General: China Could Be Planning Surprise Missile Attack on United States

reply to post by ludwigvonmises003


im not going to deny it. You see my Ron Paul support. But if that smudging is accepted by reality, than it is by default the reality.

Currency, after all, is just consensus of value, not factual.

I very mutch double china would have an intent on the destruction of the US without
sever provication, it's almost a paracitic relationship. One of the posters on the last page
was talking abou using Nuclear wepons over farmland....bad mo-jo but worse would be
using an Antrax strain like the british were considering to use over erop in ww2. the antrax
Killed sheep and cattle within 48hours, and was resistant to all except the most toxic
of antibacterial agents, which if used would render the land unsafe to grow anything on for
a long time. ecconomic warfare and a first strike could be launched without the tell tail
rockets comming in. a truck with a mix of anthrax in solution could annonimusly spay
the best farmland the job would be done within a week and the entire us abbility to feed it's
self would be destroyed and the ecconomy at the same time. bad mo-jo
could also be passed off as terrorism, scape goats are always best. it's a win for the
bad guys without the mess or the cost of going to war.

Originally posted by Aim64C
Nuclear warfare is, indeed, 'winnable' and 'survivable.' The entire world's arsenal is insufficient to adequately destroy the productive landmass of countries as large as the U.S. or Russia.

I think your making all these claims under the assumption that citizens will "play nice" after the bombs have fallen and all move towards rebuilding.

This is hopelessly naive. Chaos will reign. We simply have to look at the violence and rioting even small disasters cause to see what will really happen. When people realize that food stocks in stores that survive will not be replenished, they will very quickly resort to looting and scavenging. When that begins to fail (within days), violence will take hold. Within short months, when all edible foods and animals including household pets have been consummed (many of which are obviously contaminated), desperate remaining suvivors will resort to cannibalism.

Those who have taken steps to safeguard themselves and their families will be in danger of roving gangs. If a chimney is producing smoke, it can be assumed that household has a wood stove and therefore heat. Since the infrastructure will surely be destroyed, both through EMP and direct nuclear strikes, these places will be coveted. The ones with the biggest guns will survive.

It is also naive to think there will be law enforcement. I dont imagine there is a cop alive who will not want to be with his or her family when the bombs fall. The armed forces will stand a better chance of cohesion afterwards, but i still tend to believe they will be much more concentrated on fighting what is left of the enemy and defending vital interests.

I suggest movies such a Threads or The Day After as a fairly realistic scenerio of the aftermath.

reply to post by nightbringr

I think your making all these claims under the assumption that citizens will "play nice" after the bombs have fallen and all move towards rebuilding.

The only country out there with a strategically relevant nuclear arsenal is Russia. The others simply don't have enough warheads to do more damage than a hurricane. Even a full-scale barrage from Russia would be hard pressed to affect the nation, as a whole, to such a degree as to trigger a collapse of society (the converse is true - a strategic volley from the U.S. would be hard-pressed to do the same to Russia - though the U.S. does have an extreme advantage in its mostly fertile, temperate climate - Russia has long been forced to concentrate its population and manipulate the landscape to make it habitable and agriculturally productive).

I suggest movies such a Threads or The Day After as a fairly realistic scenerio of the aftermath.

The thing is, however, that the overwhelming majority of populated regions will simply be unaffected. They will cringe and see a few bright flashes on the horizon and columns of smoke the next day from where cities are/were. Since I'm familiar with my home state's city populations and layout, I'll give a general prospect for it (Google Map it if you want). I'm familiar with the I-70, I-50, and I-44 strips that run across Missouri. You have the massive Kansas City metropolis in the west (a secondary target - would be destroyed in a full strategic exchange), Columbia along I-70 (a tertiary target - survival likely), Rolla along I-44 (tertiary), Jefferson City along I-50 (Secondary), and St. Louis metropolis to the east (primary - critical bridges spanning the Mississippi). Clustered around those, you have moderately sized towns - Warrensburg (Whiteman AFB - Primary), Sedalia (tertiary), Warrenton (tertiary), California (we're original around here - Tertiary), Warrenton, St. James, Washington, Union, St. Clair, Sullivan, - all tertiary targets with populations above 5,000.

