Nuclear-Resistant Shelters

There is no shelter that is completely nuclear-proof. Much like "bullet-proof glass", such terms are comfortable misnomers used to placate the general public. Even Cheyenne Mountain's facility could be razed to the ground with enough nuclear strikes.

For the sake of our examples, let us consider the LGM-118A Peacekeeper, a now-defunct ICBM (Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile). The point is not the ICBM itself, but rather the 8 to 10 W87 thermonuclear warheads on it. Each has the potential for 300 to 475 kiloton yield. Envision our worst-case scenario: all ten warheads striking the exact same area in a bombardment, one after another, in such rapid succession that the explosion is more like a single 4,750 kiloton blast. By comparison, it would take 227 B-29 Bombers dropping Nagasaki "Fat Man"-style bombs simultaneously to reach the same effect.

Obviously, at a weight of 600 pounds, the warhead could be non-nuclear (or not even weaponized for that matter), crash from 40,000 feet through the door of most any non-hardened structure, and cause severe to total structural damage. However, suppose that you've picked a decent location that is well enough away from PITAPs (Pain In The "Butt" Passersby), and all you really need to worry about is surviving the radioactive fallout.

For that, I'm still digging for resources. I thought I had a decent source when I started this thread, but I just realized my error and found out this source is pretty much full of it. So, if anyone can dig up decent sources, by all means, please do so. In the meantime, I will search for something more substantial than what I started out with.

After reading and re reading your post,what is the question your posing?I'm assuming your question is..
Is there a nuke proof shelter??

The question is more: what resources are available for constructing a nuclear-resistant shelter? I'm sorry if that was not clear.

Anyone with resources on plans, materials necessary, etc., please chime in.

this is one of the best online sources..a lil out dated and crude at times..Worth lookin into..
www.oism.org...

Ive done some research on this..and have come across, you would have to have about 6 inches of steel around you. The bigest thing you need worry about, especially ground zero, is gamma and beta rays..the nasty radiation. Youve have to be entomed in at leat 6 inches of steel ro 3 feet of water, minimum, for prtoection.

Originally posted by ziggy1706
Ive done some research on this..and have come across, you would have to have about 6 inches of steel around you. The bigest thing you need worry about, especially ground zero, is gamma and beta rays..the nasty radiation. Youve have to be entomed in at leat 6 inches of steel ro 3 feet of water, minimum, for prtoection.

The best metal for radiation protection is lead. But the biggest problem would be the Gamma radiation. Nothing we could get our hands on can stop gamma rays.

all ten warheads striking the exact same area in a bombardment, one after another, in such rapid succession that the explosion is more like a single 4,750 kiloton blast.

the problem with that idea is a condition called nuclear fratricide that keep more then a couple nukes from detonating

Another less-expensive idea for MX basing was called "dense pack," in which 100 missiles would be emplaced in super-hardened silos spaced 1,800 feet apart. The theory was that during a full-scale nuclear attack on the United States the first wave of detonations over the closely-packed silos would predetonate subsequent incoming ICBM warheads, thereby protecting most silos by "nuclear fratricide."

Originally posted by ANNED

all ten warheads striking the exact same area in a bombardment, one after another, in such rapid succession that the explosion is more like a single 4,750 kiloton blast.

the problem with that idea is a condition called nuclear fratricide that keep more then a couple nukes from detonating

Another less-expensive idea for MX basing was called "dense pack," in which 100 missiles would be emplaced in super-hardened silos spaced 1,800 feet apart. The theory was that during a full-scale nuclear attack on the United States the first wave of detonations over the closely-packed silos would predetonate subsequent incoming ICBM warheads, thereby protecting most silos by "nuclear fratricide."

Very interesting! I will have to read up on that a bit more, though after I input all the parameters for a "Tsar Bomba" scenario at the most likely target near my location, I decided my plan of attack is to have access routes planned for a shelter that is, shall we say, a far distance from "Dodge". So once I'm at said shelter, all knowledge of a nuclear blast will be moot. The idea is simply: get as much material and distance between me and that nuke as possible.

