How Much Nuke Prep? I take a moderate approach for peace of mind.
Posted by iamliberty@reddit | preppers | View on Reddit | 175 comments
In the midst of all out nuclear war I am sure many people would rather be dead. The problem is you don't get to choose where they fall, or if you get vaporized.
Over at least a decade, I have thought this over and found that there are some actions that really help me sleep at night. Knowing the targets in your area i.e. power infrastructure, military bases, government, major populations, data centers? Also, understanding the yield of a modern nuke.
How many people have looked into local potential targets? How about used nukemap to see what a strike on that target would do to your home or town?
When it comes to Nuke Prep it often feels like its 75% tamping down the mental anxiety of WHAT IF and 25% shielding from the effects/after effects of an actual strike.
Of course, my buddy Dave Jones the NBC Guy, Army Major who taught nuclear, biological, and chemical warfare, always says, "Even if ONE nuke goes off in America, it will be PANDEMONIUM."
Very interested in your take.
4Yk9gop@reddit
If you are not in the immediate blast zone, surviving the two-three week initial fallout is not the main problem. The main problem is what comes afterwards. Projections say that parts of the U.S. (e.g. Illinois) could not get above freezing for 10 years. Food supply chains will be non-existent. Good luck heading south while avoiding all the fallout zones littered in pretty much every state in the country. Most people who don't die in the initial blast (or go blind from it), or fallout will die from starvation.
Space__Whiskey@reddit
global warming will counteract the nuclear winter. The weather will be normal finally!
There_Are_No_Gods@reddit
Source?
That sure sounds like the really old predictions of widespread "nuclear winter" that have since been mostly debunked, by subsequent better modeling and simulation.
I've not seen any recent credible predictions remotely like that claim of subzero Illinois for a decade.
boomerangchampion@reddit
Yeah this is my view on it. Surviving the initial blast is basically random chance so I'm not gonna worry about that. I can prepare for the first few weeks of fallout, which is basically stay inside and live off what's in the house. Easy enough.
But then I need to survive long term in a country that has almost certainly collapsed, with no energy, no food, no clean water, no transport, complete societal collapse, probably massive unrest or violence...and that's before we even consider pockets of radiation and whatever international bullshit follows it.
The only way I can see to do that is to start living completely off grid in a remote homestead or commune ahead of time, because I won't have time to learn it afterwards. I'm not going to abandon my life today on the off chance a nuclear war happens, and on the assumption that I'm right and it means I'll survive.
I'll take my chances with no preps on this one.
Holiday_Albatross441@reddit
The good news is that every time the Nuclear Winter model predictions have been tested in the real world the predictions have failed. The most glaring example was when millions of people in Asia were going to die after the Iraqis set oil wells on fire in Kuwait and... they didn't.
All that smoke is going to have some impact on the climate for a while, but it's unlikely to be remotely as hazardous as all the other problems like fallout and where to get food from and not die of what would today be some easily-curable infection.
TurkDeerbit@reddit
Nuclear war? None. EMP from nuclear blasts in the atmosphere? I think about it often and focus my preps for grid down scenario.
SAL10000@reddit
I think about the emp scenario alot. From a non killing people aspect, it could cause just as much if not more long term detriment to a country.
Space__Whiskey@reddit
would a emp knock out a off-grid solar power inverter?
TurkDeerbit@reddit
Have you read One Second After?
SAL10000@reddit
Funny you mentioned that, I have the audio book someone recently gifted to me but have not started it yet.
TurkDeerbit@reddit
It really opened my eyes to how much of an impact an emp would really have. I wish our reps would read it so we could do a better job protecting our grid.
Artistic-Jello3986@reddit
Prepping for grid-down is the sweet spot of prepping imo. It covers most SHTF scenarios without much extra effort and most of the preps are useful for everyday life things that might come up.
Terrorcuda17@reddit
I did 10 days without hydro last year after three largest ice storm in 25 years knocked out over a million customers and took down over 30,000 hydro poles with it.
That was amazingly educational and we learned a lot from it. Great test run too.
dachjaw@reddit
Hydro poles?
I’m imagining utility poles carrying water pipes but that can’t be what you mean. Is it?
Terrorcuda17@reddit
Oh Holy crap! It's an Ontario lexicon that never occurred to me. In Ontario our provincial electricity supplier is Hydro One. It never occurred to me that hydro is a term for water (well I know that hydro is the Latin base of the word hence hydrophobia). Looking into it (and I already suspected that this was the answer) back in the early days of the electrical grid here the majority of our electricity came from hydro electric dams. This led to the term hydro being used to describe electricity in Ontario. Thus the term for utility poles became hydro poles. That was actually an awesome trip and kind of tickled my brain lol.
Space__Whiskey@reddit
hydro means water, not electricity (even from a dam), so that would be the confusion.
Ill-Perspective-5510@reddit
In my neck of the woods water and electric infrastructure is just called "hydro".
dachjaw@reddit
Thanks
mattgm1995@reddit
Any guides you’d recommend
nostrademons@reddit
Flip your home breaker and see what breaks.
ishootthedead@reddit
Do not do this on a holiday weekend Friday afternoon, unless you have an electrician with you. Lessons learned.
iamliberty@reddit (OP)
This is free from the Army Major NBC Guy I mentioned Nuclear-War-Prepared-Not-Scared.pdf
Short QA style.
Artistic-Jello3986@reddit
Sorry no, just life experience and learning from people smarter than myself…
Some general guidance that I’ve followed is to prep financially first, get a rainy day fund and be able to cover at least a few months of expenses.
Otherwise I just react to things as they come up - power line went down in a storm and shows me my weaknesses in power. I heard of a city in my state shutting off water because of contamination, could I handle that with what I have? Got a nasty wound doing some work around the house, could I treat this without a professional? Etc…
Plenty_Fondant_951@reddit
None.
I'd just hope to be at the epicenter.
I prep for temporary , even months long disruption. Conceivably a collapse of civilization with a pre modern reset (late 1800's)
A full blown nuclear exchange involving thousands of warheads? I don't want to live in that world. People will argue in the comments about radiation levels and nuclear winter being overblown, that's crazy. Like we're all (almost all) wildly over estimating our actual resilience but a full blown nuclear war? Delusional
Apprehensive_Pie_897@reddit
Let’s put a few things into perspective.
MADD is obsolete. Yes, we all had this rammed down our throats with old “duck & cover” drills and other bullshit. Basically a fear based method to keep us in line and dependent on the Government to save us.
Go here and see the blast radius of a nuclear warhead: https://nukeblastsimulator.com/ You will see that a terrorist nuke is pretty small yield.
Look at Hiroshima, Nagasaki and down wind of Three Mike Island and Chernobyl and Fukushima.
The Japanese cities are huge thriving metropolises with millions of people. Hardly a desert wasteland for a thousand years.