They would, literally, get up the next day and have no cities to drive through, and have to take back-roads to get from city to city. Gangs and surviving violence would come mostly from the cities, serving as a rallying point for the medium and smaller communities.

Surviving large cities would serve as the hubs of recovery (which would happen - even with food shortages and the like). There would be plenty of those - though their relative success would be directly proportional to their access to support from surrounding smaller communities (agricultural commodities and outlying industry would be critical).

The thing is - disasters tend to amplify a person's characteristics. The "man with the plan" will make incredibly big plans, and many people will rally behind him. Con artists will con - only increase the stakes. Strategists will strategize on levels equal to the disaster. It's what has been shown time and time again in many different disasters on many different scales.

If people weren't socially capable of facing adversity - society wouldn't exist.

Originally posted by Aim64C
The thing is, however, that the overwhelming majority of populated regions will simply be unaffected.

Agreed, but that is not the point, is it? Power to 99% of American homes will be lost due to EMP strikes. Same goes for phones because of the aformentioned EMP and strategic strikes on enemy satelites, both military and civilian. Water will cease to flow, as pump stations have no power. Strategic strikes on oil fields as well as refineries of the opposing nation will grind transportation and delivery of much needed goods to a halt. Disease will quickly spread like wildfire. Cholera, dysentery, diarrhea and more will set in very quickly due to lack of proper sewage disposal, lack of garbage pickup and fire sources to cook food. Corpses will rot in the streets as there will be no way to dispose of them. Thyroid cancer rates will skyrocket worldwide. Healthcare systems in countries will be under massive strain and medicines will be in short supply in under a week.

People will not dare venture out of their homes for the very real fear of nuclear fallout. Eventually starvation will drive them out to loot and scavenge whatever is left. There will be no police forces, they will be with their families. People will not go to work. Even in the most optomistic of scenerios, people will not go to work, they will have much more pressing matters to take care of. Desperation to contact loved ones they could simply dial up at one time will take precedence. Hell, if a World Cup match in European countries can cause upwards of 50% absenteeism at the workplace, imagine what a nuclear war would cause?

I think you fail to realize how dependant people in this day and age are on their phones, computers and other things that will be useless in the days and months following. I work in an automobile dealership, and a simple power outage puts us all out of work until it is restored. We cannot invoice, order parts, recieve deliveries and so much more. Hoists dont work, power tools are useless.

Your focusing endlessly on the blast effects when in reality, they are so secondary to the rest of the chaos it would cause in our very energy dependant societies. Look at Hurricane Katrina and the aftermath it caused. Looting, vandalism, rape and more. Im sorry but i simply refuse to believe even a small bomb dropped on Manhattan island would cause any less chaos. Never mind 1000+ all over the continental USA.

Originally posted by Aim64C
The thing is - disasters tend to amplify a person's characteristics. The "man with the plan" will make incredibly big plans, and many people will rally behind him. Con artists will con - only increase the stakes. Strategists will strategize on levels equal to the disaster. It's what has been shown time and time again in many different disasters on many different scales.

If people weren't socially capable of facing adversity - society wouldn't exist.

But we have never had a disaster on the scale of which you describe. If this happened back in the 1950s, i could believe your scenerio. But not in todays age of everyone being wired to mobile phones, blackberrys, instant access to news on TV, radio and more. You underestimate the confusion people would feel when nothing, and i mean nothing that they take for granted will work anymore. The good people will shine, yes, but the bad people will too. Good people who have never wished harm on others might very well consider violence to save their or their familes lives. If my neighbour had more than enough food for their family, yet refused to help me and mine, i might consider force. You might not agree, but to me my wife and children are the most important thing in the world. I will not watch my daughter starve to death if i can help it.

I would suggest if all power and phonelines were cut nationwide with no explanation (none could be provided with the lack of communication), a very quick breakdown of society would occur. It is human nature to survive. If a man can save his wife and children by saving food that could help others, he most likely will. It isnt wrong, its simply human nature. I appreciate your optimism, but i think it is very naive.

