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.


Great Lakes or Head For the Hills!

page: 1

log in


posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 11:49 PM
Nuclear war hits designated targets.

I do not agree with all the targets on the map however would it be safer to be by the largest fresh body of water on the planet? Would this become the new CAPITOL of the continent, or would you be better off hiding in Appalachian
Perhaps Colorado?

[edit on 4-11-2009 by vincere1]

posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 12:19 AM
Well, I live in West Michigan, and I can tell you the part of town I currently am located, is a strategic target. There are seven DoD prime contractors in business here, so the water would be radiated this side of the state & lake.

Under ground or Canada would be my first choice, near the great lakes, of course.

posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 12:23 AM
reply to post by ADVISOR

When you say prime contractors what does that mean? Are they making ballistic material?

posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 02:20 AM
Either way, you will know it is coming before it would happen. The reason is very simple really. Australia has 5+ First Strike Targets of the old Soviet regime... True!

So, once these bases are annihilated in my country (thank you U.S.A.) you will see your country's missiles launch before you see any incoming.

posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 03:30 AM
reply to post by Tayesin

U are saying Australia has 5 Soviet targets within Australia that the US will nuke? Did I read this correctly?

Also want to point out that there has been a big debate on this, whether Australia would be the place to be as a neutral zone as compared to Canada who undoubtedly would receive strikes.

As Advisor pointed out Western Michigan would be hit. So were talking a 40 mile radius if contained, winds over michigan move northeasterly, so i am thinking Lake Erie may be a good spot, General Custer area and all.

[edit on 5-11-2009 by vincere1]

posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 04:19 AM
reply to post by vincere1

Nowhere in Michigan would be safe in such an event, and the reason is right here:
North Dakota
South Dakota

The map you want to worry about is the one showing where the fallout from such an event would drift over the following days to months. The problem is these dense pack hits that are used to dig the silos up. As most of your bombers and silos reside in the Northern states, you will have high levels of fallout traveling on the jet stream across the US in an Easterly direction. That fallout will result in the lakes of Michigan being contaminated with fallout ash suspended in all the fresh water sources, so the lake themselves would be useless.

DENSE PACK - Look at all those target sites. So close Together! It serves a purpose. It is missiles protecting missles, and this is how it is done. These are "hardened" sites. Meaning it takes a direct ground explosion to dig them out. An air burst will not do it. When you have a ground explosion it throws many tons of dust and sand up into the air. High into the air. This is what will later become fallout carried by the winds hundreds, sometimes thousands, of miles away. But right over that site that has just been hit the sand and grit in the air is very thick for quite a while. Another high speed missile (ICBM) trying to come through it will have its skin torn off just like by sand blasting and it will be destroyed. So the other missile sites nearby are safe. On the other hand, because missiles take off much slower than the speeds they eventually reach, the missiles in the undamaged silos can still be launched and will pass through the dust cloud without be harmed. Neat, eh? See there is a purpose in putting so many in one place. Now the only way that you can dig them out is with what is called a slow walk. Hit a target. Move on further and hit another target where the dust from the first won't hurt you. Come back thirty or forty-five minutes later and hit a second target near where you hit the first, after the cloud has had time to blow away. A slow process. Some silos will already have launched and you will waste the shot. Others can still wait to launch later because you can only get one at a time. This could go on for days. Neat. The military missiles protecting missiles. But they don't protect you, because if you are downwind you will get the fallout. Fatal if you are not in a shelter. They call it Defense but it is only Destruction. Nothing here defends or protects you, if they are used.

The hills are not much better, and may be worse in the long run...
Basically you don’t want to be anywhere near any of the red zone on this map:
Fallout Pattern
If you are, though you may survive the initial attack, you would die more slowly over the course of the following days to months from radiation sickness. It is better to just go in a blinding flash then to have to go through rad sickness with little to no medical help available.

posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 08:25 AM
reply to post by vincere1

U are saying Australia has 5 Soviet targets within Australia that the US will nuke? Did I read this correctly?

Sorry, 5 Soviet targets for first strike and all U.S. Bases in my country. Figures based on an obscure book called "Can Australia Survive Nuclear War" and printed I think about 1982. (sorry I forgot the author's name)

The first half of the book explained why these U.S. Bases are sensitive and provided evidence of the targeting priority in USSR at the time. It also ran through a variety of yield scenarios for the populated cities if they where bombed collateraly (sp), which I found interesting. An estimated survivors figure for our 12,000,000 population of the time was 600,000 in a worst case scenario.

posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 08:38 AM
uuhhmm...does anyone else think that there are alot of non-priority sites on these maps??? it just looks like some defense contractor drew these up to scare the hell out of congress for more money.

posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 09:55 AM
reply to post by jimmyx

What do you consider to be low priority?
First they go after military, then after infrastructure such as manufacture and financial, finally they go after population centers. So to you, it might look like there is a dot in the middle of nowhere, but in reality it could be a automotive assembly line or something that can be converted into military infrastructure usage in the case of a war.

posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 10:58 AM
reply to post by defcon5

Agreed. I would not want to be anywhere near the Great Lakes or the northeastern US or southeastern Canada in the event of a nuclear war. You'd be downwind of a sizable number of missile silos in the Dakotas and in Montana, and all would be priority first-strike targets in the event of a nuclear attack. The fallout would probably be impossible to survive.

[edit on 5-11-2009 by vor78]

new topics

top topics


log in