Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

First Reactions To It

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 26 2011 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by MushroomWig
 


uh, how I go out? I'd rather go die doing something I believe in than hiding and waiting to die with a useless "grab-bag."

It's not possible to know exactly how my town might react in this situation, but I'd like to hope there will be some banding together as Americans.




posted on Nov, 26 2011 @ 11:06 PM
link   
Well, I doubt it would be Russia for one thing. For another, there are a few hundred primary targets, so it wouldn't just be DC and such, it would be major cities with strategic value, military bases, and whichever active missile silos are still in the midwest. Then the secondary targets, like infrastructure, anyplace that could double as a military base, some major cities of strategic interest, power plants, etc.

I live in a big city next to an intercontinental airport, my first reaction to a nuclear strike on the US would be to die instantly in the light of a thousand suns.



posted on Nov, 26 2011 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by WarJohn
 


Our instinctual urge will be to pro-create...

Even though we rationally know it would likely be pointless, our base animal instincts would demand we try to ensure survival by increasing population, hence increasing probability of a breeding pair surviving.

I've come to the conclusion that mankind is at its most vital and content when it has to struggle... almost as if its etched into our DNA... have you noticed how sexual appetite increases when we are ill, broke, or cornered? Hence the "Thrill of the chase" (hunt mentality), "Need for Speed"(hightened emotion through risk).



posted on Nov, 27 2011 @ 12:42 AM
link   
reply to post by RelSciHistItSufi
 


I have never had an increase in sexual appetite when I'm somehow in distress(illness, ect). I don't know where you got that idea.



posted on Nov, 27 2011 @ 12:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
reply to post by WarJohn
 


A first wave?

It would be the only wave. The counter strike would have wiped Russia from the face of the earth within 30 minutes or less from the launch of their "wave".

I would think to myself it sucks to be in Russia.


Very true.

I'm only human, so I would be scared. But, on the other hand, I would realize that event would be one big step toward the second coming of Jesus, and that would make me happy



posted on Nov, 27 2011 @ 01:25 AM
link   
reply to post by RelSciHistItSufi
 


So not only do I need to worry about fallout, I have to watch for that dirty look in all the male of my species eyes?!? Sounds like a normal Saturday night at the local watering hole.....



posted on Nov, 27 2011 @ 01:28 AM
link   
Stop drop and roll, then grab a bag of marshmallows.......



posted on Nov, 27 2011 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
reply to post by WarJohn
 


A first wave?

It would be the only wave. The counter strike would have wiped Russia from the face of the earth within 30 minutes or less from the launch of their "wave".

I would think to myself it sucks to be in Russia.


Why? Russia has far more civil defense shelters than the US does. The only serious nuclear bunkers that I've heard of in the US are for VIPs and government officials. Russia is without a doubt more prepared for a retaliatory strike than the US, in terms of preserving the population anyways.

And don't forget about the good old DEADHAND protocol, which is Russia's most significant deterrant factor.



posted on Nov, 27 2011 @ 10:03 AM
link   
My Experiences with World Ends taught me that my Plan never works


Only a few % will do what they planned and 40% will be not even at home
or close to the Family, Friends and Soulmates!

But i don`t want to survive it, there is no reason to live in a Post-Atomwar World,
the Living will envy the already dead ones


Damned Russians, damned USA, damned, damned, damned!



posted on Nov, 27 2011 @ 10:26 AM
link   
Though I am not an American, I live near the border and would be impacted to some degree by an event of this nature. I think after the initial temporarily immobilizing effect of the emotional shock (using my reaction to 911 as a precedent), I would make attempts to size up the situation as it related to me and my family to the best extent that I could under the circumstances. That would determine if I elected to hunker down where I am or assume a refugee-style escape to safer territory.

I suspect that some of the first steps I would take would be to find a way to connect with other local family members to ensure their safety.

I think that in a refugee exodus scenario we fail to realize that we would be among throngs of people attempting to do the same thing and that it will be far worse than we imagine it to be. Roads, if passable, would be jammed. Civilized behaviour would no longer be a given. Methods of communication that we take for granted could be inaccessible. Seeking flight, though instinctive, is not necessarily a guarantee of anything such that I would need some sense that it would be preferable to staying put before I elect to head out.

The basic instinct to survive would compel me at first to find ways to "keep going" in the hopes of seeing an improvement in the situation, but if it is hopelessly deteriorating I think I would want to find a way to end the suffering.



posted on Nov, 27 2011 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 


Most of the bunkers in the US and Russia would be totally useless against any nuclear strike. They would be good for fallout for anyone downwind of any major targets.

The old Soviet Perimetr system was most likely a propaganda tool like the old Star Wars systems in the US. Its unknown if it actually worked or if it survived the fall of the Soviet Union.



posted on Nov, 27 2011 @ 11:21 AM
link   
I don't think it would worry me much unless i looked out of the window and saw a mushroom cloud, then i'd be worried.



posted on Nov, 28 2011 @ 12:39 AM
link   
reply to post by MeesterB
 


Personal experience and observation of others but I'm not saying everyone's the same.

