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.


If America was nuked...

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 11:23 AM
If America was nuked or their was a release of a biochemical agent what part of the country do you think would be the most safe to reside in?

posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 11:27 AM
I suppose the safest part would be the furthest distance upwind from the attack. So it kind of depends on where the attack happened.

posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 11:30 AM
There will be no safe place in country because..if it is Russia or China the response is full retaliation.. NK likely can't get one by THAAD in Hawaii. So assuming a suitcase nuke or some other terrorist device is smuggled in that presents some interesting scenarios.

posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 11:37 AM
Praemonitus Praemunitus
Forewarned is Forearmed

Just thought I would add applicable material

posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 11:38 AM
Hawaii? You might have a better chance of surviving but you wouldn't be getting supplies anytime soon. After a couple weeks you could start growing your own food. Plus the pacific missile range could be an asset .. Barking Sands covers the whole west coast of the US.

posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 11:52 AM
reply to post by djpyro21

Good jetstream maps, much easier for folks to visualize.

One other thing to consider: if you're talking about a large nuclear exchange, then you also have to blot out a huge portion of the upper US midwest as "safe"...we have a ton of missile installations there. So, while the jetstream maps make South Dakota seem like a decent place to lay low, that area would actually be hit very hard in a full nuke exchange.

posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 12:25 PM
reply to post by SkepticalSteve


Actually, it depends on various factors. The likeliest place to even survive would be in an island, but even then there will be hardships. Unless one can resort to living like they did in the old times, then at least you have a chance of a life.

posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 12:36 PM
Wow missouri is in a bad place, I guess the only hope would be deep cave systems. I doubt they would let us know in time though. My best bet is here on the forum as we have eyes around the planet...

posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 01:49 PM
I'm not the smartest person. I don't understand what jet streams are. Is this what the biological chemicals would travel on?

Personally I'm all for what someone else said. Cave systems. If anyone wants to join me I'm thinking of starting a morlock civilization.

posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 02:09 PM
I would've assumed the unsafest places would be the major metropolitan areas like New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, DC to name a few. I never thought about a place like South Dakota being nuked since not too many people live there. But I guess it makes perfect sense to destroy areas with high volume of missile silos. Are there missile silos/installations in every state? Anyone know of any in California? Just curious.

posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 04:04 PM
Not sure how accurate these images are, but it might give you an idea about military nuclear targets effecting fallout patterns:

And below is a similar chart, sited as a FEMA map, but not actually found on the FEMA site.

Take 'em both with a grain of salt, but it might give some idea how pervasive fallout would be in a full-out nuclear exchange.

Don't get too panicked though...such an exchange isn't too likely and fallout can actually be managed.

posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 04:10 PM
reply to post by Vault-D

Hmm, seems I'm safe right where I'm currently living.

posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 01:20 AM
Hmm, California has a huge bulls eye right in the middle.

posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 01:48 AM
reply to post by Vault-D

Is there a fallout risk map available for Canada too? I hope so. I never really worried about the possibility of a nuclear war until the late 80's and that's because of a dream I had. Ever since then I have been on edge about it.

posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 01:12 AM

Originally posted by SkepticalSteve
reply to post by Vault-D

Hmm, seems I'm safe right where I'm currently living.


safe from a "LOW" level of nuclear radiation fallout.

have fun.


posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 01:38 AM
Lets just hope america doesnt get nuked. If it did... it would certainly be the start of world war 3/end of the world. Because then we would nuke them, and theyd nuke us, and wed nuke them... and it would keep going until we were all dead, from the explosions, and the people who survived that would die from cancers and other deformations caused by radiation. Radiation can last for years and years, and can spread to huge amounts of land. No one would be safe.

So, lets just hope life doesnt go that route anytime soon.

posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 01:56 AM
Oh good grief.
Was looking at that "Fallout" map and I am in a "Deep Red" colored area. Eh, maybe because we have a missile base in the state.

As Joshua said on Wargames "The only winning movie is ... Not to Play"

posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 01:16 AM
Pretty much, the only way to avoid nuclear fallout is get to a country that A. Hasn't been nuked B. Is not downwind of a country that has.
Let's face it, if there's a ww3 just gone off, there will be so much nasty in the atmosphere, I don't think anywhere would be safe. I would guess southern latin america, southern africa, maybes australasia, and both arctic circles...
If I remember correctly, the order of attack during SHTF scenario is
1. Nuclear facilities (silos and power stations)
2. Military installations (command and control, airports, facilities)
3. Densely populated areas (so many head per square mile, large payloads)
4. Areas of possible military strategic importance (staging areas, communications, docks, depots, etc)
5 Less dense population areas (so many head per square mile, smaller payloads)

Pretty much these will all be hit in a matter of hours, if not minutes.
There is an equation that is pretty basic in regards nukes aimed at populations, and it is basically how many deaths per dollar spent on the nuke. There is a cut-off point where nations won't waste the exspensive nuke, as it isn't going to kill enough people to make it worth while - the law of diminishing returns. I'm serious. It's like an efficiency of deaths per dollar equation.
I know US's first high population density salvo at Russia was estimated to take out 38 to 54 million people. You can expect nations have the same thing drawn up with regards to targetting the US.

posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 01:20 AM
Safest place?

Mars...until they blow that up, too.

"You stinkin commie! Mars is our planet!"

"Mars is the red planet, you capitalist pig!"

"Oh sh*t...they're right. Alright...nuke it."

posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 02:00 AM
I don't think there is a safe place considering all the nukes each side has and then again who would want to live in that world after the ruin also.

Now that we are on the subject of nukes, I would like to "really" know the reason why they put a ban on "lead paint". This would be a good shield from radiation from a nuke, would it not. if you were to paint a city with lead paint would that lesson the impact from radiation say 200 miles away. this has been bouncing in my head for years.

I know some of you are going to say "kids were eating the wall paint and getting lead poisoned", cumon!!. More people had died from drunk drivers then lead poison back then.

<<   2 >>

log in