Originally posted by blocula
there are around 27,000 nuclear war heads in the world today.could our nuclear arsenal really destroy the world? > io9.com... >>> www.wagingpeace.org...

edit on 9-9-2011 by blocula because: (no reason given)

Dig a little deeper. Find the yields of those "27,000 warheads". You'll be shocked to find that most are in the 1kt range - what we used to call "battlefiield nukes". They are, in effect, artillery shells, not what one thinks of as a "warhead" when speaking of ICBMs.

They'll typically wipe out a football team, and not much more.

What you're interested in are the intercontinentally deliverable warheads, around 100KT and up. I don't care if China or anyone else chucks nuclear artillery shells all day long - I'll just stay out of the way of the beaten zone, and that won't be hard to do.

ETA: The second link you posted, "Waging peace", is a fine example of nuclear fear-mongering propaganda at it's best. Look for key words like "might", "could". etc, as well as tell-tales like "100 megatons". Additionally, the damage postulated for a 1kt weapon is laughable.

lets hope that china does'nt decide to make a few of these hell weapons > en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by blocula
this "one" bomb all by itself, would completely destroy any large city in the world with ease,it is equal to 2,800 hiroshimas!,originally 5,600 hiroshimas! and amazingly so,as it was originally equal to 1/5 the power of "all nuclear weapons" ever detonated! 100 megatons,but was reduced to 50 megatons for the actual test > en.wikipedia.org... and yield comparisons > en.wikipedia.org...

edit on 9-9-2011 by blocula because: (no reason given)

Yeah.

Problem is, that weapon doesn't exist. They blew it up for a test. It NEVER WAS "100 megatons". It was between 50 and 60, with most estimate being right around 57 megatons. It was not "reduced for testing" - they didn't know the power until after the test was run, destroying the weapon. No more were ever built, because it was not cost-effective - not enough "bang for the buck", so to speak.

That goes back to what I said before - damage potential increases as the cube root of the yield, not linearly, You reach a point of diminishing returns.

If you use 100kt as a baseline, 300kt doesn't have 3 times the damage radius, it has 1.44 times the damage radius. 900kt doesn't have 9X the damage radius, it has twice the damage radius. Read that again - increasing explosive yield by THREE TIMES only gives you 50% more destruction, at 3x the materials cost. Increasing yield by NINE TIMES total only gives you another 50% damage, at nine times the materials cost.

That's why most nukes are around 100kt instead of a megaton, and why the largest nukes in service (US) are only about 1.2 megatons. There were some 9MT weapons, but they were disassembled last year.

This doesn't even get into the variability introduced by blast height, and assumes that all are detonated at the same altitude for standardization purposes. There is an "optimal blast height" for each degree of damage desired, but of course a single bomb can only be detonated at one altitude, and that will maximize that single blast effect, at the expense of all the others.

Back when I was calculating such things in detail, I always calculated for a 3 MT weapon, since that was the largest that Russia had in service, and optimized blast height for a 0,5 PSI radius (will break windows, and not much else). At that height, however, the pressures to crush buildings doesn't even reach the ground, and no fallout is produced at all, so I usually had to run two sets of calculations for each location.

At the other end of the scale, say 65PSI (enough to squeeze your lungs out through your mouth) the window breaking pressure radius was severely reduced. If you optimize for thermal effects, blast and fallout are severely reduced or rendered non-existent. If you optimize for fallout, blast and thermal are reduced. If you optimize for blast, thermal is reduced and fallout eliminated.

Trade-offs, every where you turn.

nenothtu,which is the worse weapon in the long run,meaning the effect during and after the detonation, hydrogen bomb or neutron bomb? also i would like to know what the difference is between fission and fusion and just some food for thought, because i've never heard or read anything about what would happen if 2 hydrogen bombs were detonated next to eachother simultaneously? or a neutron bomb detonated simutaneously with a hydrogen bomb.

Oh no. Not the guy who says China will invade the US via China-men smuggled in cargo containers!!! Now you want to know the difference between fuison/fission and neuclear/neutron bombs? Geez dude please.

14 year old confirmed!!!