No doubt people with differing libidos may react differently. Equally those who have detached from relating to baser feelings and instincts to work on a fully rational level or more spiritual level are unlikely to be driven by nature as much.

I wouldn't expect the Pope to be driven by the need for a nun... but I would expect the 70% in the main IQ bell curve to be pulled in the direction I suggest.



posted on Nov, 28 2011 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 


Most of the bunkers in the US and Russia would be totally useless against any nuclear strike. They would be good for fallout for anyone downwind of any major targets.

The old Soviet Perimetr system was most likely a propaganda tool like the old Star Wars systems in the US. Its unknown if it actually worked or if it survived the fall of the Soviet Union.



Useless? I think not.

I've known for almost a decade now that the Russians have been hard at work, both building new and refurbishing old bunkers into "superbunkers" that are hardened against nuclear strikes. They literally have thousands of these in some cities.

Here's one article: 5000 new bunkers in Moscow by 2012

Also consider the fact that the longer a city lasts, the more of an underground city it creates. Old European cities literally have hundreds to thousands of miles of habitable underground space each. Some American cities are developed like this, but not nearly to the same extent. Moscow itself is quite the iceburg example; there's even rumored to be an underground tram system to transport Kremlin VIPs to the Mt. Yamantau command centre in the Caucausus.



posted on Nov, 28 2011 @ 12:53 AM
link   


So not only do I need to worry about fallout, I have to watch for that dirty look in all the male of my species eyes?!? Sounds like a normal Saturday night at the local watering hole.....
reply to post by stonebutterfly
 


Well I suppose it shows there's a benefit to Saturday night training at the waterhole? Survival preparation


Your retort did make me re-think my hypothesis though...

a) Men are more likely to avoid the need to do something practical in favour of something selfish,
b) Women are more likely to be put off if there is no long term material or relationship gain...and would not want the added risk to a pregnancy after in such an Apocalyptic scenario



posted on Nov, 28 2011 @ 01:01 AM
link   
I'd hide in a fridge
and have this song play through my head




Just kidding
no idea what I would do right after
depends on what the situation would be like
Would my area be affected, would there be laws put into place
to "keep people calm"?



posted on Nov, 28 2011 @ 01:01 AM
link   
reply to post by manna2
 


they never pointed out that once we had left school we would have no desk to dive under and if we wanted one we would have to buy our own, there might not be enough time to run to the local school and throw myself under a desk. as a result i am left in a vunrable postion as i have no desk.

do coffee tables work well?
edit on 28-11-2011 by lifeform11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2011 @ 01:08 AM
link   
I wouldn't worry about it. The US has a fleet of subs that in itself is a nuclear superpower. Don't forget the 14 or so aircraft carriers we have all around the world. Not to mention what has been developed in secret test facilities over the last 30 or so years that hasn't been released to the public.

If they launch a nuke the US would know about it within minutes and have it shot down before it reached American soil. The same would go for the Russians.

I would assume if a fight were to break out over this, that using nukes would be a last resort. Both sides know very well what nukes do to the earth. It would not be in the best interest for either side to use nuclear weapons for it would affect both no matter who destroyed each other first.

We cannot forget this is not the cold war era anymore. Remember we have a thing called the internet. Crippling the internet and getting into defense systems, banks and various other systems like the power grid via the web would have a far more devastating effect on a county then any amount of nukes could do. Why launch a huge strike on a country when you could simply take it out over the web and have the people kill each other for you?

edit on 11/28/1111 by GR1ill3d because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2011 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 


Cheyenne mountain cannot survive a direct hit by a multi megaton nuclear strike. Most shelters could not survive a nuclear strike, the pressure wave would destroy them unless they are tens of meters underground, ideally 50+meters, and hardened, i.e. 1.5+ meter reinforced walls, seismic vibration controls and life support systems.

For example, lets say Moscow gets hit by 8 W88 warheads just released by a single submarine launched Trident II missile. The pressure wave would get into the vast tunnel network under the city, travelling down metro lines, and crunching cars like soda cans.

The only thing that would survive the pressure wave is part of a system not available to the Russian public, a tunnel and bunker network 200-300m below the surface designed to house Russia's national command authority or some form of shadow government. Everything else above it would simply be gone.



posted on Nov, 28 2011 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeboydUS
 


You don't think Cheyenne mountain could take a nuclear hit? I think you over-estimate the power of nuclear weapons, and under-estimate the durability of environmental factors (including refined human structure). Governments wouldn't waste their money, effort and time in building superbunkers if they were not sure of their capabilities, and they should know considering they also develop the nuclear weapons too.

Of course for hardened command structures, more than one hit would be carried out, but it is different in cities... unless you think that cities will be deliberately targeted for complete annihilation instead of just the disorientation of a single blast.
edit on 28-11-2011 by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join