuclear event.

Halifax has a shortwave station that broadcasts maritime and NATO information. Yeah, your a target...

posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 06:10 PM
An easy read for some excellent information can be found at

posted on Sep, 22 2007 @ 08:01 AM
I want to say this first and foremost. All out nuclear war is highly unlikely. The US has been freely offering access to fallout data generated by super-computer to all the world's scientific community for years. Both the Russians and Chinese figured out that even if they had the most completely successful first strike possible against the US, the US would still have enough capability after it to completely destroy every major military and industrial center in both countries.

2ndly, the US does have some missile defense capability which means a first strike won't be completely successful. I believe the Russians have some as well. If you didn't think that the Russian's military's hackles weren't raised when we knocked down Iraq's Scud missiles during the 1st Gulf War with a point defense missile, you've obviously living in a cave somewhere. Despite Russia's economic woes, their core defense research establishment has never stood still. They are every bit as ingenious as they've always been.

The best use of nukes against any nation will be against vital infrastructure like dams, oil refineries and logistic centers. Those nukes would most likely be tactical in size in the kiloton range. To destroy a dam with one you wouldn't even have to be close, just drop it in the water up stream as much as mile away and the shockwave in the water will break the dam like it was balloon.

new topics

top topics


log in