User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
USA
|
Posted: 4/13/2024 3:33:15 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By couchlord: The English long bow is an impressive weapon. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By couchlord: Originally Posted By tc556guy: The relative lack of firearms in Great Britain would be a major issue for me. There are only so many useable weapons that would be found in police stations and the MoD. The general public would be back to defending themselves with sharp pointy sticks in no time The English long bow is an impressive weapon. There is a proposed legislation going through the process in the UK at the moment to criminalize the possession of broadhead arrows (something used in a murder a couple of times a decade). Very impressive that they've solved violent crime so completely that it's worth doing stuff like this. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/13/2024 3:34:42 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Wolfy42: SE Michigan Multiple automotive factories within 15-20 miles. Home of Trijicon and Eotech are within spitting distance of those factories. Stryker and Borgwarner etc are also clustered. Multiple mirvs will be sent. Selfridge is also with in an hour drive. Yeah bro, I'm sure that Eotech is a priority target. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/13/2024 4:21:09 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1975]
[#3]
We’re 29 miles southwest of a potential (not guaranteed) target so food and water would be our main concern. No real threat of fallout.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/13/2024 4:39:37 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Laydown: Naval Station Everett Boeing Everett Bangor JBLM Port of Seattle I've never been under the illusion of survival... Looked at property near Port Townsend and Sequim…. Naval Magazine Indian Island is awfully close. Seems that a place where they store nuclear weapons for the navy might attract a few bombs. So lots of sunshine due to the rain shadow effect, but with a possibility of canned sunshine…. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/14/2024 8:48:18 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Butternut: If one were to touch off elsewhere in the world, it would change things, globally, like few can imagine. Beyond the mass murder, the economic repercussions would eventually devastate all. If one were to touch off in the US, we'd never recover in our lifetimes. If multiple hits lit the US, sooner or later, and probably sooner, almost everyone left would wish and pray they had been taken in the initial inferno.  Survival doctrine has and will of course be formulated by governments, as it goes against all human nature not to hope and plan. But don't kid yourself. If there is global nuclear war, it will be a coming of hell on earth, and those left will wish they were not. You are claiming if one bomb went off in the US, "we'd never recover in our lifetimes"? Hiroshima became a pleasant, livable city well within the lifetime of those who experienced the bomb. If there was a large exchange hitting the US, then I agree that many survivors would die painful deaths of starvation months later. However, I disagree that everyone would be in that boat. Some areas that weren't hit by fallout and were farming communities would be in very good condition. They would simply have to learn to manage without any imports of practically anything from outside their region. However, if they knew how to grow wheat, and raise cows, etc, they would just continue with doing that. They would probably need to switch to plowing with draft animals, but I'm sure the Amish can show them that that is not impossible. There would actually be large areas where the infrastructure and people were untouched. Because there will still be large areas that aren't directly nuked or contaminated by fallout. Not easy to predict where those areas will be though, because the random chance of the weather will determine which areas get blanketed with lethal fallout. I'll repeat a tip for those with livestock: Even if your livestock get a lethal dose of prompt radiation, if you preemptively put them inside a barn and prevent them from eating any fallout-contaminated grass, feed, or water, then if you decontaminate the outside of the carcass, the meat will still be perfectly safe to eat. However, if you let them graze on a field contaminated with fallout, (or drink contaminated water) then the meat itself will become contaminated, and won't be safe to eat. However, if you are near a strategic target, military base, major airport, major port, of big city, you are probably screwed, and should either hope to be killed in the initial blast, or take action to relocate to a better location now, before a nuclear war occurs. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/14/2024 8:56:17 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By couchlord: The English long bow is an impressive weapon. And how many Englishmen and still proficient in its use? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/14/2024 9:10:10 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By RouxGaRoux: I love these threads. I get to read everyone's proud responses that their locale is a prime bomb target. FEMA's best (unclassified) guess about 10 years ago. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/14/2024 9:15:34 AM EDT
[Last Edit: scuba_steve]
[#8]
Someone put together this fake BBC broadcast of a buildup to a nuclear exchange several years ago and it's worth watching, especially to the end, which may be a bit jarring.
