Surviving a Nuclear Bomb

Originally posted by isyeye
reply to post by Gazrok

 

It's decisions not to even attempt survival by a large percentage that would give others that are wanting to survive an even greater chance. You'll be leaving your possessions for me to take.

I don't care what the event is, nuclear, asteroid, or a zombie apocolypes, I'm going down swinging, and there isn't a chance in hell that I'll just give up without a fight.

edit on 25-3-2013 by isyeye because: (no reason given)

Sure gi joe... I'll be the one getting the f out to live and regroup and establish com links and fight another day... be sure not do die too far away so I can scout safely for your stuff afterwards... thanks

reply to post by LibertysTeeth

I think the "nuclear winter" thing was debunked long ago.

Until we actually experience the detonation of thousands of 300KT warheads all over the globe, there is NO way to debunk it accurately. There are simply too many unknown variables. Also, remember that many of these blasts won't be impacts, but detonate in the air.

www.nucleardarkness.org...

reply to post by Gazrok


While I respect your considered opinion on many things, I think you are not looking at the issue of surviving a nuclear detonation with an open mind.

I am in my 40s, and grew up in the midst of cold war propaganda, including the propaganda issuing from the radical pacifists, who preached that a 'nuclear war' would be 100% unsurvivable by anyone, anywhere.

While you may be correct to dismiss the issue without even investigating, I think you'd discover something else if you researched the matter.

-if you are within 50 miles of a nuclear warhead being detonated, you may well be toast. But without stalking you, I have surmised that you live further out than 50 miles from any primary or even secondary targets in the US.

Even when it comes to fallout. The stuff you were told in school turns out to have been miscalculated, based on "real-time" evidence from Chernobyl. Even a few hours downwind of a blast, If you can put 2 feet of earth (6 inches of concrete, or an inch or so of steel between you and new-falling dust for about 3 days, you most likely wont get cancer from the event, even decades later.

Seriously, it is worth knowing about; just in case you are accidentally wrong.

reply to post by tovenar


I agree. Check my links. Actually, doesn't even need to be 50 miles. Even the largest nukes, hitting the nearest main target, would still put me safely out of even the outer ring. However, that's not the problem. Not even the radiation.

The real problem comes from all that smoke, from all those fires, of all those burning cities. Do you remember the hassle created in Europe from a single volcano smoking? Now imagine every major city and minor targets all burning at once?

Has nothing to do with the blast radii or fallout...

Even a regional nuclear war (say between India and Pakistan), has the potential for massive climate change.
The effects of a GLOBAL nuclear war between Superpowers, on the other hand, would be our end:

climate.envsci.rutgers.edu...

A relatively modest 5 Tg of soot, which could be
generated in an exchange between India and Pakistan, would
be sufficient to produce the lowest temperatures Earth has
experienced in the past 1000 years—lower than during the
post-medieval Little Ice Age or in 1816, the so-called year
without a summer.

With 75 Tg of soot, less than half of what
we project in a hypothetical SORT war, temperatures would
correspond to the last full Ice Age, and precipitation would
decline by more than 25% globally.

Nevertheless, a misperception that the nuclear-winter
idea has been discredited has permeated the nuclear policy
community. That error has resulted in many misleading pol-
icy conclusions. For instance, one research group recently
concluded that the US could successfully destroy Russia in a
surprise first-strike nuclear attack.
10
However, because of nu-
clear winter, such an action might be suicidal. To recall some
specifics, an attack by the US on Russia and China with 2200
weapons could produce 86.4 Tg of soot, enough to create Ice
Age conditions, affect agriculture worldwide, and possibly
lead to mass starvation.

Can't say I haven't looked into it. I have, and that's why I feel we initial survivors would likely still see our doom.
Doesn't mean I won't fight to survive...but I can't see it as a very likely scenario.

I agree that war involving 1000 detonations might end the human race.

This thread, though, was about a single nuclear bomb.