Originally posted by blocula
nenothtu,which is the worse weapon in the long run,meaning the effect during and after the detonation, hydrogen bomb or neutron bomb? also i would like to know what the difference is between fission and fusion and just some food for thought, because i've never heard or read anything about what would happen if 2 hydrogen bombs were detonated next to eachother simultaneously? or a neutron bomb detonated simutaneously with a hydrogen bomb.

edit on 9-9-2011 by blocula because: (no reason given)

reply to post by nightbringr

Agreed, but that is not the point, is it? Power to 99% of American homes will be lost due to EMP strikes. Same goes for phones because of the aformentioned EMP and strategic strikes on enemy satelites, both military and civilian.

Humans lived without electricity, before.

There are more than a few survivalists, like myself, who have obsessed over the idea of how to prepare for and recover from a complete loss of our technological base. My experience, education, and passion rests in electronics. I can repair most of the 'baseline' hardware that would be damaged in the EMP. The toughest things to repair would be transformers in power substations and the 120/240 residential transformers.

However, the first thing I would do is pull out electric generators and get to work on those. To follow would be modified diesel engines slaved to feedback-based induction generators. Practical recovery of facilities like the Truman Dam would have to wait until local order could be secured and we had tactical teams put together from Guard, Reserve, Militia, and isolated active duty personnel.

It's not simply that - you have to re-analyze how we live. Suburban communities are going to collapse into much more dense clusters and give up yard space and individual housing for farm land.

The thing is that most people do not want to be "on their own" - "man versus the world." They will form social collectives and will strive to work together.

But not in todays age of everyone being wired to mobile phones, blackberrys, instant access to news on TV, radio and more.

What is so different about now? Society is no different than it was 100, even 500 years ago. People simply have new information outlets to exploit.

You underestimate the confusion people would feel when nothing, and i mean nothing that they take for granted will work anymore.

The largest detriment would be the loss of refrigeration and reliable trans-continental transportation. Those will be the two largest factors affecting the available food supply. The U.S. is in no real danger of facing water shortage issues - though some communities would have to relocate to more free-range sources.

Refrigeration could be readily restored (to some extent) through the use of underground storage and wind-driven mechanical 'pumps' (could be steam powered by burning wood or coal - but that will be a bit more difficult to rig within the first weeks) - it won't be as effective as evaporation-based refrigeration, but it can get the job done.

There will, basically, be two major 'powers' that emerge. The 'organizers' and the 'pillagers.' There's no way around that. Some people will simply gravitate towards taking by force rather than self-sustenance. Just the way it goes.

If my neighbour had more than enough food for their family, yet refused to help me and mine, i might consider force. You might not agree, but to me my wife and children are the most important thing in the world. I will not watch my daughter starve to death if i can help it.

This is where the power of 'organizers' comes in. These people will 'have a plan' and begin to identify tasks and people who can/will accomplish them. No matter how independently wealthy someone is in the face of such a crisis - their supply/insurance/etc will eventually wear thin and evaporate (and on a primal level, they know it). The assistance and cooperation of others is necessary to secure a future - those willing and able to participate have an appreciable value to the future of everyone involved - and thus the exchange of resources and services in a productive manner can occur.

Sure - you would have your cons, jerks, etc - and many would find that the reduction of law enforcement to 'herd justice' to be quite effective by comparison to existing concepts of law and the enforcement thereof.

I would suggest if all power and phonelines were cut nationwide with no explanation (none could be provided with the lack of communication), a very quick breakdown of society would occur. It is human nature to survive. If a man can save his wife and children by saving food that could help others, he most likely will. It isnt wrong, its simply human nature. I appreciate your optimism, but i think it is very naive.

Make no mistake - any successful "ideas" person has to accept that countless thousands will have to be killed and forsaken for the sake of a few hundred (perhaps not quite to that extreme - but the ratios are not ideal). You have to be willing to discriminate against those who will simply not get with the program.

The key to how far and how rapidly society collapses is in how quickly basic needs can be secured by organizing bodies. The longer it takes - the more powerful the looters and pillagers become.