 BBC Nuclear Attack Broadcast |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/14/2024 9:26:20 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By scuba_steve: FEMA's best (unclassified) guess about 10 years ago. https://i.imgur.com/sR878wi.jpeg I've always liked the maps. When you live under a large blob of dots, there's no sense worrying about it. I'm old enough to remember duck and cover, fallout shelters, all that. Ky grade school had one...  |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/14/2024 9:28:53 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By scuba_steve: FEMA's best (unclassified) guess about 10 years ago. https://i.imgur.com/sR878wi.jpeg What a stupid map. If the Russians are slinging 500 warheads at us, why would they nuke cities instead of strategic and tactical targets? City busting doesn't stop retaliation, nuking nuke delivery vehicles does. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/14/2024 9:33:37 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ACDer: I'm not saying we won't get our hair mussed.... If you have any hair left |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/14/2024 9:34:16 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Wolfy42: SE Michigan Multiple automotive factories within 15-20 miles. Home of Trijicon and Eotech are within spitting distance of those factories. Stryker and Borgwarner etc are also clustered. Multiple mirvs will be sent. Selfridge is also with in an hour drive. lol not sure if sarcastic |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/14/2024 9:35:38 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By tc556guy: And how many Englishmen and still proficient in its use? made up |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/14/2024 9:44:40 AM EDT
[#14]
The most efficient hit is to have an air burst. They are also less "dirty" than one
on the ground. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/14/2024 9:48:44 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By L_JE: That's an expert? I came here to post that. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/14/2024 9:54:04 AM EDT
[#16]
I've already got my bomb shelter set up in the basement...
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/14/2024 9:54:07 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By RouxGaRoux: I love these threads. I get to read everyone's proud responses that their locale is a prime bomb target. Nope. Not even in a fall out zone. The majority of the people who die will die in the first couple of years due to famine.  On the map (pictured above), the black dots represent targets in 2,000 warhead scenarios and the purple triangles represent targets in 500 scenarios. The red asterisks and squares represent state capitals and cities, respectively. According to the map, the states with densely-clustered regions are those along the east coast, as well as California, Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, and Wyoming. Major potential targets for an attack are active nuclear power plants, of which the U.S. has about 90. Some of these plants are located in Alabama, Arizona, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee. Cities with critical infrastructure and dense populations show up as prime targets, including New York, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Washington, DC. Irwin Redlener, a public health expert at Columbia University, has named these six cities as the most likely targets in the event of a nuclear attack. Link |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/14/2024 9:54:08 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Going_Commando: What a stupid map. If the Russians are slinging 500 warheads at us, why would they nuke cities instead of strategic and tactical targets? City busting doesn't stop retaliation, nuking nuke delivery vehicles does. The 2000-warhead attack is an estimate of a Russian first strike. The 500-warhead attack is an estimate of a Russian retaliatory strike after a US first strike, limiting the Russian arsenal, especially their more accurate land-based missiles. So ignore the 500-warhead icons. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/14/2024 10:01:47 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Going_Commando: What a stupid map. If the Russians are slinging 500 warheads at us, why would they nuke cities instead of strategic and tactical targets? City busting doesn't stop retaliation, nuking nuke delivery vehicles does. Yeah its a weird take on it. Yes, lets not hit the missile fields.... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/14/2024 10:18:33 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By RouxGaRoux: I love these threads. I get to read everyone's proud responses that their locale is a prime bomb target. I don't have a chance. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/14/2024 10:26:03 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By tac556: Looked at property near Port Townsend and Sequim . Naval Magazine Indian Island is awfully close. Seems that a place where they store nuclear weapons for the navy might attract a few bombs. So lots of sunshine due to the rain shadow effect, but with a possibility of canned sunshine . Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By tac556: Originally Posted By Laydown: Naval Station Everett Boeing Everett Bangor JBLM Port of Seattle I've never been under the illusion of survival... Looked at property near Port Townsend and Sequim . Naval Magazine Indian Island is awfully close. Seems that a place where they store nuclear weapons for the navy might attract a few bombs. So lots of sunshine due to the rain shadow effect, but with a possibility of canned sunshine . Having said that, I lived in Seattle for 10 years in the 1980's; until today, I never heard of Indian Island Naval Magazine before. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/14/2024 10:28:59 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Going_Commando: What a stupid map. If the Russians are slinging 500 warheads at us, why would they nuke cities instead of strategic and tactical targets? City busting doesn't stop retaliation, nuking nuke delivery vehicles does. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Going_Commando: Originally Posted By scuba_steve: FEMA's best (unclassified) guess about 10 years ago. https://i.imgur.com/sR878wi.jpeg What a stupid map. If the Russians are slinging 500 warheads at us, why would they nuke cities instead of strategic and tactical targets? City busting doesn't stop retaliation, nuking nuke delivery vehicles does.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/14/2024 10:30:49 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Harlikwin: Yeah its a weird take on it. Yes, lets not hit the missile fields.... Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Harlikwin: Originally Posted By Going_Commando: What a stupid map. If the Russians are slinging 500 warheads at us, why would they nuke cities instead of strategic and tactical targets? City busting doesn't stop retaliation, nuking nuke delivery vehicles does. Yeah its a weird take on it. Yes, lets not hit the missile fields.... Maybe they figure the silos would already be empty. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/14/2024 10:46:25 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CastleBravo91: I gotta chuckle when they always compare modern nukes to the Little Boy. Even the device at Trinity had a higher yield than Little Boy. Little Boy was a pretty small device, relative to nearly every other device used in atmospheric testing. If they nuke Chicago, which will likely happen, I'd probably be ok from the initial blast if it's in the 1-10 megaton range. A Tsar Bomba sized device (which is extremely unlikely) would be a very gnasty day though. I'd get cooked from the heat out here. Now, if they also nuke Elgin (which I have no idea the likelihood of that) then I'm fucked. If they hit Byron nuclear plant, I'm in the direct path of the fallout. And there are a few plants to the south of me that might be a problem too. So yeah, it still doesn't look good for me. You're not sure they'd nuke Elgin if they attack? Buddy, you'd glow more than an ATF agent.  Attached File |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/14/2024 10:49:18 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By scuba_steve: FEMA's best (unclassified) guess about 10 years ago. https://i.imgur.com/sR878wi.jpeg Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By scuba_steve: Originally Posted By RouxGaRoux: I love these threads. I get to read everyone's proud responses that their locale is a prime bomb target. FEMA's best (unclassified) guess about 10 years ago. https://i.imgur.com/sR878wi.jpeg FEMA never released that. It's simply some journo's (probably lousy) take on scenarios he, himself, came up with. He did use FEMA, et al, documentation of critical this, essential that, but that's the extent of it. The map is fan fiction. |
|
|
|
MD, USA
|
Posted: 4/14/2024 10:52:09 AM EDT
[Last Edit: MKSheppard]
[#26]
Originally Posted By wheel: A nuclear attack on Britain from a hostile state such as Russia is most likely to involve one or more 'atom bombs' with an explosive yield equivalent to one megaton of dynamite. This is 80 times the strength of the Little Boy bomb dropped on Hiroshima, which had a yield equivalent to just 15 kilotons of dynamite and killed up to 140,000 people. According to modelling by the website NukeMap, a single bomb on this scale would likely kill everyone and destroy all buildings within a 1.4 mile 'heavy blast radius. As far as seven miles from the impact zone, anyone outdoors can expect third-degree burns, with exposed limbs requiring amputation. If the bomb were to hit Parliament Square in Central London, for example, immediate fatalities would be recorded as far away as Wembley, Wimbledon and Woolwich, with a northerly breeze taking lethal radioactive fallout as far as Newcastle within an hour. One megaton? Even the Russians got rid of most of that by the 1980s; using 500 KT warheads. But anyway let's use actual NUKE SOFTWARE. https://www.generalstaff.org/JSDOS/JSDOS_WE.htm Weapon Effects, Coded 1984 for Director, Defense Nuclear Agency The optimum Height of burst is about 2km (6561 ft) for a 1MT warhead; so we get this:  That's about 8 miles from DGZ for third degree burns. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/14/2024 10:58:59 AM EDT
