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.


What to do with less that 3 days to a nuclear disaster

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 12:53 PM
...not trying to scare or alarm anyone, but this link is for info. purposes only in the event that, heaven forbid, any of us ever need it. Its better to have the knowledge of what to do with a situation than to have the situation surprise you with no time to prepare.

"This instructional guide is for American families preparing for imminent nuclear attack, with widespread radioactive fallout, from atomic bomb(s), not just a small localized 'dirty bomb' incident. (IF NOT imminent, there might be time for even more that you can and should do, linked near the end, in addition to the following!)."

"Understandably, if you are reading this in a time of national crisis, you are anxious to take action right now, but to assure that what you do with your remaining time, before disaster strikes, is truly effective, you must first embrace a realistic 'Plan of Action'. Careful study of this action guide, here and now, will assure that you make the most of your available options, resources, and time, with a minimum of wasteful panic. Read it all the way through first, at least once, THEN TAKE EFFECTIVE ACTION WITH CONFIDENCE... FAST!"

[Edited on 4-6-2004 by Banshee]

posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 01:05 PM
Excellent avatar btw diva, Right Don't take this personally , But, if there were a nuclear attack it wouldn't and i repeat WOULD NOT make a blind bit of difference what you were to do, Read up on it coz I'm not going into all the details here, to give you all an idea this is what we were told would happen in the event of a 1 megatonne warhead going off, now hiroshima was just under 1 megatonne, If the bomb hit edinburgh, Scotland then the heat from the blast would melt the bronze cross on st pauls cathedral, London

If your eyes dont melt in their sockets at the flash, then you have the blast with winds over 500Mph, making hurricanes look tame, you then get the Heat and i'm talking heat like you couldn't possibly imagine then you get the fallout, Invisible to the eye, lasting for years and killing everythig it touches. you can think yeah whatever, but if that event did occur i jest you not the warheads we carry now, start thinking 100+ megatonnes, albeit not officially but they do. So if it ever happened it would be end of and thats that. i know its difficult to apprehend a blast on that scale but Hiroshima is still feeling the effects of that blast even now! so any action you take , wouldn't matter, you wouldn't even see it coming i an assure you. the days of small atomic bombs are long gone.

posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 01:20 PM
Exactly, Mindsmog. My mother used to say that if she heard there was a nuclear warhead about to be dropped in the vicinity, she'd head straight for Ground Zero so as to get it over with ASAP. I think she had the right idea.

posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 01:25 PM
Part of me wants to say ground zero is the best place and part of me wants to survive the initial events to see what it's like afterwards. Call it morbid curiosity but I am. Of course I would devise a method of group suicide so my family could all die peacefully without having to shoot each other. In the end I don't anyone would survive in the long term. There is not enough food and I have to imagine there are unknown detrimental affects from being caged up in a dark room (batteries won't last forever, no solar power) long term. That's why I'd have the group suicide method worked out.

In the words of the immortal WOPR from War Games, "the best way to win is not to play."

posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 01:45 PM
i'm with you with curiousity titan. i'd rather have it as all or nothing; if i get hit, then let me life support for me, but if i don't get hit, then let me be as far away from ground zero.

posted on Jun, 5 2004 @ 11:21 PM
I live less than 3 miles from a prime military target. No place to go here. Get out the lawnchairs, sunglasses, and serious sunscreen!

If there was going to be an all out Nuclear War, I thing going in the first wave would be better than trying to survive all the radiation and starvation. The survivors would be killing each other to survive. Unless you had a well stocked, underground shelter, it would be best to go quickly.

posted on Jun, 5 2004 @ 11:37 PM

Originally posted by Mindsmog
hiroshima was just under 1 megatonne, If the bomb hit edinburgh, Scotland then the heat from the blast would melt the bronze cross on st pauls cathedral, London

Hiroshima was hit by "Little Boy" with the force of about 13k, Nagasaki was hit by "Fat Man" with the force of about 20K. Alot of plans call for multiple hits with smaller yield warheads set up in a triangular pattern for maximum effect-cities. The large megaton warheads are for hardened sites, NORAD, silos, ect. Also is it an air burst or ground burst, in an all out any city of 100,000 or more has it's own warhead.

posted on Jun, 5 2004 @ 11:54 PM
Sorry mindfog, it is YOU that need to do some reading.

a one megatonner wont give 500 mph winds, more like 300---getting in the range for records set at mt. Rannier, et al.

But let's imagine 500 mph at ground + 2 miles. Since the blast is spherical, the wind will dissapate in all directions. Volume of a sphere is what, pi x r cubed? so at 4 miles, The wind is only going 63 mph. Look at an aerial picture of Hiroshima. The blast did wipe out downtown, but not the suburbs. Tokyo was unnaffected, a mere 100 miles away. As for the cross on St. Paul's being melted, why wasn't all of New Mexico reduced to molten slag, when they set off the fission bomb at White Sands? Albuquerque is not much past 150 miles (less than the distance from Edinburgh to St. Paul's?), and the crosses on St. Anthony's are still there from 1680.

Only people w/in the 'footprint' of the fireball were vaporised at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, of the 100,000 or so survivors from w/in 10 miles of the blast, many did go blind, even those who closed thier eyes, but their eyes didn't "melt in their sockets."

I am not trying to diminish the horror of war, but the power of a-bombs is not infinite. In fact, many of the soldiers who STOOD in the path of the bombs in the Nevada desert were alive in the 1990's. I worked for one of 'em. He didn't have so much as a lead jock-strap for protection, and he produced fairly normal offspring. (his daughter was super hot. hmmm.)

Many of the casaulties in Japan were maximized by healthy survivors who went through w/in the hot zone and labored for hours at a time, breathing radioactive dust.