I personally believe that the chance of a generalized exchange of 1000 bombs is remote.

two different issues, in my book.

reply to post by tovenar


Unless it's a dirty bomb terrorist style attack...one bomb seems pretty far-fetched.

One important bit of advice I've heard that wasn't stated in the video for surviving the initial blast/shockwave is you should keep your mouth and airways open as much as possible. If you inhale deeply and hold your breathe when the blast hits , your lungs will explode. This is what kills a lot of people in this scenario.

Scariest book I have ever read
Army Field manual 25-51 Battalion task force Nuclear training manual
www.enlisted.info...
If your really wondering what it would be like read section 1.
Note this was written by the Army in the 1980's using real world data.
most of the info is geared towards weapons in the Kiloton range.
Anything in the megaton range and all bets are off anyway.

Old cold war joke I heard when stationed in West Germany
Q: "How far apart are the towns in Germany?
A: "Oh about a Kiloton"

Originally posted by ramuh
One important bit of advice I've heard that wasn't stated in the video for surviving the initial blast/shockwave is you should keep your mouth and airways open as much as possible. If you inhale deeply and hold your breathe when the blast hits , your lungs will explode. This is what kills a lot of people in this scenario.

better still as the blast is hitting you breath out!

The place will be like this::

I have a lady friend who was born and raised in the closed city of Seversk Siberia and continues to live there to this very day, where one of the 10 worst nuclear accidents in global history ever happened and shes fine...no health issues and 49 years old
en.wikipedia.org...

honestly i would never live there due to the fact that the place still stores nuclear weapons and is clearly ground zero

Nuclear detonations can be survived as long as they don't detonate directly over your head, for every 12 inches of dirt you use on your underground shelter, that's one more protective layer from the affects of Gama radiation, and once you're over the age of 40 you don't need to worry about taking iodide for your thyroid, just make sure you have a good air make up system, that you can keep clean and functional.


the main thing that kills people in their shelters are during a nuclear detonation is the rise and compression from the walls and floors....you need to be in the center of your hide in a spring loaded hammock with mattresses on your walls and floors to help you absorb the shock

you can survive, you just make sure you keep all your radio and electronic equipment in microwave ovens so the EMPs wont destroy them and to have no less than 6 months of supplies and a good gas mask with the latest filters and some led sheeting to cover your boots once you decide to leave for safer places......


prep nuclear and you might see another day...led mines are a good place to build shelters

reply to post by Gazrok


I don't think so, not trying to disagree just my opinion. I think they have over hyped it to put the fear in people. I think it would take hundreds, if not thousands of bombs to kill off mankind (and still probably wouldn't) and create a nuclear winter. It would of course depend on how big the bombs were, but I seriously don't see it. I don't see a full on nuclear back and forth war.
I think this is more for terrorist attacks and rogue state attacks though.

Also great job OP.

I read a good book on the subject back when. At a time when people thought "doomsday" was it, Bruce Clayton stood alone as a voice that explained things in detail and brought significant practical knowledge to the table.

His book Life After Doomsday is a must read for people who believe in that sort of thing.

As far as reacting to a sudden flash on the horizon, lots of people in Russia were injured by flying glass because when they saw the flash, they ran to the window to look out.

Bert the Turtle was right.... what do you do kiddies?

Personally though. I don't think atomic war is very survivable. Maybe in the long, run maybe not.

Good movie if you got the time. It only passes judgment in black and white.

There was a good mini-series, back in the 80's I think, called "The Day After" that goes into all of this very well. I'd highly recommend it to any interested in the subject.

www.imdb.com...


This movie even (to my surprise) influenced policy...