[Last Edit: scuba_steve]
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By L_JE: FEMA never released that. It's simply some journo's (probably lousy) take on scenarios he, himself, came up with. He did use FEMA, et al, documentation of critical this, essential that, but that's the extent of it. The map is fan fiction. Didn't say they made the map. I said it was their best guess, based on the sources consulted by the author (lower left), but I'll acknowledge I don't know what specific sources were used.  But this is a pretty interesting up-to-date guide, sourced directly from FEMA: Planning Guidance for Response to a Nuclear Detonation (pdf) Also, Scientific American published a pretty grim article last year on the radiation hazard over time from an attack on our US silos. Spoiler alert, pretty much everyone in Montana and the Midwest would be fucked... with populations south and east only slightly better off. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/14/2024 11:05:44 AM EDT
[#28]
I’m near Mt Weather and one of the secret squirrel Cold War AT&T facilities. If blowing up AT&T doesn’t get us immediately, and that’s iffy, the fallout from multiple ground bursts on Mount Weather will get us in a few days.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/14/2024 11:14:33 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By scuba_steve: Didn't say they made the map. I said it was their best guess, based on the sources consulted by the author (lower left), but I'll acknowledge I don't know what specific sources were used. But this is a pretty interesting up-to-date guide, sourced directly from FEMA: Planning Guidance for Response to a Nuclear Detonation (pdf) Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By scuba_steve: Originally Posted By L_JE: FEMA never released that. It's simply some journo's (probably lousy) take on scenarios he, himself, came up with. He did use FEMA, et al, documentation of critical this, essential that, but that's the extent of it. The map is fan fiction. Didn't say they made the map. I said it was their best guess, based on the sources consulted by the author (lower left), but I'll acknowledge I don't know what specific sources were used. But this is a pretty interesting up-to-date guide, sourced directly from FEMA: Planning Guidance for Response to a Nuclear Detonation (pdf) The map is designed to scare the maximum number of Americans possible along with the lies that everyone will just be vaporized. The targets not identified on the map as 500 or even 2000 device targets are laughable and discredit the entire thing. |
|
|
|
SD, USA
|
Posted: 4/14/2024 11:20:47 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Harlikwin: . The other question is of course how many of the 1700 or so "active" missiles/warheads actually work? Half? 25%? Given the state of Russia who really knows. Having worked with quite a few missile and warhead techs who then went in to IT after the service, and some of the stories they had servicing the things, I honestly have to wonder how many of the US land based icbms are going to fly, and if they do fly, are they going to arm and detonate? Pencil whipping isn't just Russian thing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/14/2024 11:23:38 AM EDT
[Last Edit: scuba_steve]
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By soncorn: The map is designed to scare the maximum number of Americans possible along with the lies that everyone will just be vaporized. The targets not identified on the map as 500 or even 2000 device targets are laughable and discredit the entire thing. As noted above, the author's 500-target scenario is not intended to represent the targets Russia would choose for a limited first strike. They represent what Russia would likely target in retaliation, after a US first strike wiped out much of Russia's ground-based targets, including their more accurate silo-based missiles. Thus, the 2000 target icons are really the more interesting ones. Are they 100% accurate? Of course, not. Any such estimate is a best guess, including our IC's best estimates. Suffice to say, if you live in DC or Minot, you probably don't need to worry about the day after. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/14/2024 11:29:35 AM EDT
[#32]