We used to say if it hit within 500 yards you were toast, but even the mega tonnage weapons were survivable if they hit outside the 500 yard radius if you were deep enough and with a huge great thick roof. the problem with nuclear proliferation is people keep building bigger more accuirate nukes , so the other side digs deeper and reenforces more, and builds bigger nukes themselves. Thank heaven that most nukes now are tactical rather than strategic.

reply to post by SolaceMournerVII


Hitting the same target ten times won't give you a 4,750 kt result.

You'll only get a 475kt result, but ten times over, although you'll have an awful lot more fallout generated. The crater might get progressively deeper with each strike but I doubt by that much.

If you can't flee and don't have a shelter then consider all your options, your city's railway tunnels, caves, drains/sewers & utility pipes etc. But distance from the target is a better "shelter", follow the news & if war seems likely just get out of the city altogether.

The multiple warhead stike scenario you supplied is bogus.

It is a physical impossability due to the shockwave of each previous blast.

The first blast would take out the remaining warheads from the same missile. Even if they survived, they would fail to accurately enough strike the target for any benefit.

These ideas were considered long ago, and rejected.

The accuracy is so precarious for an ICBM that minute variances in the earth's gravitational field need to be accounted for over the long flight.

This is why there is such interest in accurately mapping the earth's gravitational field.

However one Neutron Bomb would probably kill everyone in the mountain.
Neutrons care nothing for mass like lead shielding or stone.

The best protection against a neutron bomb would be something with high hydrogen content like water. That is why the neutrons have such an affinity for the human body.

[edit on 5-4-2009 by Cyberbian]

reply to post by SolaceMournerVII
Good info on cheap improvised shelter against fallout
on the website KI4U.com

I do not think they will burn a nuke on one lone person out in the
wilderness hiding underground.

They can just come get you conventionally or send one of the
new SWORDS robots after you.

SWORDS war bot

Good Luck to all the good ppl !



[edit on 5-4-2009 by Ex_MislTech]

In many cases its far cheaper, less controvertial and a damn sight safer to use Daisy Cutter fuel air type bunker busting bombs than nukes, they are basically a big bottle of explosive gas, a penatrator tip and a delayed action fuse, some I believe have been tested on 30 ft thick reenforced concrete sangars with great sucess. 21,000 lbs of explosive vapour going off in any bunker will ruin your day.

I found some info that should be able to help you.


www.ki4u.com...

www.ki4u.com...

www.wikihow.com...

www.secretsofsurvival.com...

www.secretsofsurvival.com...

www.secretsofsurvival.com...

www.secretsofsurvival.com...

www.ehow.com...

www.ehow.com...

Originally posted by SolaceMournerVII
There is no shelter that is completely nuclear-proof. Much like "bullet-proof glass", such terms are comfortable misnomers used to placate the general public. Even Cheyenne Mountain's facility could be razed to the ground with enough nuclear strikes.

For the sake of our examples, let us consider the LGM-118A Peacekeeper, a now-defunct ICBM (Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile). The point is not the ICBM itself, but rather the 8 to 10 W87 thermonuclear warheads on it. Each has the potential for 300 to 475 kiloton yield. Envision our worst-case scenario: all ten warheads striking the exact same area in a bombardment, one after another, in such rapid succession that the explosion is more like a single 4,750 kiloton blast. By comparison, it would take 227 B-29 Bombers dropping Nagasaki "Fat Man"-style bombs simultaneously to reach the same effect.

Obviously, at a weight of 600 pounds, the warhead could be non-nuclear (or not even weaponized for that matter), crash from 40,000 feet through the door of most any non-hardened structure, and cause severe to total structural damage. However, suppose that you've picked a decent location that is well enough away from PITAPs (Pain In The "Butt" Passersby), and all you really need to worry about is surviving the radioactive fallout.

For that, I'm still digging for resources. I thought I had a decent source when I started this thread, but I just realized my error and found out this source is pretty much full of it. So, if anyone can dig up decent sources, by all means, please do so. In the meantime, I will search for something more substantial than what I started out with.

you need to talk to radius enginering.... I do not recall the URL for them but this is where we got ours and had it built... and we are under 50 feet of earth with mountains between us and the city.... so aside from a direct hit, we can withstand just damn near anything...