Originally posted by blocula
nenothtu,which is the worse weapon in the long run,meaning the effect during and after the detonation, hydrogen bomb or neutron bomb? also i would like to know what the difference is between fission and fusion and just some food for thought, because i've never heard or read anything about what would happen if 2 hydrogen bombs were detonated next to eachother simultaneously? or a neutron bomb detonated simutaneously with a hydrogen bomb.

edit on 9-9-2011 by blocula because: (no reason given)

"Worst" is sort of subjective. Neither is good, but it depends on what effects your trying to get, or trying to avoid. A neutron bomb at higher altitudes is probably "worse", since it kills off people and animals and such, but leaves buildings and infrastructure more or less intact, and ready for new occupants to move right in. In other words, it eliminates native population without denying the territory to the enemy at the same time.

A single cobalt bomb detonated at the right place could hypothetically ruin everyone's day in the US, from what I hear.

"Fission" derives it's energy from splitting atoms apart, "fusion" derives it's energy from fusing them together into new elements, releasing energy in the process, and is more efficient than fission, but harder to achieve. Most bombs in the arsenal for the last 30 or 40 years do both - fission-fusion-fission, in a sort of cascade effect. The physics of it gets into calculations.

I've never considered what would happen if two different sorts of bombs were detonated in proximity to one another - it's an unlikely scenario. I would think that timing would be everything in that situation, but don't think there's any advantage to be gained by doing it.

A high-altitude EMP would be worst case in my mind - destroy operational capacity over a large area, leave population intact, and all hell would break loose. It wouldn't be "occupyable" by the Chinese (or anyone else) just due to the sheer anarchy of the situation, as has been previously mentioned. Imagine a country with 200 million firearms, a hungry population, and no power or communications to speak of. There are ways to guard against EMP on an individual level, but the networks for power distribution and land line communication would be fried for a few years to come, assuming someone got to work right away on repairs - we just don't have the spare parts in stock to replace the whole network from scratch. Some would have to be built, and a network that has been emplaced over a period of decades would have to be replaced - practically rebuilt. If you had your own generator that was shielded when the pulse went out, you might have power individually - until someone else figured out you had power and decided they needed it worse.

EMP works by generating an electrical pulse in any wires exposed to it, which then runs in on the sensitive bits and fries them. The wiring would still be there, but the transformers and end-use products would be fubar, and have to be replaced. That assumes a production capacity, which in turn relies on the power, which is not there. A catch-22.

I don't worry about the nuclear radiation or fallout aspects. There are worse cases that are harder to deal with.

Originally posted by princeofpeace
Oh no. Not the guy who says China will invade the US via China-men smuggled in cargo containers!!! Now you want to know the difference between fuison/fission and neuclear/neutron bombs? Geez dude please.

14 year old confirmed!!!

Originally posted by blocula
nenothtu,which is the worse weapon in the long run,meaning the effect during and after the detonation, hydrogen bomb or neutron bomb? also i would like to know what the difference is between fission and fusion and just some food for thought, because i've never heard or read anything about what would happen if 2 hydrogen bombs were detonated next to eachother simultaneously? or a neutron bomb detonated simutaneously with a hydrogen bomb.

edit on 9-9-2011 by blocula because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-9-2011 by princeofpeace because: (no reason given)

wanna bet that if you walked uo to 100 14year olds and asked them what the difference is between fission and fusion that probably 75% of them would have no clue what you were even talking about and 24% would not know the answer and 1 person "might"

nenothtu,thanx for your intelligent response to my question and its not hard to tell that you know what your talking about...i forgot about the "cobalt bomb",our mega-death mentality knows no bounds > en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by Aim64C


Yes, people lived without electricity before, but never in the history of mankind have we been so dependant on it.

You might be a survivalist, but most city dwelling folk will have no idea what to do when the bombs fly. One such as yourself might be able to find a place to hide it out and eventually work the land and hunt and gather, but most people simply do not have these basic skills in this day and age. They will resort to scavenging and eventually looting and armed conflict over remaining resources and food.

As i said before, i can simply point at a disaster such as hurricane katrina to illustrate how the mob mentality takes over in urban centers during times of crisis. The world will not simply "go on" as it had after a full scale nuclear exchange. I dont believe it will be an extinction event, but it certainly will not be business as usual after.

www.globalzero.org...