President Ronald Reagan watched the film several days before its screening, on November 5, 1983.[5] He wrote in his diary that the film was "very effective and left me greatly depressed,"[5] and that it changed his mind on the prevailing policy on a "nuclear war".[6] The film was also screened for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. A government advisor who attended the screening, a friend of Meyer's, told him "If you wanted to draw blood, you did it. Those guys sat there like they were turned to stone."[5] Four years later, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty was signed and in Reagan's memoirs he drew a direct line from the film to the signing.[5] Reagan later sent Meyer a telegram after the summit, saying, "Don't think your movie didn't have any part of this, because it did."[2] In a 2010 interview, Meyer said that this was a myth, and that the sentiment stemmed from a friend's letter to Meyer; he suggested the story had origins in editing notes received from the White House during the production, which "...may have been a joke, but it wouldn't surprise me, him being an old Hollywood guy."[5]

The film also had impact outside the U.S. In 1987, during the era of Mikhail Gorbachev's glasnost and perestroika reforms, the film was shown on Soviet television. Four years earlier, Georgia Rep. Elliott Levitas and 91 co-sponsors introduced a resolution in the U.S. House of Representatives "[expressing] the sense of the Congress that the American Broadcasting Company, the Department of State, and the U.S. Information Agency should work to have the television movie 'The Day After' aired to the Soviet public."

When I was in college, I used clips from the movie for visual aids in parts of my presentation on the effects of nuclear war on the environment. I remember that several students blamed me for some sleepless nights that week.... (this was before powerpoint, so my clips were actually on a VCR tape, lol...)

Skip to about 2 min. in



I'm all for surviving a single, or even a few rogue detonations...I'm just saying that if there is full on nuclear war between the superpowers...yes, approximately 40% will survive the initial blasts, but the world inherited by that 40% will see the vast majority of that remainder die off from radiation-caused maladies, and starvation. The only preps against that, is to have a protected area for renewable gardening, and have a method of recycling or accessing clean water, and those are some expensive preps to try and make.

I remember watching "The Day after" when it was aired.
Scared the crap out of everyone that saw it.
Even with the not so great special effects.
People forget that in the 80's the nuclear war threat seemed very real.
It influenced a lot of the films, music and books of the time like "War Day".

Another interesting film from that time period was "Special Bulletin"
It was interesting because it took the form a "live" TV broadcast ala War of the worlds.

A similar one was"Countdown to Looking Glass"
whats interesting is in the very beginning they talk about an international banking crises that causes a banking collapse which leads to a USSR vs US confrontation over the middle east.

And "Without Warning" 1994 about meteors hitting the earth from an unknown source.

and the classic "By Dawns Early light"

They are all on you tube if you want to look them up.
And you kids thought you invented Doom Porn

Originally posted by Gazrok
reply to post by GetLogic

 

Even if you do hold out in a bunker...eventually, you'll run out of supplies...and venturing onto the surface, will find a world incapable of supporting you (nuclear winter, radiation, fouled soil and water, no flora or fauna, etc.). This is, of course, in an all out nuclear exchange. Of course, this is also why it likely won't EVER actually happen. At least not on a global scale.

i agree...the land around chernobyl is lush with plants and has animals wandering around, however, the life span for a human living there would be short, with all types of cancers, tumors, and deformities inhabiting each human.

reply to post by mash3d

And you kids thought you invented Doom Porn

We LIVED it...every day. In the 80's, we all had the very real fear that we could look up at any moment and see mushroom clouds. It was a very real threat...and the generation today has no idea what it's like to live with that kind of thing hanging over you.

Radiation is a concern in a nuclear exchange but using time distance and shielding you can mitigate the 3 primary radiations
However Thermal damage and overpressure are huge concerns when planning a safe place to live.
If you live thirty miles from ground zero and everything you need to survive is ashes and the stick built house just got plastered by 3 psi of over pressure and buries your basement shelter you may have issues

Just a thought/

www.atomicarchive.com...

www.ebmedicine.net...

www.fas.org...

Sorry Use to be a WMD guy for the military.....had to add my two cents; Why I live in the MTs. surrounded my rock.

bring it on..

reply to post by all2human


Dude I got that same outfit!.....must be standard issue!.