You could elimate this threat with no more protection that a sturdy basement and a homemade "K-meter," which would tell you how many minutes per day you could work outside w/out risking your progeny and your own future.

As devastating as Chernobyl was, the death toll was far lower than expected because of useful testing equipment and basic instructions to the victim population. No one, including the US govt, could speak intelligently about the dangers in downtown hiroshima. In the 50's, they were still using "X-ray TV's" to see how well children's shoes fit, for God's sake!

there is an excellent preparedness manual, written by the Dr. in charge of preparing NYC for chemical attacks pre 9-11, that lays out some basic home protection you can make for yourself, all culled from govt. docs. I'm sure UK gov puts 'em out too.

Acting like the future is hopeless guarantees that you will be powerless when it arrives.

posted on Jun, 6 2004 @ 02:02 AM
I believe a terrorist attack or a nuclear war overseas between India and Pakistan or some other mideast group causing world wide fallout might be a reason for concern. I also believe most just want to believe that this will never happen because it's a dreadful thought to think about. I never thought 9-11 would happen either. Then again, a foreign power could possibly pull off an attack using small weapons and make it look like it was a terrorist attack. I don't really like thinking about this too much.

All this survival preparation costs money but can we really rely on the government to give us fallout shelters, food, and protection in the event of a major event? It would be nice if every house had a mandated safe room where families could go to protect against tornadoes, high winds, and/or radiation fallout. I'm not sure how much that would cost though.

posted on Jun, 6 2004 @ 12:20 PM
Not worth it
read my post below for facts)

[edit on 6-6-2004 by Mindsmog]

[edit on 7-6-2004 by Mindsmog]

posted on Jun, 6 2004 @ 12:43 PM
Anyone else think it's ironic that this thread is started just a day before Ronnie Raygun died. That man made us have conversations like this every day in the 1980s.

One of my earliest memories is the terror produced by a WB 600 siren sounding during the annual UK Civil Defence Week.

Living next to a NATO Navy base through the Cold War made me a member of the "have a picnic under Ground Zero" school of thought. I still think it's the best idea.

zero lift

posted on Jun, 6 2004 @ 03:50 PM
How about not scaring people for one?

posted on Jun, 6 2004 @ 05:08 PM
Sure some people say they'd head straight to Ground Zero, however I think basic human instinct and fear would tell you just to get the heck out. But thats just me.

Personaly I'd run. But maybe I'll give an exception to someone who walks out of their house, looks up, and sees a Nuke 1 mile from their head. Man, that would suck.

posted on Jun, 6 2004 @ 05:57 PM

Originally posted by Mindsmog
Oh and for your information a nuclear warhead over 1 megatonne has NEVER publicly been detonated, so you cant compare tokyo, or new mexico, hiroshima was nowhere near a megatonne , so read my post before you slag it off .
[edit on 6-6-2004 by Mindsmog]

I'm not sure what you mean by "publicly" but there have been several muli-megaton tests.

OAK.............Enewetak Lagoon............1958.........8.9Mt

These are just some and just from the US.

posted on Jun, 6 2004 @ 06:14 PM
I think the governments around the world that actually have a sizeable nuclear arsenal, with the big warheads, would not "press the button" at the drop of a war. Sure, everyone says they have underground bunkers, but who wants to live underground. Even North Korea's insane dictator enjoys having power, he knows we can turn his whole country into a glass parking lot, why would he throw all the power he loves away. Wars happen because views of different cultures often clash, but I think nobody wants to see their culture erased. Hopefully anyways. Also even if the unlikely did occur I dont believe for a second the U.S. government and some in Europe havent been working on secret missile defense programs. They supposedly have a project in AK where many believe they can heat the atmospere and somehow manipulate electronic equipment with waves sent into the atmospere shutting down planes, missiles, etc. I dont know how true that is but Im sure they have something in the works.

posted on Jun, 6 2004 @ 06:32 PM
Mindsmog said ........

I'm not going into all the details here, to give you all an idea this is what we were told would happen in the event of a 1 megatonne warhead going off, now hiroshima was just under 1 megatonne, If the bomb hit edinburgh, Scotland then the heat from the blast would melt the bronze cross on st pauls cathedral, London

Fortunately he has fot his/her maths wrong.

In fact very very wrong.

posted on Jun, 6 2004 @ 06:45 PM
Mindsmog you have some really bad info about Nuclear weapons and their damage.
If you are not in the main blast radius they are survivable, given the right conditions. If there was any warning at all and people did take shelter it would make a big difference. A well stocked basement and three days of preparation would go a long way in your chances of survival. But thankfully, full scale nuclear war is not likely at this time thanks to the recently departed, President Reagan.


posted on Jun, 6 2004 @ 06:58 PM
I would do everything im doing now. There would be NO way to survive, I repaeat NO way to survive.

posted on Jun, 7 2004 @ 08:24 AM
Let me point you to these

Note the maximum pure fission nuke ever tested is 500kt

read this and note this is a 15kt bomb, and please dr_strangecraft NOTE the windspeeds bearing in mind this is a baby bomb

windspeeds of a nuke

Ok maybe I didn't realise the different types of nuke we were talking about , Duke you are quoting the testing of Hydrogen bombs or thermonuclear nukes which are not as powerful as a pure fission Nuke.

Case closed , You seem to be the only person who gave a valid argument without any sarcasm duke you get my applause for that

posted on Jun, 7 2004 @ 03:56 PM
midsmog said

Duke you are quoting the testing of Hydrogen bombs or thermonuclear nukes which are not as powerful as a pure fission Nuke.

Sorry mindsmog, but the opposite is true. A pure fission nuke is a first generation device a la Hiroshima.

zero lift

new topics

<<   2 >>

log in