The above is a very scientific and optimistic analysis of a nuclear exchange between the former Warsaw Pact and NATO. Interesting reading.

Originally posted by nightbringr
reply to post by Aim64C

 

Yes, people lived without electricity before, but never in the history of mankind have we been so dependant on it.

You might be a survivalist, but most city dwelling folk will have no idea what to do when the bombs fly. One such as yourself might be able to find a place to hide it out and eventually work the land and hunt and gather, but most people simply do not have these basic skills in this day and age. They will resort to scavenging and eventually looting and armed conflict over remaining resources and food.

I believe that's the key to the differences in your individual outlooks. You seem to be seeing it from a more urban perspective, and Aim64C is seeing it from a more rural aspect.

You're both right, as far as you go.

Urban areas would be hell-holes and death traps. They are entirely infrasturcture-dependent for all of life's necessities. Everything from water delivery right on to food delivery. No power for the pumps = no water in the houses. No fuel for the trucks = no groceries in the stores. Most grocery stores re-stock every night, or every other night to keep those shelves looking full. It wouldn't take many days of cancelled deliveries to make them look like a wasteland. Urban heat is exclusively electric, gas, or oil. No infrastructure = no heat, either.

Ignore the post-apocalyptic ramblings where the hero of the story always finds a convenient stash in an urban household. Not gonna happen. Everything urban will be stripped down and picked cleaner than a desert carcass. All of those resources will be exhausted before most urbanites decide it's time to move on out into the countryside. They will in effect be preying on one another without the benefit of law enforecement to keep them in check.

Rural people, on the other hand, are more used to cooperation as a way of life. They will organize far quicker than urbanites, because there will be fewer pressures on more abundant local resources in the beginning, affording them that luxury. They will have the "leisure" to organize, rather than engage in a dog-eat-dog scrap. Fuel for heating is locally available, even abundant in many places, in the form of wood and coal, for which many rural residences are still set up to use. Same for water. It can be had from alternate sources until someone gets the bright idea to set a genny up for a well pump, which will happen early on. Only need one well in operation to supply a small, tight knit community with the basic water requirements (drinking - wash water can be gathered less judiciously) to get a toehold for wider organization.

I went out east after Hurricane Isabelle to pull security, and saw it first hand. Urban centers were entirely dependent on supplies coming in by truck. I recall seeing something like MRE's, but in different packaging than the military model, being handed out to the residents 3 times a day from the backs of trucks. Police were pulled in from a WIDE area - all across the state - to maintain order in the urban areas. I was posted in a small cross-roads community. Never saw the first delivery truck there. The people looked out for themselves, and I was the only "law" for 5 miles around. We had no trouble at all. The locals pulled together, pooled their food resources, and ate the frozen perishables first (no electricity for private residences) as a community. I took nothing but me, my equipment, and a case of MRE's, and never had to break the seal on the MRE's. They even demanded that I stay right there rather than commute to my lodging in the cities, and set up a camper for security use on site. I never went hungry or without water, which can't be said of my companions posted in the cities.

It's an entirely different mindset between the two. America was built the first time from the rural up, and such would be the same case in the event of a nation-wide disaster now.

a lot of urban areas are already hell holes and death traps and if and when our heat,running water and electricity are taken away from us. either from natural or self inflicted disaster. i would venture to say that within days a large proportion of people would be terrified,helpless and clueless as what to do next.unfortunately, the more technologically advanced we become, the closer we are to our destruction,theres really no way around the sad and brutal truth that sooner or later it will happen...

reply to post by nightbringr

Yes, people lived without electricity before, but never in the history of mankind have we been so dependant on it.

nenothtu has already made a very valid case.

I will say this - yes - our way of life is quite dependent upon oil and electricity. That is not to say that our lives depend upon it. There's a difference.

Basically, we are used to -individual- access to electricity, food, transportation, etc. We are used to our paychecks going toward our individual desires and needs. I have a refrigerator, my own computer, my own car - and it's an expensive standard of living to have (even though it is quite common).