The other fun thing to consider at this point is how many ABM systems/capability the US has in light of the recent unpleasantness on israel where they shot down a bunch of IRBM.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/14/2024 11:31:05 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By scuba_steve: As noted above, the author's 500-target scenario is not intended to represent the targets Russia would choose for a limited first strike. They represent what Russia would likely target in retaliation, after a US first strike wiped out much of Russia's ground-based targets, including their more accurate silo-based missiles. Thus, the 2000 target icons are really the more interesting ones. Are they 100% accurate? Of course, not. Any such estimate is a best guess, including our IC's best estimates. Suffice to say, if you live in DC or Minot, you probably don't need to worry about the day after. Well given russia has like 1700 warheads on "active duty" and say 25% work. What are their actual priority targets. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/14/2024 11:33:50 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By scuba_steve: As noted above, the author's 500-target scenario is not intended to represent the targets Russia would choose for a limited first strike. They represent what Russia would likely target in retaliation, after a US first strike wiped out much of Russia's ground-based targets, including their more accurate silo-based missiles. Thus, the 2000 target icons are really the more interesting ones. Are they 100% accurate? Of course, not. Any such estimate is a best guess, including our IC's best estimates. Suffice to say, if you live in DC or Minot, you probably don't need to worry about the day after. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By scuba_steve: Originally Posted By soncorn: The map is designed to scare the maximum number of Americans possible along with the lies that everyone will just be vaporized. The targets not identified on the map as 500 or even 2000 device targets are laughable and discredit the entire thing. As noted above, the author's 500-target scenario is not intended to represent the targets Russia would choose for a limited first strike. They represent what Russia would likely target in retaliation, after a US first strike wiped out much of Russia's ground-based targets, including their more accurate silo-based missiles. Thus, the 2000 target icons are really the more interesting ones. Are they 100% accurate? Of course, not. Any such estimate is a best guess, including our IC's best estimates. Suffice to say, if you live in DC or Minot, you probably don't need to worry about the day after. They wouldn't target Whiteman or Pantex or Fort Sill or Sheppard or Fort Leonard Wood or Minot or Hawaii or Alaska or ... in a retaliatory attack? Come on. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/14/2024 11:38:55 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By scuba_steve: Didn't say they made the map. I said it was their best guess, based on the sources consulted by the author (lower left), but I'll acknowledge I don't know what specific sources were used. But this is a pretty interesting up-to-date guide, sourced directly from FEMA: Planning Guidance for Response to a Nuclear Detonation (pdf) Also, Scientific American published a pretty grim article last year on the radiation hazard over time from an attack on our US silos. Spoiler alert, pretty much everyone in Montana and the Midwest would be fucked... with populations south and east only slightly better off. thanks. watching the video from said article now:  What Would a Nuclear Strike Inside the U.S. Look Like? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/14/2024 11:40:55 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Merlin: Yep. For me, it's the twice monthly Dog Days Flea Market near the 'state. I don't have a chance.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/14/2024 11:41:26 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Firearmsenthusiast]
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By scuba_steve: Didn't say they made the map. I said it was their best guess, based on the sources consulted by the author (lower left), but I'll acknowledge I don't know what specific sources were used. But this is a pretty interesting up-to-date guide, sourced directly from FEMA: Planning Guidance for Response to a Nuclear Detonation (pdf) Also, Scientific American published a pretty grim article last year on the radiation hazard over time from an attack on our US silos. Spoiler alert, pretty much everyone in Montana and the Midwest would be fucked... with populations south and east only slightly better off. It would be terrible. Soviet doctrine was to use 2 to 3 warheads per US silo to ensure they were destroyed, I doubt that has changed. Thesecare all ground bursts, hundreds and hundreds of them blasting debris in the air. We would be completely fucked here in ND. Remember the smoke from the Candian wild fires? Image the same thing with radioactive fallout, it would choke the sky's all the way to the east coast. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/14/2024 11:43:39 AM EDT
[#38]
I'm about fifty Km from Barksdale AFB. Not much to worry about after they land.