What is more likely is a dirty bomb in a major port city. Best to know about prevailing winds for every season. Ie if a dirty bomb blew at Port of Los Angeles, which direction would prevailing winds carry radioactive material? And knowing that dirty bomb radioactive material is heavy. It’ll only travel 40 miles from ground zero.
Which brings us to effects of mass migration of panicked citizens fleeing the fear of rapidly ticking Geiger counters. ie: I would imagine Las Vegas would get a whole lot of refugees over night.
Surviving fallout is pretty straight forward. Strip down and wash off. Put on clean clothes and stay away from getting re-contaminated. Air borne radioactivity will naturally fall out of the air. And rain will capture the rest. Widely disperse radiation can be delt with.
bdouble76@reddit
I used to live at the base of Cheyenne mountain in CO Springs. A friend/neighbor was former airforce and Intelligence. He still is very active in Intelligence with a company that tracks terrorists and helps the military. We were talking one night about a nuclear strike. He said he wouldn't even try and get away. It wouldn't be a nuke coming, it would be so many that the montain wouldn't exist anymore. Plus, by the time the general public was aware, if you had 30mins, he would be surprised.
There are areas that at least according to google would have a better chance, but it seems like you'd need to be someone important, or a billionaire with an insane bunker to really ride it out......ish.
9966seg9966@reddit
I live in a military city so either they will stop it or I will get vaped.
Miskalsace@reddit
Bought some iodide tablets for the three young kids in our extended family when Russia was first rolling through Ukraine and we were worried about the Zaporizha NPP potentially being hit. I think drifting radition is probably most likely than actual nuclear blasts. It was a small thing that could potentially offset some complications from light radiation poisoning in the children. Other than that I dont think a single person or even a small community can do much to protect from nuclear war if it were to happen.
Sk8rToon@reddit
My mom bought some (actually how I got into prepping despite my folks not doing anything further, lol) after Fukushima’s power plant died in the earthquake/tsunami. I’ve replaced mine since & keep one in my wallet just in case (even though I’m probably old enough now to not have to worry about that).
Speaking of drifting radiation did anyone else notice the EPA raised the amount of acceptable background radiation right before any radiation from that might hit Hawaii & the west coast? Amazing the timing of those scientific updates
-jspace-@reddit
Just buy them vodka. Them kids gone need it.
churchillguitar@reddit
I think the biggest thing is planning for there to be no power and for water to be non-potable for an extended period. So, prepare with food and water rations and a way to stay warm/cool. If you survive the initial blast, be ready to defend your cache.
It may also be pertinent to have a plan to survive the fallout. Have a lead-lined bunker far from windows, or at least be under a thick concrete slab when the shockwave hits. Put as much physical stuff between you and the fallout as you can. You should be prepared to hunker down for up to a month while you wait for the fallout to settle.
serenityfalconfly@reddit
I read the book Nuclear war survival skills. This fellow seemed quite optimistic about surviving a nuclear attack. We picture every inch of earth being in the blast zone.
https://books.apple.com/us/book/nuclear-war-survival-skills/id1516409512
NoHuckleberry2543@reddit
Ive got it printed out and bound in a yellow binder.
Army_31B@reddit
This is a very good book written by people who worked on the nuclear weapons programs, also I would recommend A After the Flash by Mark A.Rush a former Nuclear Engineer and Navy submarine reactor operator.
smsff2@reddit
Thank you. I wasn’t aware of that book. I will definitely read it.
Contrary to the popular joke in this post, the first paragraph of the first chapter states: "Most of the U.S. population would likely survive. Basic knowledge, thoughtful planning, and preparedness can significantly enhance survival odds."
Ghigs@reddit
And the most dangerous part probably isn't the bombs, it is that the vast majority of survivors won't realize just how survivable the entire situation actually is.
After Chernobyl, there were thousands with very light exposures. This group was subject to a cohort study, and they died much younger on average. Not because of radiation, or cancer, or anything like that, but because they assumed they were marked for death and so did the society around them. They died from suicide, drugs, drinking, risk taking, ostracism, etc.
In reality their risk factors from the small exposure was trivial, most of them on par with being an airline pilot or less. But they mentally checked out, and that killed more than the radiation ever could.
pants_mcgee@reddit
It’s the breakdown in the global economy and trade network that could kill billions. Countries that import much of their food are screwed while countries that export food are in dire straits getting their own infrastructure back running. The immediate disruption of phosphate and nitrate fertilizers would be catastrophic.
Common-Ad6470@reddit
The problem is if the majority of a given countries population does survive the initial strikes, then you have a fair few million people desperate for water, food and shelter in that order, except the mechanism and means of surviving would be nonexistent as the majority wouldn’t prepare.
So if you have survived and have a good supply of water and food, then your biggest problem will be fighting off the thousands who have nothing and have zero survival skills.
iHeartRedCows@reddit
After the Flash is a great book!! 👍
Hobobo2024@reddit
I looked on nukemap and on the percent population that will die in my country if an all out nuclear war happens. 99% death rate within 2 years expected for my country. and nukemap tells me I am more likely to be burned to death than be instantly vaporized.
So no, looking things up didn't ease my mind.
My only hope is I'm at my sisters or on vacation. I am prepping for the nuclear scenario though because I want to help my sister prepare. Without preparation, my sister would for sure not survive. She's unlikely to survive anyway with 99% anticipated death and no underground rich persons bunker. but at least a tiny bit better odds with prep.
dittybopper_05H@reddit
What assumptions did you make?
And how small is your country? It must be tiny. Like Andorra tiny. And if you don't have any nuclear capability, your country won't suffer any strikes because as it stands right now, nuclear arsenals are too small to be anything other than counter-force strike capability.
I've actually done the math, and MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) is mathematically impossible. There are enough nukes on either side to take out the other's nuclear strike capability, plus command, control, communications, and intelligence targets. And that's it.
No taking out cities that don't have a significant military presence. So for example areas around Washington DC will be hit because of the Pentagon, CIA, DIA, NSA, etc., but Peoria isn't at risk.
Hobobo2024@reddit
I'm in the US. Portland, Oregon. I assumed a MAD situation. The 99% is from what experts estimated from their simulations.
Do you have a source besides yourself that they expect only the most major of all sites to be hit and MAD avoided? I'd like to believe you as I dont think my city would be hit without MAD. Sorry I just can't be certain comparing the numbers of missles is enough to know what will happen when experts I've read have different predictions.
dittybopper_05H@reddit
The source is me, because I've done the math.
The US has 450 Minuteman III missile silos. Each one is a target. So are the 45 Launch Control Centers, which each have 10 silos under their control, and there are 3 US Air Force bases that control 15 LCC's each. That's a total of 498 targets, just for the ICBM and strategic bomber arms of the nuclear triad.
Because warheads, missiles, and aircraft are not 100% reliable, you need to target at least 2 warheads at each individual target to assure destruction. Given what we've seen of Russian military preparedness in the last few years, maybe at least 3.