Electricity is not hard to generate, as I said before. If power were to go out tomorrow (due to nuclear attack or whatever), I could have a generator up and running for the trailer park I live in by sundown. We'd pool food into freezers and refrigerators we could get working. Then I'd have lights - and there are plenty of meth-heads around here, so I'd be able to keep myself up for the next three days working to repair/replace the windings in the well pump and pressure tank, so we had running water.

Now would be a bit challenging, seeing as we're heading into winter. That's not exactly my specialty - but we may be looking at needing to relocate. It would also pose problems for food - not just food to last through the winter - but viable seeds to grow in the next season. Had I the influence and manpower at my disposal - I would be dispatching -armed- parties to acquire seeds and look at securing food stores. I'm sure we wouldn't be the only ones - and those sites are where we are going to have our first instances of 'diplomacy' between other groups of organizing survivors. Again - there are many factors, here, that are going to be influencing this. Obviously, if the National Guard is posted around the MFA granary, I would be looking to cooperate with them. It's just better that -someone- with plans of surviving is holding down the fort than letting random looters pick it clean and waste it stupidly.

You might be a survivalist, but most city dwelling folk will have no idea what to do when the bombs fly.

Call me narcissistic and arrogant - but that's when mentalities like my own come into their own right. When people don't know what to do, they typically differ to someone who does (or, at least, acts like they do). Be it design, evolution, or a combination thereof - it is part of our social behavior to respond to -confusion- with adherence to a plan.

Most people will be confused and shocked at first. Panic doesn't set in until much later, when they start getting thirsty, hungry, etc.



www.youtube.com... - that will link to the playlist.

That's a pretty interesting "docudrama" to this point. It's presented more from the urban perspective than the rural - but does address the rural aspect toward the end.

Now - in our specific example of nuclear warfare, the "advantage" to humanity will, in all honesty, be the near instant elimination of millions upon millions of people in concentrated urban centers.

It's unfortunate - but it's true. The much more disperse populations will have a much easier time adapting to the changing environment and will have much fewer problems than their urban counterparts.

In either case - panic doesn't set in until after food and water start becoming scarce, in our scenario. The key is to reach people with a plan on how to satisfy those needs within that time frame. People with plans will become incredibly influential people - people with plans who work will become the framers of society.

As i said before, i can simply point at a disaster such as hurricane katrina to illustrate how the mob mentality takes over in urban centers during times of crisis. The world will not simply "go on" as it had after a full scale nuclear exchange. I dont believe it will be an extinction event, but it certainly will not be business as usual after.

Oh, the world will change. And, yes, there would be plenty of people running around thinking they can use a rifle to get what they want. They will find that people like myself - and those I gather around me - will not hesitate to put a bullet in them or slit their throat in their sleep - whichever poses less risk. There's a difference between people stealing out of necessity and people stealing as a matter of course. There's no need to steal from a community following the type of plan I have. Trade and/or additional manpower/talents are always welcome. People who can't figure out how to, at least, peacefully co-exist with that simply have no business existing.

our world is filled with morons, psychopaths and mental defectives, as well as overweight, lazy and stupid people. just walk through any mall and these facts become painfully obvious. i would say that 1 in 50 would be able to handle themselves and survive without being able to push a button to get what they want and need. unfortunately with the millions of dead bodies of animals and people laying around all over the place that would remain unburied, we will also have to face widespread disease, as well as roving bands of maniacs and sickos who would be lost in their own delusions of glory enjoying a free for all of depravity and violence...

So what would be the point of anyone thinking that they would benifit from using nukes? Would the human race survive, yes. Would one country win over another? Chinas icbm based weapons are a single warhead design in the 3 to 5 megaton range , while their newer stuff land and sea based is probably merved 3 to 7 warhead with 300kt units probably similar to are w88 units. While the amount of missles they have are in the low hundred, we probably will never know. The EMP damage alone would cripple both economies and put most modern societies in survival mode. There would be no benifit to China. For people who think that we would get the grid back up in any short time , your dreaming. People freek when their stuck in traffic or have to wait 5 min for a drive through coffee,lol .We would become animals, dont think any different.

Bill