|
|
|
|
IL, USA
|
Posted: 4/14/2024 11:51:06 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CastleBravo91: I gotta chuckle when they always compare modern nukes to the Little Boy. Even the device at Trinity had a higher yield than Little Boy. Little Boy was a pretty small device, relative to nearly every other device used in atmospheric testing. If they nuke Chicago, which will likely happen, I'd probably be ok from the initial blast if it's in the 1-10 megaton range. A Tsar Bomba sized device (which is extremely unlikely) would be a very gnasty day though. I'd get cooked from the heat out here. Now, if they also nuke Elgin (which I have no idea the likelihood of that) then I'm fucked. If they hit Byron nuclear plant, I'm in the direct path of the fallout. And there are a few plants to the south of me that might be a problem too. So yeah, it still doesn't look good for me. Also being in Elgin, I'm thinking Ohare airport would probably be targeted and we might be fucked anyway. |
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 4/14/2024 12:00:13 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By soncorn: They wouldn't target Whiteman or Pantex or Fort Sill or Sheppard or Fort Leonard Wood or Minot or Hawaii or Alaska or ... in a retaliatory attack? Come on. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By soncorn: Originally Posted By scuba_steve: Originally Posted By soncorn: The map is designed to scare the maximum number of Americans possible along with the lies that everyone will just be vaporized. The targets not identified on the map as 500 or even 2000 device targets are laughable and discredit the entire thing. As noted above, the author's 500-target scenario is not intended to represent the targets Russia would choose for a limited first strike. They represent what Russia would likely target in retaliation, after a US first strike wiped out much of Russia's ground-based targets, including their more accurate silo-based missiles. Thus, the 2000 target icons are really the more interesting ones. Are they 100% accurate? Of course, not. Any such estimate is a best guess, including our IC's best estimates. Suffice to say, if you live in DC or Minot, you probably don't need to worry about the day after. They wouldn't target Whiteman or Pantex or Fort Sill or Sheppard or Fort Leonard Wood or Minot or Hawaii or Alaska or ... in a retaliatory attack? Come on. That's the real issue with the map. In a true global exchange, Russia or China will be also targeting Pearl, Guam, bases in Germany, bases in Alaska, Diego Garcia, etc etc etc. Offhand there's probably at least 20-30 strategic targets OCONUS that would absolutely be targeted in either a first or a second strike. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/14/2024 12:13:15 PM EDT
[#41]
Well I live within spitting distance of Tinker AFB...I figure I, hopefully, won't even know it happened.
|
|
|
|
NV, USA
|
Posted: 4/14/2024 12:17:12 PM EDT
[#42]
Lots of theories on nuke war.
Some say it'll be limited, some say it'll be Armageddon. Some say there are nukes without radiation and then there are those with radiation. Some say nukes are outdated as a competent cyber attack is far cheaper and will achieve the same results over a longer period of time with less infrastructure damage. Think EMP or actual cyber attack. Some say the threat is already in our midst in the media and schools and the population is already turning on it's own citizenry and all the global élite have to do is wait it out. The plan is working. All I know is I have to feed my family, keep a roof and not die. Everything else is out of my control. |
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 4/14/2024 12:18:51 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By scuba_steve: Didn't say they made the map. I said it was their best guess, based on the sources consulted by the author (lower left), but I'll acknowledge I don't know what specific sources were used. But this is a pretty interesting up-to-date guide, sourced directly from FEMA: Planning Guidance for Response to a Nuclear Detonation (pdf) Also, Scientific American published a pretty grim article last year on the radiation hazard over time from an attack on our US silos. Spoiler alert, pretty much everyone in Montana and the Midwest would be fucked... with populations south and east only slightly better off. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By scuba_steve: Originally Posted By L_JE: FEMA never released that. It's simply some journo's (probably lousy) take on scenarios he, himself, came up with. He did use FEMA, et al, documentation of critical this, essential that, but that's the extent of it. The map is fan fiction. Didn't say they made the map. I said it was their best guess, based on the sources consulted by the author (lower left), but I'll acknowledge I don't know what specific sources were used. But this is a pretty interesting up-to-date guide, sourced directly from FEMA: Planning Guidance for Response to a Nuclear Detonation (pdf) Also, Scientific American published a pretty grim article last year on the radiation hazard over time from an attack on our US silos. Spoiler alert, pretty much everyone in Montana and the Midwest would be fucked... with populations south and east only slightly better off. While the simulations may be true, the real point of the SA article is to drive public opinion against renewing and maintaining the land-based leg of the triad. The ultimate goal, if we strip away all the layers of camouflage and obfuscation, is to convince the American government via public opinion, to divest from a nuclear deterrence arsenal, and thus to be rendered defenseless against other hostile peer nations. Who would benefit from such a scenario? What would occur next if we did such a fucking retarded thing? The answers are obvious to anyone with a shred of strategic policymaking awareness. Consider that almost no one is bringing up China's frantic expansion of their ICBM silo fields. Nor that we know next to nothing of how many warheads they actually have deployed right now, except enough to know that all of the Pentagon's public-facing estimates are gross lies undercounting China's actual capability by a factor of 5 or more. Why would China be massively expanding their strategic nuclear arsenal while our government denies its happening, and our media sources try to convince the public we need to get rid of our nukes? Under what scenarios do these facts make sense? |