For some of those targets, like the bases themselves, you need more than just two, because they have underground weapons storage, plus aircraft, and the bases are pretty large and you can disperse the aircraft away from the storage facility. Why is that important? You need an earth penetrating warhead, or at the very least a ground burst, to go after the storage facilities and to crater the runway. That limits the effects of even very large bombs. An airburst is more effective against aircraft and aircraft hangers, and other base facilities.
So right there you're looking at about 1,000 warheads just to go after the Air Force nuclear weapons capability. Then you've got to use warheads against King's Bay, GA and Kitsap, WA to go after the US Navy's SSBN force, at least the ones not at sea. Plus you have to hit targets like the Pentagon, the CIA in Langley, VA, the NSA at Fort Meade, MD, the White House, Capitol Hill, all of the NSA field stations (Hawaii, Colorado, Georgia, Texas) along with other facilities. Plus command and control, and dispersal airfields for the bomber force.
On that last one, for example, includes airfields that don't have nuclear storage facilities but that could be used to refuel (but likely not rearm) strategic bombers. So any military (or former military) airfield over 10 or 12,000 feet in length is a potential target.
As are facilities that have nuclear weapons storage that could be reactivated quickly. Pearl Harbor and Norfolk come quickly to mind on that score, but I'm sure there are others.
That's a lot of potential targets, and the number of deployed warheads on either side makes it unlikely that anything other than a counterforce strike is possible.
This is especially true that you do not want to shoot all of your weapons in one shot, but want to hold some in reserve for a second strike capability.
And while both sides have a fairly large number of stored warheads (as opposed to actively deployed), we can expect those to become radioactive dust in the first exchange. Due to the security implications in moving nuclear weapons, it's not something you can really do unnoticed. And if you do move them, you can only move a limited number at a time, and only to specific places that have the requisite security.
A fun game to play on Google Earth is "Find the nuclear weapons facility". You look for places that have limited entrances/exits, double fencing, bunkers, and poles to support anti-helicopter wires.
As for your specific case, you've got basically Portland International, which is also Portland Air National Guard base. It would be targeted *MAYBE* as a potential dispersal field. There aren't any other potential targets for a counter-force strike, which as we have seen is all either side has the capability to do thanks to New START.
So if you detonate an 800 kiloton warhead (Russian warhead on an SS-25 ICBM) at optimum airburst height over Portland International, you get these results:
https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/?&kt=800&lat=45.5873795&lng=-122.6028866&hob_psi=5&hob_ft=9511&ff=50&zm=10
Anything outside of about 4 miles radius is survivable if you "duck and cover". Because it will be an airburst, local fallout will be very minimal. Thermal radiation is a problem out to about 7 miles from ground zero, but again, "duck and cover" is very effective against that: When you see the bright flash, you get behind something or cover your exposed skin.
And before you go there, no there will not be a firestorm like happened at Hiroshima. You need some very specific conditions for a firestorm to start, and modern cities with steel, concrete, glass, and brick construction, along with wide streets and open green spaces don't have a sufficient "fuel load" for a firestorm to start. You need a built up city constructed largely of wood, with narrow streets, to provide enough of a fuel load.
StopNowThink@reddit
Do you live in North Korea?
Seth0351USMC@reddit
Potassium iodine tablets are my only nuke preps. It helps your body flush any radioactive exposure.
Bismoldore@reddit
More specifically it saturates the thyroid with non-radioactive iodine, which temporarily prevents the accumulation of radioactive iodine isotopes there protecting that gland specifically and that gland only. It does nothing to protect against other radioactive isotopes or protect other organs and is not an antidote for radiation exposure
Seth0351USMC@reddit
I dont have a way to test what type of radiation would have been released. I would hunker down, seal the house, and take preventative measures like iodine tablets. Better than nothing. True, it wont prevent all exposure but it helps minimize the risk.
Arminas@reddit
It is near nothing. It partly protects one small gland in your body from one specific type of radiation. Aside from that it does nothing.
IckyBodCraneOperator@reddit
Yes. Near nothing is 'better than nothing'
Bismoldore@reddit
True, but phrasing the function as “flushing” radiation out of the system implies that it’s taken post exposure (must be taken pre-exposure) and protects from all radiation which is not to be expected.
I don’t point out the difference to put egg in your face, but to hopefully help you and other preppers better understand a tool that you otherwise would have little reason to know much about and caution against a false sense of security that could lead to people exposing themselves to fallout thinking they are protected
Seth0351USMC@reddit
Agreed. I should have used better wording.
Future-Table1860@reddit
Only works for radioactive iodine, not other types of radioactive elements. Also, it is not a flush of already absorbed radioactive iodine. It is more like filling up your iodine “bucket” so new radioactive iodine entering your body doesn’t stick around.
I say this because it is important to take it early AND its effectiveness is limited.
dachjaw@reddit
And it’s apparently not useful for older people.
JRHLowdown3@reddit
Unfortunately no... As I've covered more than a few times. KI protects ONE specific organ from ONE specific isotope.
And honestly if your other standard common sense preps are in place, you may not even need that.
SeaSatisfaction9655@reddit
Funny thing, I got them in 1986 when certain things happened. My understanding is that they work for young people. Shall I tell you about russian GP-5 gas masks for children packed with asbestos ?
TheRealBunkerJohn@reddit
That's only going to help prevent Thyroid Cancer- nothing else. For flushing radioactive contaminants (preventing them from being absorbed,) you want Prussian Blue.
Recent-Honey5564@reddit
It doesn’t flush radioactive iodine.
Iodine is purely prophylactic. It blocks the uptake of radioactive iodine by flooding your thyroid with normal iodine.
Potassium iodine does not treat radioactive exposure, it helps prevent damage to sensitive organs and does not guarantee that radiation will not kill you in some other way.
If I knew a blast was coming or knew I’d be stuck in a fallout zone trying to get out then I would take it but short of that it’s useless.
Future-Table1860@reddit
Only works for radioactive iodine, not other types of radioactive elements. Also, it is not a flush of already absorbed radioactive iodine. It is more like filling up your iodine “bucket” so new radioactive iodine entering your body doesn’t stick around.
I say this because it is important to take it early AND its effectiveness is limited.
K0T_666@reddit
Apartment dweller. I have 30 supply of water. Approximately 30 days of food. If I had a house, I would have a small basic underground shelter with at least 6 feet of soil covering it. I do not make it a point to denigrate others who may want to surpass my ideas on this. MYOB is my motto. 👍
Feral_668@reddit
Red wine is an excellent prep should the bombs drop. Additionally, there is a website where you can plot different nuclear event and track the fallout it's called nukemap and can help you with your preparations.
Financial_Resort6631@reddit
I don’t prep for super volcanos, asteroids or nukes. I can’t afford to love underground for three years and wait for reclamation day and I don’t trust Vault Tec.
