Where can i get info on what locations in finland are prime russian targets?
Posted by Lord_Agarthacus@reddit | preppers | View on Reddit | 39 comments
Especially now since we are in NATO i would like to know where to find info on nuclear targets and how close i am to them and/or would i get the worst of the radiation. I'm asking this because i only seem to find good resources and info on america where i obviously don't live.
Me and my family have had an idea of constructing a small bunker in our yard and masking it as a potato cellar, like in regards to how big it should be or how long should we spend there in the case of the unthinkable would be nice to know.
dittybopper_05H@reddit
Likely no nuclear targets in Finland.
The reason is that Russia has a limited number of deployed nuclear warheads. An aftereffect of New START arms reduction treaties, there are a limited delivery means, and Russia can't just shit new missile silos, nuclear submarines, or bombers. They take time to build, and while bombers are reusable if not shot down, missiles aren't.
At the level of deployed nuclear warheads, basically Russia has a counterforce capability. Meaning it has to concentrate on US, British, and French nuclear forces.
That's not going to leave a lot of warheads left over to hit Finland, especially given that you need to task at least 2 warheads to each individual target to have a 95%+ chance of destroying it, and some targets are tough enough or distributed enough that you need more than that.
The stored warheads that Russia has are going to be radioactive dust after the first exchange. Because there are limited places you can store them, and those places are very distinctive on satellite imagery (here is the nuclear weapons storage facility at the Engels air base in Russia: https://www.google.com/maps/search/engels+russia+air+base/@51.4873665,46.2457147,1034m )
Consistent-Deal-5198@reddit
Correct on everything. I hate seeing the tired hollywood narrative that anyone has "enough nukes to flatten the earth a thousand times over". Nobody has, why would them? The entire purpose is either deterrence or winning on the first strike.
Having nukes is one thing, having actually ready to go operational nukes is entirely another. The delivery methods are also an entirely different subject. No one will be delivering nukes through slow traditional bombers these days (maybe a tiny number on border towns in a complete surprise attack that involves all other methods simultaneously, but that wouldn't make strategic sense)
Also, OP needs to read on radiation after a nuke goes off. It can affect him without being detonated on Finland at all, but at the same time is most probably not an issue whatsoever, due to how radiation works on nuclear strikes.
Russia is much more likely to engage Finland through drones in airports, energy infrastructure, migrant waves like they do in Poland, submarine operationa do disrupt comms and trade. OP is 50 years behind on this worries.
dittybopper_05H@reddit
Not *QUITE*. When I said Russia had basically just a counterforce capability, I should have added in strikes against command, control, communications, and intelligence facilities. So the Washington DC area is going to get plastered: White House, Capitol, Pentagon, DIA, Fort Meade (NSA), Langley, VA (CIA), etc., along with air bases that could potentially be dispersal bases for nuclear armed bombers.
But places like Säkylä, Upinniemi, and Kuopio?
Exceedingly unlikely.
Mysterious_Touch_454@reddit
Well, depends on what they want to achieve and how many nukes are to be used.
But basically atleast Helsinki, Turku, Tampere, Rovaniemi for cities.
No use to nuke anything else, but maybe Naantali oil refineries and Kotka seaport. And Oulu, because fuck that city especially :D (i was born there).
Lots of conventional targets are there, but those dont need nukes.
Using nukes on Finland is absolutely dumbass move (which doesnt rule it out since its russia :D).
So in reality only nuke i can think of is Helsinki area.
eyepoker4ever@reddit
Isn't that anyplace where civilians live?
Lord_Agarthacus@reddit (OP)
They don't have unlimited nukes, the US and western Europe will be hit the worst in the case of nuclear war, Helsinki and all major airports and seaports will be nuked and thats pretty much it for finland, the worst part for finland will be plummeting temperature driving people down south and food would be cut from other countries and there would be a massive famine that would kill off atleast 2 million finns, and the cold weather and rampant disease could easily kill 1 million more leaving only 2 million fighting over the scraps.
Consistent-Deal-5198@reddit
You are 50 years behind on your worries.