|
|
ME, USA
|
Posted: 4/14/2024 12:20:17 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CastleBravo91: I gotta chuckle when they always compare modern nukes to the Little Boy. Even the device at Trinity had a higher yield than Little Boy. Little Boy was a pretty small device, relative to nearly every other device used in atmospheric testing. If they nuke Chicago, which will likely happen, I'd probably be ok from the initial blast if it's in the 1-10 megaton range. A Tsar Bomba sized device (which is extremely unlikely) would be a very gnasty day though. I'd get cooked from the heat out here. Now, if they also nuke Elgin (which I have no idea the likelihood of that) then I'm fucked. If they hit Byron nuclear plant, I'm in the direct path of the fallout. And there are a few plants to the south of me that might be a problem too. So yeah, it still doesn't look good for me. Is there a coupon? Or can we pay extra or something to guarantee the Chicago thing? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/14/2024 12:26:07 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Firearmsenthusiast: It would be terrible. Soviet doctrine was to use 2 to 3 warheads per US silo to ensure they were destroyed, I doubt that has changed. Thesecare all ground bursts, hundreds and hundreds of them blasting debris in the air. We would be completely fucked here in ND. Remember the smoke from the Candian wild fires? Image the same thing with radioactive fallout, it would choke the sky's all the way to the east coast. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Firearmsenthusiast: Originally Posted By scuba_steve: Didn't say they made the map. I said it was their best guess, based on the sources consulted by the author (lower left), but I'll acknowledge I don't know what specific sources were used. But this is a pretty interesting up-to-date guide, sourced directly from FEMA: Planning Guidance for Response to a Nuclear Detonation (pdf) Also, Scientific American published a pretty grim article last year on the radiation hazard over time from an attack on our US silos. Spoiler alert, pretty much everyone in Montana and the Midwest would be fucked... with populations south and east only slightly better off. It would be terrible. Soviet doctrine was to use 2 to 3 warheads per US silo to ensure they were destroyed, I doubt that has changed. Thesecare all ground bursts, hundreds and hundreds of them blasting debris in the air. We would be completely fucked here in ND. Remember the smoke from the Candian wild fires? Image the same thing with radioactive fallout, it would choke the sky's all the way to the east coast. Keep in mind that those wildfires burned for days and weeks on end. An attack with ground bursts would most definitely create very large amounts of fallout but it wouldn't continue to be generated beyond the discrete events like wildfires. The areas to be most affected could be predicted based on seasonal average wind patterns but would be completely dependent on the wind and weather conditions during and for the few days post event. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/14/2024 12:26:59 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By swede1986: Yeah bro, I'm sure that Eotech is a priority target. They will fail with the sudden temperature change anyway. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/14/2024 12:29:32 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By scuba_steve: Someone put together this fake BBC broadcast of a buildup to a nuclear exchange several years ago and it's worth watching, especially to the end, which may be a bit jarring.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cAZZR_Jki0The end put it all into perspective! |
|
|
|
NV, USA
|
Posted: 4/14/2024 12:45:56 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By scuba_steve: Someone put together this fake BBC broadcast of a buildup to a nuclear exchange several years ago and it's worth watching, especially to the end, which may be a bit jarring. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cAZZR_Jki0That would have been "war of the worlds" level accurate 20 years ago. But now the prattling and nonsense and misinformation as well as political bias and finger pointing by the media would have obscured any useful information which would have made any broadcast useless. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/14/2024 12:53:10 PM EDT
[#49]
Here in WV, it feels so remote and far from any serious threat, but looking at a map, you see DC is not THAT far away in the realm of thermonuclear devices.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/14/2024 12:59:50 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MFP_4073: Threads thread documentary here : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhcrgQihRcsHere's the full civil defense video they show clips and sound bites from in Threads....  Protect & Survive - 1970's UK Public infommercials On Nuclear War Preparation |
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