WeAreHereThenGone@reddit
I live in a densely populated city that is definitely on the list as part of some country's deadhand or initial volley.
If an ICBM volley was detected, best scenario is 30min of evac time and from this model https://www.defconlevel.com/nuclear-bomb-blast-radius
I'd have to worry about fallout and honestly always assumed I was in the radius.
hmmm...
avalon01@reddit
I'm less than two miles from a military base.
My prep is to step outside and wait for the flash.
AnnualHeat2723@reddit
I live only 60 miles from New York City. I did read up on what to do and am ready. If I hear a really big bang, no looking, just grab the family and pets, head for the basement and cover the tiny window.cover the door and barricade it. Hang out a few days and know I did my best.
Vegetaman916@reddit
The two most important things are understanding the truth about nuclear doctrines and the science of the effects of a nuclear war... And taking it seriously.
That means not reading Annie Jacobsen's horrendous bit of misinformation and instead spending time studying the actual manner in which a nuclear war could unfold, what the direct effects will actually be, and what the most likely longterm effects are.
And then the taking it seriously part means you alter every aspect of your life that does not contribute to increasing your odds of long-term survival.
That absolutely starts with choosing a location to be when it happens. No, it doesn't mean trying to make whatever random location you are in work, it means working out the ideal location and then being there.
By the time you are done with your planning and prep for nuclear war, you should be as knowledgeable about the subject as the people who actually make the doctrine and deploy the weapons.
Shameless plug risk assessment tool here.
You decide for yourself whether you think the risk is real, but do it using accurate information. And then, if you come to the conclusion that it is real, take it seriously.
It would be really, really silly to be standing right next to a nuclear target on the day the war starts because you didn't want to lose your job or disrupt your family.
Cock_ball_dickin@reddit
I have some property that’s super far from pretty much any likely target. If Ottawa got struck and it’s an east wind (super uncommon) then it’s technically possible some fallout could reach me but hey I have my plans for shielding. IMO starvation scares me more than the radiation
Sistersoldia@reddit
Iodine tabs.
That’s it besides the normal SHTF preps
Useful-Contribution4@reddit
The only prep you should do is be far away from major cities.
Adorable_Dust3799@reddit
I'm in san diego, surrounded by military bases and r&d centers, just a few miles from open ocean and another country. I don't do nuke prep. I know some other targets are higher on the list, but we're such an easy one...
Casiarius@reddit
I started prepping after 9/11, and my old prepper group was definitely concerned about nuclear threats, but not with ICBMs raining down on our cities. They were far more concerned with one high-altitude nuke EMPing us back to the 19th century or dirty bombs in cargo containers rendering major cities and infrastructure like ports and rail hubs uninhabitable. Irradiating the planet with a full scale nuclear exchange is not actually winning, and seems unlikely when they are much more subtle ways to destroy a country which are much harder to trace back to their origin. So, even though we did have some nuclear preps (I still have a spare ham radio station sealed in a steel trash can) most of the prepping involved what to do if millions of starving refugees flee from cities that are now uninhabitable without their infrastructure. It mostly involved bugging out, growing your own food, and being prepared to shoot people.
I mostly do natural disaster / CERT things now, though I do have a Radiacode 103 gamma spectrometer which is officially for antique hunting but it is sensitive enough to detect radiation in food if that becomes important.
Sweet-Leadership-290@reddit
Do.you have AT LEAST the very basics for nuclear preparedness on hand?
1) N (or P) 100 masks 2) airtight goggles 3) tarps 4) wet wipes 5) rain suit 6) lots of duct tape 7) lots of apple Pectin (cesium 137) 8) potassium iodide (radioactive iodine) 9) Geiger counter (radiation meter) 10) enough stored drinking water 11) enough stored food 12) a room you can "seal off" 13) shelter in place and evacuation plan
HazMatsMan@reddit
This is not a good idea. I explain why here: PSA: DO NOT SEAL YOUR SHELTER WHEN SHELTERING AGAINST FALLOUT!
Sweet-Leadership-290@reddit
Know the 7-10 rule. Of course you can suffocate without air, BUT radiation from nuclear fallout decays rapidly. You only need to protect your passive ventilation during the INITIAL INFLUX of radioactive fallout. What comes after a a day later is orders of magnitude lower than the initial influx. Keep in mind that "An adult can typically breathe in a sealed coffin for about 5.5 hours before the oxygen is depleted.". There is MUCH more breathable air in a room!!!
Your advice is still a good warning, however I postulate that those who don't already know that won't survive very long after a nuclear blast!
HazMatsMan@reddit
There is no "influx of radioactive fallout" through passive ventilation, and that's the point. Try reading the post I referenced instead of arguing.
Sweet-Leadership-290@reddit
Not arguing. By "influx" I was talking about influx of radiation to the body as well as influx of harmful radionuclides within the body (continuous emmiters) POSED by passive ventilation. Not NECESSARILY the volume of air exchange, although that is certainly open for debate (see - Concerning nuclear detonation and fallout #4 below)
Here are some facts. Let me know which, if any are wrong/false.
Concerning passive ventilation.
1) is dependent on area open for ventilation 2) is time related (more time = more volume exchanged) 3) is wind related (more wind = faster air exchange
Concerning nuclear detonation and fallout
1) initial highest radiation levels in particulate 2) radioactivity in particulate decay according to 7-10 rule 3) greatest airborne concentration of particulate near beginning of the fallout sequence 4) nuclear detonations create high wind speeds while the initial detonation areas (ground zeroes) are thermally hot. 5) radioactive protective measures are based on: time, distance, and shielding
These are my assumptions based on the above facts:
1) assuming same area open for ventilation the increased wind speed will cause a greater rate of air exchange 2) the greater the air exchange the greater the "radiation influx" of airborne particulate radiation. 3) the "hotter" the fallout is (radioactivily) the greater the risk posed by the radioactive airborne particulate. 4) due to radioactive decay the greatest threat is posed at (or very near) the start of the fallout process
These are my conclusions for protection based on the above
1)TIME: since radiation decays fairly rapidly with time (Using the 7-10 rule (also known as the 7:10 Rule of Thumb), the radiation dose rate after 24 hours is approximately 2.3% of the initial dose rate at 1 hour.). Therefore, if one can stop the radioactive fallout from getting in you (breathing, eyes, mucous membrane absorption) or on you for the first 24 hours, you can reduce the chance of permanent damage AT LEAST 30 FOLD.
2) DISTANCE: If you can stop the radioactive particulate (fallout) from entering the room you increase the distance between yourself and the radiation source. Ionizing radiation falls off according to the inverse square law, therefore if you can keep it 2 feet away versus 1" away (best case scenario for airborne contamination in a sealed rain suit) then you can FURTHER reduce the exposure by a factor of more than 500
3) SHIELDING: initial protection is most important, therefore maximize shielding by: keeping radioactive particulate away from yourself (shielding) by minimizing the flow of contaminated air (INFLUX) into your immediate vacinity. This necessitates minimizing air flow (including passive ventilation). This is BEST accomplished by sealing the room. NOTE*. This does NOT put you at danger of suffocation as there is plenty of air in a room for a day or more.