Russia is much more likely to engage Finland through drones in airports, energy infrastructure, migrant waves like they do in Poland, submarine operations do disrupt comms and trade, etc.
Also, you need to read about radiation after a nuke goes off. It can affect you without being detonated in Finland at all, but at the same time is most probably not an issue whatsoever, due to how radiation works on nuclear strikes. Watch this short lecture:
https://youtu.be/EueJrCJ0CcU
Lord_Agarthacus@reddit (OP)
Thanks
JRHLowdown3@reddit
I don't know Finland but some good estimates would be at least: Your capital, larger military bases including airbases, a large city with an airport sized to handle military aircraft.
That being said, the whole "don't shit in your own backyard" thought comes to mind- i.e, Russia would likely get fallout from any attack on your country- making some assumptions about wind currents in your area.
Start by making these estimates, marking them on a map of your country with a circle around each target. See where these locations are in relation to where you live, figure out normal wind currents in your area to give you a rough idea what to expect via fallout. Also what targets are to the West of you, perhaps in another country?
Lord_Agarthacus@reddit (OP)
Stockholm, øslo, copenhangen and the most heavy nuking in the france to moscow axis, so if it's windy to the NE, N or NW then we are gonna get fallout, in the 1980s in a magazine on military stuff it was declassified that the Helsinki Vantaa airport was a prime nuclear target for NATO to prevent the USSR from using it in ww3, so based off of that and in the modern geopolitical status, we are likely to receive russian nukes because they are gonna get fallout anyway in a nuclear war against NATO.
BaitmasterG@reddit
I assume the government would have lists of schools, hospitals and old people's homes available, these are the usual target of Russia's "army"
BagSignal7908@reddit
I think honestly that Russia will be one of the last countries to start a nuclear exchange with anyone. They have like two cities worth anything to them and they are both easily reachable from the west. What I mean is that Moscow would be glassed over pretty quick in a nuclear war, and what's left of Russia worth preserving after that?...
Lord_Agarthacus@reddit (OP)
Don't forget china and north korea which are sided with russia
BagSignal7908@reddit
Do you think they are about to end all life on the planet? I think the ones with the finger on the button, have it pretty good at the moment, I don't see why they would end all that.
Lord_Agarthacus@reddit (OP)
A nuclear war wouldn't end all life, it would end life as we know it but we will survive through if it happens.
Gullible-Cow9166@reddit
Bomb shelter is fine, nuclear is a massive step up and will it be worth leaving the shelter anyway????
I should build it so that you could continue life in it. Look at Ukraine or Gazza, if all the infrastructure is screwed and the housing destroyed it will be nice to have somewhere you can hide, eat and feel safe.
razorthick_@reddit
No nukes but you can expect Russian troops to try to move southwest along the coast to Helsinki. So Lappeentantan would be an immediate target, it has an airport and would be an easy to overwhelm. Then they can pivot west to Kouvola while another force travels on the E18 road first taking Virolahti and then Kotka. If they make it that far they could meet where both roads connect and continue west taking each city and town on the way to Helsinki. There's plenty of roads that connect to each other around the capital so they could try encircling through Lahtni and Hameenlinna.
Every man, woman and child along this southeastern region should be armed and getting doing some sort prep. Don't expect NATO to immediately show up. It takes time for the cavalry to arrive, even your domestic forces can't be everywhere. Its a joke in the US, sure you can call the police but they are usually 15 to 30 minutes away.
Build the bunker anyway and make sure you can hit a moving target with your rifle.
Lord_Agarthacus@reddit (OP)
Thanks
CadetThrowAwaway@reddit
I'm currently reading the book After the Flash By Mark Rush, it's a good modern look at the current nuclear threat situation. A lot of the "Lore" around nuclear attacks is either outdated cold war propaganda, or it's Hollywood hype. A fallout shelter you'd need to live in for months at a time may not be necessary as airburst become more common.
