Great Lakes or Head For the Hills!

Nuclear war hits designated targets. www.webpal.org...

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]

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.

reply to post by ADVISOR

---

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

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.

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]

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
Montana

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.


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.

reply to post by vincere1

---

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.

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.

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.

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]