LASTLY: My background. I have a bachelor's in physics with a minor in nuclear physics. I worked in the field of radiation for 5+ years testing, troubleshooting, and repairing cobalt 60 densitometers. I have other radiological experience I am not permitted to discuss. I am a HAZMAT technician (US certified level of training, not position description). I carry a radiological remediation certification from Bechtel Corporation out of AREA 51. I have additional training in plutonium spill containment. I am curious, what is your level of training and certification in this field? Or are you just blindly quoting what you have read somewhere?
HazMatsMan@reddit
The 7-10 rule of thumb is just that, a "rule of thumb". It is not intended for use with multiple bursts with overlapping fallout tracks or differing burst times. The actual decay curve for overlapping tracks most certainly won't be t\^-1.2. Also, the generalized 24-48 hours shelter recommendation is for a single 10kt IND, not a multiple burst, peer-state exchange. There are absolutely people who would need to shelter longer than 48 hours in such a situation. In those cases, your "seal up" advice will kill them. It could result in dangerous concentrations of CO2 in shorter periods depending on room size, number of occupants, etc. But this is all explained in the post I referred you to. READ IT.
So let's talk about your #4 "high wind speeds" for a minute. Clearly, you don't know as much about nuclear weapon effects as you think you do because you're describing an effect, the base surge, that is only relevant very close to the detonation. Outside of that area, the "blast wind" isn't driving particulates from GZ to your location any more than dropping a rock in a pond transports water molecules from the impact site to shore via wave propagation. You claim to have a BS in Physics, so you should already know this. Surely you studied wave theory.
At 10 miles from a 500kt detonation, there is no appreciable "wind" from the blast. Fallout particulates are transported via local wind fields as they drop from 35k feet. They're not being driven into a house by blast wind any more than ordinary sand is driven through intact walls by ordinary wind. Again, this is explained in my post. Had you read it, you wouldn't have made this erroneous statement:
There's no "influx", as if that's even the correct term and suffocation is not the concern here. Again, READ MY POST. You claim to have a degree in physics. You shouldn't need me to spoon-feed this to you.
In spite of whatever credentials you claim to have, you're completely blowing a lot of basic concepts in your explanations. So just stop, okay? In addition to my being a radiological SME, the information in my post comes from authoritative sources like FEMA, OSTI, and DTIC. If you're going to claim otherwise, let's see your sources.
Llothcat2022@reddit
Since I live near a AFB... remember to fall towards the sudden bright flash....
Chainsawsas70@reddit
Given my location Western Washington State... There's not much to do, the entire area is major shipping ports and military bases so even if it happens it would be devastating to the entire region. Were I in a less targeted area there's a few simple things that can be done, radiation hates Corners... So the more 90 degree corners you can put between yourself and the event the better. Then it's all about being able to decontaminate and breathe So a stacked system with several hepa filters that you can easily change out and a clean water supply would be paramount for washing and drinking and then food etc. Duct tape and tarps with a box fan and you can make a quick positive pressure room in almost any living space and have several Hepa filters on the fan to clean the incoming air.
KauaiCat@reddit
Nuclear weapons can burn at far greater distances than they can kill by blast, but life-threatening flash burns are very easy to prevent. Essentially any cover between you and the blast will work - drywall will work.
As far as fallout, the most internal location of a concrete structure, especially underground if available, will offer the best protection, next best option would be a true underground basement with some type of overhead shielding.....of course some basements could flood when the power goes out.
If you don't have anything like that, do what astronauts do during radiation storms: Create a "storm shelter" in the most internal part of your structure using dense objects including your food and water supply. It won't save you from worst case fallout scenario, but it could save you.
Gamma rays will pass right through typical home structure material (insulation, drywall, plywood, facade brick, etc.) as if they aren't even there, but gamma rays will have a harder time passing through a foot or two of filled water bottles.
dachjaw@reddit
Lots of what you say is spot on, particularly how anything (even newspaper) protects you from thermal effects, but I think you are wrong about brick vs water as far as shielding against gamma rays.
Five centimeters of brick has about the same protection factor as one meter (100 cm) of water. Both will attenuate radiation by about 50%.
Of course, any amount of water is better than nothing at all but brick (or stone or concrete) is much more effective.
KauaiCat@reddit
I agree that brick is better inch-for-inch, but the internet says the density of brick is only 2 times the density of water, so protection factor 20 times higher seems a bit much.
IllManager9273@reddit
Having some potassium iodide tablets in your supplies is a good idea, if you have a work or car get home bag its a good idea to have some in the bag. Setting up a home fallout shelter in your basement or backyard isnt too hard or expensive relative to other preps. My understanding is you basically wanna stay put and breath filtered air for about a month, that's fairly doable with enough thought and planning, though your gonna need good entertainment and lots of it to get it right lol. 90% of nuke prepping is also prepping for other things, for example that underground fallout shelter is exactly where I wanna be if a tornado hits, the food eats the same be it famine or financial hardship, and the NBC/filtration gear works for a exploded chemical factory to The other 10% is setting up a shelter that filters air and has everything needed to stay in that shelter long enough for the coast to be clear.
YellowCabbageCollard@reddit
I have tried to research my risks but it's overwhelming. So someone tell me if Atlanta is a strategic target? What areas in the upper half of Georgia would be strategic targets and what kinds of bombs? I have looked at nukemap and I don't know what kind of bomb to put in to look at likely scenarios.
I have bought iodine tablets for my children. And I have bought painters plastic and tape to seal up all the windows and doors etc in our house because I read if you near but outside the blast zone this is what you need to do for a while. Other than that I've done nothing and I would like to know what risks we could be looking at.
There_Are_No_Gods@reddit
The main short term thing is to get within omnidirectional shielding (picture a hut, with an L-shape entrance) comprised of roughly six foot thick dirt/soil or (offhand from memory) something like 16" of concrete.
Basically, the more dense the material, the thinner it can be and still do the job. Space and/or material density between you and the particles emitting radiation are the key factors, and dense material is more practical than the rather extreme distances necessary otherwise. The distance from the roof and exterior walls of a typical home is not remotely sufficiently safe distance, even if you seal it up tight.
As I've not yet built anything permanent that's sufficient for this case, my "slightly better than nothing" plan is just to jump down into the crawlspace and crawl back near the center of the house, near the back side of the garage concrete pad, and then start furiously digging a small cave under that concrete, while ideally also making a little time to slap some air-permeable yet particulate filtering over the vents and crawlspace entrance.