If Helsinki was nuked with a ground burst today, there is good chance the fallout would land in St. Petersburg, which is not exactly a big brain move, while an airburst would have a similar impact with less chance of radiating the motherland in the process.
tegriddysmesh@reddit
i think that airburst is the way to go even if you hate your target. one could say, especially if you hate your target and want to maximize damage. but i am neither a war analyst nor a nuclear expert. i am worried that Greece may be a nuclear target because we house NATO instalations and we have the port of Alexandroupoli active and servicing NATO supply lines but even then, i doubt that the Russians will have nukes to spare. hopefully we will never have to find out.
Skalgrin@reddit
It's unlikely to be hit by nukes in your scenario, but go for the cellar/bunker/shelter. Nuclear fallout can and would occur even when Finland would it get hit. It can happen due to non intended disaster. It protects also in case of conventional bombardment effects (shrapnel) which is much more likely to happen than nuclear exchange.
In case of nuclear exchange, and ground burst would happen (intentionally or not) you should remain sheltered optimally for 3 weeks.
You need airflow in a shelter of any kind, in case of nuclear shelter, it must be protected from dust. (Dust traps, filters, ...). You need enough water for every member (2 liters per person per day for drinking, 5 liters in total per person per day for all needs (food prep, drinking, hygiene). You need calories and balanced food (simple calories are not enough, you need relatively healthy food) for every day for everyone. You need a way to dispose of waste both normal and human one (pee and poo). Source of heat (heating and food/water prep) compatible with the shelter (smoke and CO2 ventilation, air intake), comfortable sleeping, something to keep your mind busy with, source of light, radio. It needs to be spacious enough (but the smaller the easier and cheaper to build). It needs to be hydroisolated. In an ideal scenario, it needs secondary (escape, emergency) exit.
palisairuta@reddit
I would say none at all. You are too close to Russia so they are def not going to nuke you. Same with Ukraine. They will not nuke. You have bigger problems though. They will absolutely go for your power grid.
Skalgrin@reddit
You have great belief in Russian sanity. I hope you are not wrong.
kkinnison@reddit
anything in artillery range of the border.
and you are over reacting if you think Russia will use nuclear weapons on finland. which would invoke article five of the UN charter and wipe out Russia and any military ability they have.. heck even the US might decide to get involved in the action to use all their fancy toys
Lord_Agarthacus@reddit (OP)
Yes Finland would not be striked first but we would be caught in the crossfire if an article five occurs in say the baltics or poland, our targets would probably be airports, seaports and population centers like Helsinki Vantaa and Turku
VilleKivinen@reddit
Russia is very unlikely to nuke Finland, as prevailing winds are due east on northern hemisphere, and large part of the fallout would land in Russia.
Besides, what would they gain by nuking Finland?
TheRealBunkerJohn@reddit
Dang. I don't have maps for Europe unfortunately (I sell ones for the continental U.S.) For Europe though...hmm. There's one for Germany that shows the tip of Finland here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364032346_Safe_from_Harm_Massive_Attack_Nuclear_Worst-Case_Scenario_for_Civil_Protection_in_Germany_Regarding_High-Risk_Zones_of_Exposure_Vulnerability_and_Safe_Havens
It looks like there's no primary targets since there aren't any nuclear weapons stored in Finland- but that may have changed given the recent NATO membership.
https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/nuclear-weapons-europe-mapping-us-and-russian-deployments
Having a bunker is not a bad idea in Europe at the moment- just have to be aware of what you're planning for (the blast, or fallout.) Thankfully, Finland has a LOT of bunkers available for use during wartime- and it can fit nearly their entire population.
Lord_Agarthacus@reddit (OP)
Thankfully we don't live in the capital metro area but about a dozen km away from Helsinki Vantaa, i live in a small 8000-9000 person town so the only real threat would be the fallout and poisonous sleet, also it will be much colder so alot of people will be fleeing the north and going down south when the bombs have dropped, the safest bet would prob be to hide in the bunker for as long as possible, because it would be smart to wait for the poison dust and sleet to wash away a bit before doing expeditions to find resources and a new base, if the house is intact, we would prob hunker there or go raid a nearby storage facility, alot of metals and machinery to scavenge and use.
TheRealBunkerJohn@reddit
Aaaah I gotcha. I'd definitely see what local bunkers are available- there might be some locally maintained ones for your town. In general, waiting longer is good if there's localized nuclear detonations, absolutely!