It's admittedly a rather terrible plan, but at least in theory, if the makeshift cave doesn't collapse due to lack of proper ceiling and wall reinforcement, and not too much particulate finds its way in, and we maintain enough air exchange to continue breathing, it could perhaps mitigate much of the early and most devastating radiation exposure, by putting some few feet of combined dirt and concrete between us and the radiating particulates.
There are a few related details and huge risks, such as proper ventilation to breathe while still trying to keep out as much particulate as possible. As I said, though, it's more of a crappy last ditch idea that's the best I've got until I build out any sort of better solution.
My main plan is to move soon, and to build at least one earth-bermed structure that can serve for this among other purposes.
LeanUntilBlue@reddit
I’m not at all set for nuclear winter, but I probably have more nuclear preps than many. It’s not my top threat vector by far.
I have a walk-in closet with no windows. I have much of my water and stored food in bins lining that closet. Any kind of mass that you have can shield partially from radiation. So after a flash, I would turn off the AC system and run in there. I would stay huddled in there for the first 49 hours, and stay in my dwelling after that for up to three weeks.
In a faraday bag I have a high sensitivity Geiger counter/dosimeter that is exceptionally good at measuring x-rays and gamma rays. While I am huddled in my closet, I will take a look at how high the radiation is and what my dosing rate is, so I can determine if it’s so hot that I need to move/die.
My Faraday bags hold electronics, power stations and substantial portable solar panels.
I have potassium iodide pills to take care of my thyroid. I have a solar cooker to slowcook with. I have 3 months of stored water and food, with the ultimate goal of having a year's worth. I have multiple ways to cook and multiple sources of power.
I would also use all of those things except for the potassium iodide pills and the Geiger counter and the Faraday bags in an earthquake, so I don’t have too much extra stuff for the nuclear threat vector.
The Faraday bags are helpful for solar flares and coronal mass ejection events as well. The sun has been burpy in the last year.
Bugsy_A@reddit
I take a more "knowledge is power" approach when it comes to Nuke prep. Every situation i can think of it usually has equipment or something that would come in handy for said situation. But for nuke prep I dont gather "things". What i do do (I said dodo) is watch news for current ops tempo of the world and weather to be aware of wind patterns and rain to calculate likely exposure radius'. Getting a head start on an attack is always a good thing but knowing which direction to flee is even more important.
orion455440@reddit
If I see a tactical nuke being used in the news, I'll hold my breath for a bit, but if things start snow balling towards a full all out strategic nuclear exchange, I keep a couple dozen zany bars in my safe that I'll wash down with a 1/5 of Johnny walker black. Lights out for good, I don't want any part of post apocalyptic life
YourHighness1087@reddit
I have potassium iodide pills. Not much else in my bug out kit or survival supplies will protect from a nuclear detonation within my immediate location.
NASA_Orion@reddit
Get a house in New Zealand😂
daringnovelist@reddit
We used to do that back in the 70s and 80s. I haven’t in a long time, though. What constitutes a major target changes over time, too.
BrokenEight38@reddit
Oh you don't need to lose sleep over nukes my dude. I could think of at least six other things that would functionally table flip society as we know it, and they are way more likely than nukes!
Ruthless4u@reddit
Care to elaborate?
You have piqued my curiosity.
LGAflyer@reddit
Not op but the CIA did a report on what a 6 month power outage in the USA would look like (such as one caused by a solar flair) and the result is 90-95% of the population dead. Could a State level computer hack cause that? Maybe.
smsff2@reddit
This is technically correct; however, it’s correct in a way people typically don’t anticipate.
A prolonged outage would most likely be caused by an EMP, and the most realistic scenario for an EMP is a nuclear war. In that context, estimates often suggest fatalities of up to 90%. So the figure and the prediction is technically correct.
However, people often assume that a lack of electricity, meaning no computers or no way to charge their iPhones, would somehow lead to 90% fatalities. That’s not the real issue. The situation is far more serious.
There are very few major refineries in North America, and they would likely be targeted first. They also cannot operate without electricity. As a result, fuel production would stop, agriculture would collapse, and widespread starvation would follow. This doesn’t even account for nuclear winter, which would cause almost all existing crops to fail.
The top 100 largest refineries in North America, mainly concentrated along the Gulf Coast, produce around 86% of refined products such as gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel. Over the past several decades, many smaller refineries have closed, concentrating production in a few large facilities to reduce costs. This concentration makes them particularly vulnerable targets.
So yes, the statement is correct: a prolonged, months-long, widespread outage will lead to extremely high fatality rates.
Ghigs@reddit
Nuclear winter arose from politically motivated study done with stone age computers, based on assuming every worst case factor lining up exactly the wrong way.
Here's one quote from the EXTENSIVE "criticism" section of the wikipedia page:
In another section, they note how Sagan was confident that if, during the first Gulf war, the oil wells were set alight, it would cause at least a small "nuclear winter" type scenario. Hundreds of oil wells were set on fire, and the only effect was a tiny, temporary, one on the local climate. Nuclear winter got tested, and reality didn't agree with it.
CreasingUnicorn@reddit
Would love to see any data from this report because how the hell did they determine that i would be more likely to survive the battle of the Somme than a power outtage for a few months.
Sure it would be a dangerous and scary time, especially near urban areas, but even during some of the worst famines in history we only saw death rates around 20%. The Black Plague was estimated about 50% mortality as well and that is basically the worst case scenario that we have data for.
The US is a huge country with tons of natural resources, losing 95% of the population in a few months doesnt make any sense.
LGAflyer@reddit
On the face of it I agree with you but I think people underestimate how dependent we’ve become on the modern system.
Before the Industrial Revolution most people were basically farmers, so a plague that kills 20% is bad but if it doesn’t kill you directly it probably doesn’t affect you.
Now most people aren’t farmers and farmers rely on modern tech to produce and move everyone’s food.
No electricity means no fuel, means no tractors or trucks, means no food. Also, no refrigeration so only non perishable food already in position is available.
No power means no water for the vast majority of people.
And then there’s the civil unrest that would result with probably limited, if any, law enforcement. (No fuel means no movement for military/police as well)
Now if it was only a US blackout and other countries stepped in to help? Maybe a different outcome.
PackInevitable8185@reddit
90-95% is way too high lol, that is an absolutely batshit insane estimate for a 6 month power outage.
Even during the siege of Leningrad the death rate got nowhere near that %. And in that situation it was a city cut off of from most supplies for 2 and a half years… where it goes down to -40C during the winter.
In the scenario you described there would probably be millions dead, but as long as you can get keep access to fresh water I think you are more likely than not to survive 6 months even with minimal preparation (you have a bag of rice in your pantry lol). If you live somewhere like Phoenix I would definitely be worried though.
LGAflyer@reddit
So how do you get water with no power? Unless you are on a well with solar your taps won’t work longer than a few days at most. If you found water how would you purify it?
How would you cook that bag of rice? No power means no fuel, no gas (both petrol and cooking at home) so no transportation, no food in stores.
No hospitals (so any “minor” issue becomes life threatening) no heat, no A/C, no communications.
And you’re not even considering the amount of civil unrest a 6 month outage would bring.
I’m not trying to convince you, maybe it is an overestimation, but that’s what the report the CIA came out with said.
Ryan_e3p@reddit
The CIA has said and done a lot of things, to the point where anything they say should be taken with a massive grain of salt. If they are publicly saying something, consider it purposeful misinformation. They are, in reality, the propaganda arm of the US.
preppers-ModTeam@reddit
Stick to the topic or don't comment.
CalmBuilding226@reddit
Whatever we do it won’t be enough
sedated_badger@reddit
Haha you guys should look up neutron bombs. They can be repurposed from regular atomics by basically adding a thicker bomb case. I’ve given up pretty much all hope of surviving a true nuclear apocalypse because of these. Only very thick or water shielded bunkers would be safe spaces during the detonations.
Physical blast radius and damage is reduced. Few radioisotopes are leftover as fallout. However if you are caught within the radius, you will catch so many rads it’d make interstellar comets look like sidewalk chalk. Dead 3 days later.
I keep a healthy list of what-if’s, if rich powerful men want to end the word and be the sole benefactors of repopulation, there’s absolutely nothing stopping them.
Kitchen-Paint-3946@reddit
To be honest if major infrastructure( power plants, oil refineries, etc ) were the only target, the people that survive would do the rest of the work as we all fight for resources… don’t take much to ignite chaos
tomthebarbarian@reddit
In a nuke war not many (relatively speaking) will be vaporized. A few will be vaporized; more will be killed by the blast effects; more will die of radiation and other longer-term injuries and effects. In Nagasaki, for example, in a city of about 250,000 people, about 40k people died from the blast, and about 25k were injured by the blast. Within about six months about 70k people had died in Nagasaki.
Cancer and birth defects do not start showing up for years and are significant.
I would expect that modern atomic war would look much the same. 25-35% casualities in the target areas the first several weeks, greatly increased sickness and death in the years that follow. Most people will not be killed by the blast, and it is those that need to have a plan for survival in the disrupted infrastructure environment that follows.
It is not, IMO, strategically different from, say, a biological weapon or a plague. Covid-19 was an itty bitty taste, with a lot of unrest and not enough toilet paper.
dittybopper_05H@reddit
None. Nuclear war isn't going to happen.
Now, I have Cresson Kearny's book, in dead tree format, and I understand the principles of nuclear war and nuclear strategy, and the effects of nuclear weapons, because I've read extensively on the topic, starting back in the early 1980's.
The topic interests me, but because I've looked into it I've concluded that it's exceptionally unlikely to happen. If it was going to happen, it would have likely happened already, especially during conflicts like the Korean and Vietnam wars, and most especially during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Even if you think it's more likely now than ever before because of the personalities involved, historical precedent shows that it's unlikely. In 1944 and 1945 Germany had a super-weapon: Nerve agents. The Nazis could have thrown the Allies off the Normandy beach-heads and halted the Red Army juggernaut in the East in its tracks by using nerve gas. Hitler, even in full "Germany has failed me" mode, as a drug addled paranoiac, refused to approve their use because of fears the Allies had them also and would use them if Germany did first.
Thing is, the Germans inferred that the Allies had them because there was no mention of the precursors in open literature, and they assumed it had all been classified. It wasn't in the open literature because the Allies didn't have a clue about cholinesterase inhibitors.
This is why the number of direct military confrontations between nuclear states have been very minimal. All sides understand what's at stake. And no one wants to start something like that.
preppers-ModTeam@reddit
Stick to the topic, or don't comment.
Terrorcuda17@reddit
I'm going to throw in another vote for absolutely zero nuclear war preps. All my preps are for the certains. Yeah, some of them are translatable but they are not meant for it.
Weather and storm disruptions, supply chain disruptions and building self sufficiency is my current path for prepping.
preppers-ModTeam@reddit
The OP asked about nuclear preparednes, they didn't ask for a dissertaion on life and death, or what other events are more likely. Not sure how many times we need to say this, but making fatalistic, "do nothing", and "break out the lawn chairs" comments when it comes to low-frequency-high-impact events (like nuclear war) are not appropriate. If you plan to do nothing, fine, but keep your snarky remarks to yourself. Those of you keep crashing every non-Tuesday thread with your comments about your plans to do nothing, or break out lawnchairs and booze it up will end up banned if you continue.
Hedonistic_Yinzer@reddit
Mounted on the wall in my game room, near the bar, I have an older emergency call box. I kept the Amber strobe on top but removed most of the guts. Now it has a latch and when you open it the strobe activates, and inside you will find a pack of Marlboro reds, a pint of tequila, a box of pre-rolled, and a Bic lighter. I even used the wife's vinyl cutter to make a sticker of a mushroom cloud for the front of it.
Most people find it funny or a joke, and the grandkids love playing with the box and making the light turn on. But, it is the extent of my nucular Holocaust preparations.
preppers-ModTeam@reddit
Your submission has been removed for breaking our rules on civility, trolling, or otherwise excessively hostile.
Name calling and inflammatory posts or comments with the intent of provoking users into fights will not be tolerated.
Comments that discourage others from prepping, demean them, or otherwise harm genuine discussions are not permitted and will be removed. A common example of this is discussions involving "nuclear war". If your "prep" involves suicide or inaction, keep your fatalistic commentary to yourself.
If the mod team feels that you are frequently unhelpful or cause unnecessary confrontation, you may be banned. If you feel you are being trolled or harassed, report the comment and do not respond or you may be sanctioned as well. The report function is NOT meant for you to fall back on if you start losing an argument. Similarly, if you are rude and hostile, then report someone for being the same, you may face the same punishment as them, if any.
Provoking others into becoming mean and nasty is trolling and will be dealt with accordingly.
If you have questions on this, or any other removal, please contact the moderators using Modmail
TheCarcissist@reddit
Unless you live in a major strategic area... I wouldnt worry about it. I agree with most people that a nuclear triggered emp is the most likely. 1. Its the most efficient way to attack. 1 strategic strike could knock out like 80% of the country where a traditional attack would take 30-40+. 2. It leaves resources unaffected for future plundering. 3. Less blowback on the rest of the world.
bodhidharma132001@reddit
Move near an important military installation for guaranteed vaporization
Realistic_Salt7109@reddit
If I don’t get vaporized, do I get my money back?
bodhidharma132001@reddit
Double your money back guarantee!
willem_79@reddit
Yes! Twist: it’ll be worthless
dittybopper_05H@reddit
You'd have to be *ON* the military installation. Most strategic nukes are between 200 and 500 kilotons yield these days, with some exceptions. And nuclear weapons effects increase with the inverse cube law, it's not a linear relationship.