Lord_Agarthacus@reddit (OP)
We have one civildefense bunker at our junior high, and another at the foot of a hill that would seem to get very crowded very fast almost immediately
TheRealBunkerJohn@reddit
Ah- so it might not be big enough to house everyone then? I'd always suggest being in a crowded bunker that's built to withstand a nuclear blast + fallout, than a DIY solution.
Lord_Agarthacus@reddit (OP)
Tbh i don't trust the idea given that the bunker is probably built in the 1950s and is partly exposed, i have no idea how big the entire space is but it seems quite small.
TheRealBunkerJohn@reddit
You should be able to find some records or something- because I know many European countries are modernizing and checking their bunkers. It should be public record, and maybe that could give you some more clarity.
Prestigious_Yak8551@reddit
I think that if nukes did start flying (and thats a big if), they would entirely be nuclear armed countries attempting to annihilate other nuclear armed countries. So Finland wont be directly hit. Perhaps you can search for missile bases in Russia near the Finnish border, but I doubt they are listed on google maps.... I am all for a potato cellar though, food after nuclear war would be a problem.
smsff2@reddit
The course of all previous wars had very little to do with what was right or wrong or with morality. At the top of the priority list were military objectives, not ethics. Nuclear weapons have been used twice in military history - both times against non–nuclear-armed Japan.
Before the Second Gulf War, an unnamed U.S. official said, "If he (Saddam Hussein) were to launch an NBC attack against the United States, our allies, or our interests, we would turn Iraq into a big glass parking lot." However, Iraq did not possess nuclear weapons.
Let me give you another example. The Chernobyl reactor was unique in design. Reactors of that type could produce weapons-grade plutonium while also generating electricity; they could not be reliably controlled. It is safer - though more expensive - to use two different reactor types: civilian reactors for electricity generation and military reactors for producing plutonium (but not electricity). When deciding to build and operate RBMK-type reactors, the Politburo had a choice. With some non-zero probability, many Russian people would die. If they had used dedicated, purpose-built reactors, their nuclear program would have been longer and more expensive. What were the members of the Politburo supposed to do? Suppose you had two options: one is likely to cause many deaths; the other is more expensive and leaves you with less money. Which would you choose?
smsff2@reddit
I'm not aware of any existing layout similar to OPEN-RISOP for Finland. However, once you become familiar with maps like the 1200 RISOP, you start to understand the logic behind the plan. The following types of facilities are likely to appear on such a list:
When reviewing the 1200 RISOP and comparing it with the list I had in mind, I realized I had overlooked the importance of seaports and rail yards.
I'm not very familiar with Finnish geography, but a quick Internet search pointed out the following military installations:
Lord_Agarthacus@reddit (OP)
Thanks!
allahyokdinyalan@reddit
If ur directly hit, its gg. If not, acute radiation poisoning and following radioactive debris is your worst enemy. I’ll explain a singular nuclear exchange scrnario but if it comes in waves its probbaly gg too. Its best to have iodine tablets to last all your family for a month at least. (iodine uptake is very fast in the thyroid and radioactive iodine can cause cancer rapidly) It’s also important to refrain from stepping outside as much you can and to stock enough nonperishing foods to last for a couple months. Stock a lot of water and build recycling systems. Treat all rain and outside water as contaminated.
Treat everything that was outside during and shortly after the nuke as irradiated and have tons of gloves and plastic bags to safely handle any object or any clothing/gear that may come in contact with radioactive particles. Never use anything that was used outside indoors.
Have a geiger counter too and be educated about it. Scan anything that has been outside.
Assuming you are really serious, you should also have very high quality filtered masks and radiation shields for your genitalia and thyroid (at least) for any outside expeditions.
Don’t plan to have any pets with you, assume they are dead and don’t handle/pet/hunt/eat/take insifr any nearby animals (or outsiders) for a couple months. If you must, thoroughly scan them for radioactivity. They will be contaminated and pets will be a huge hazard for your safety and contamination prevention measures as you can not reliably control their behaviour and can NEVER take them out with you for a while.
DogsAreOurFriends@reddit
Military bases. Cities.