So for example, a 220 kiloton modern strategic warhead doesn't cause 10 times the damage that a 22 kiloton "Fat Man" type bomb would cause despite having 10 times the yield, it's more like 4.7 times the damage.
BTW, this is also true of conventional explosions, because you're essentially extending a 3 dimensional spherical shock wave to a 2 dimensional surface (ie., the ground).
Also some things stay the same, or very close to it. For example, the lethal prompt radiation diameter for nuclear weapons is relatively constant regardless of yield, varying some but not much. And for the bigger weapons, you would likely be inside the fireball and vaporized anyway, so dying some days later from radiation poisoning isn't a huge concern.
mkinstl1@reddit
Is 15 minutes away considered ON?
dittybopper_05H@reddit
Fifteen minutes by foot? Yes.
Fifteen minutes by bicycle? Yes.
Fifteen minutes by car on city streets? Probably.
Fifteen minutes by car on a highway? No.
mkinstl1@reddit
Whoop whoop! No need to prep. Insta-death it is!
preppers-ModTeam@reddit
Your comment was removed for trolling. This view is anti-scientific. There are estimates of the number of casualties, and they are nowhere near 100%.
Please see dittybopper_05H's comment below for a detailed explanation:
https://www.reddit.com/r/preppers/comments/1skai3a/comment/ofxu3fq/
Foxontherox888@reddit
Warmongering tyrants hate this one simple trick
Recent-Honey5564@reddit
Heh
-Norfolk VA
snakeoildriller@reddit
I live in a valley and there's a conurbation either side - Leeds and Manchester. Either city would be a viable target, so I reckon that if one got nuked the fireball would roll across the viable and suck all the oxygen out, while roasting us. No escape possible I think.
fenuxjde@reddit
If the blast doesn't kill you, the fallout will. If the fallout doesn't kill you, the cancer will.
OneLastPrep@reddit
If the cancer doesn't kill you, the starvation will.
If they start nuking, I hope I'm at ground zero. I have my KI for the kids in case we're not.
Recent-Honey5564@reddit
Just remember it’s purely prophylactic, it doesn’t treat radiation exposure.
It would be used if you knew exposure was imminent or if you were stuck trying to get out of a radioactive fallout zone with ongoing exposure.
OneLastPrep@reddit
And prophylactics failing is why I have the kids
Recent-Honey5564@reddit
Huh
OneLastPrep@reddit
https://i.redd.it/k4rl41yb9zug1.gif
Recent-Honey5564@reddit
lol I was thinking it was a cannibalism joke. Am I the bad guy?
OneLastPrep@reddit
What? Condoms are such are prophylactics
devadander23@reddit
It’s for all the irradiated food you’re about to eat
Recent-Honey5564@reddit
That’s what Rad-X is for
Anonymo123@reddit
same, I have a few bottles and gave them packets for their school backpacks. with my age, I wouldnt waste them on myself.
OneLastPrep@reddit
Once my youngest becomes an adult I think my extreme situation prep will be "eh, I'll just die."
Anonymo123@reddit
same :)
xenobit_pendragon@reddit
Kl?
allyuhneedislove@reddit
Potassium iodide
preppers-ModTeam@reddit
Your comment was removed for trolling and being overly pessimistic. In fact, there are specific probabilities of surviving these effects. Only a very small percentage of the population would be affected by the blasts. There are also measures you can take to protect yourself from fallout, and the percentage of people who later die from cancer is relatively small. For exact figures, you can refer to the chapter “Radiation and Radiation Disorders” in the book "Principles of Clinical Medicine for Space Flight".
Skalgrin@reddit
This is hopefully black humour (that I approve).
Despite the number of active warheads globally, most people would not even see the shroud. Fallout would be a short term threat (two to three weeks). Past that, it wouldn't be cancer to be afraid of. It would be hunger and non existence of an infrastructure (local exception may apply).
We don't know if nuclear winter would occur or not, but we do know that without infrastructure in - no electricity, no gas, no heat, no supplies, no crops, no harvest, no hospital etc.
Hunger and sickness would kill 75%of the remaining billions (roughly out of 3 to 5 billions). First full winter season would be brutal and kill over half of the remaining billion at the least. Population wise we would be returning to middle-age...
Only then a cancer would become a thing to wonder about, but much likely very low on a priority list.
The question is whether the remaining low hundreds of millions of humans would die out or stabilise.
fenuxjde@reddit
Exactly. And the vast majority of people, an estimated 97% of Americans, are not prepared for that initial fallout phase. Those that survive on canned goods and borderline starvation wont be able to generate sufficient calories from the land to last another month.
Hence, if the fallout doesn't kill you, then you're probably prepared to last the 5 years until the cancer does.
After Chernobyl, we found the compounded effects from fallout made the cancer faster and deadlier than it would be when norm referenced with typical, healthy adult peers.
Skalgrin@reddit
My point was that if you survive the 5 years, then you probably live (lived or relocated to) in are with low to no radiation risk, therefore your cancer chance is roughly unaffected or moved forward by 10y from 70 to 60. Your life expectancy in such world would be below 50 though due to hunger, illness, injuries.
Chernobyl cancer increase is due to civilian people being outside during initial disaster and fallout. Those who were there weeks later and further on (army, engineers, workers) are/were more or less unaffected.
fenuxjde@reddit
Fair point
Well-inthatcase@reddit
This is why we have a couple extra bullets. Last resort.
IrishGoodbye4@reddit
If he cancer doesn’t kill you, the feral ghouls will.
dittybopper_05H@reddit
I saw Feral Ghouls open up for the Plasmatics back in 1988.
DuErJoBareUnderlig@reddit
Nice! 😎
Lo_jak@reddit
If the blast doesn't kill you you're going to wish it had....... not unless you have a fully stocked nuclear bunker that ZERO people know about and can live underground for at least 1 month without the need to leave. But even then you're going to run out of food and drinking water at some point
Army_31B@reddit
I have prepared quite a bit for this, the closest possible target to me is about 40 miles south SCSC Wallops VA, where I am essentially we would have a front row seat, heavy fallout from the DC area would blow this way. Definitely going to need some shielding.
GloriousDawn@reddit
If we're talking global thermonuclear war, any prepping is utterly pointless in the northern hemisphere.
I live within 3 miles of a hardened strategic target that is guaranteed to get not one but many high-yield warheads. I consider myself to be among the lucky ones if it happens.
There are dozens of scenarios worth prepping for. This isn't one of them.
Holiday_Albatross441@reddit
Most of America and Russia would be survivable. The problem is that most of the people live in areas which wouldn't be survivable.
For example, if Russia has enough warheads to drop a couple on the airport here (which was originally built as an Air Force base and could be used by bombers in wartime) then most houses in the city would at least lose their roofs and windows before the fallout started to come down. Our whole development would probably burn down if a few houses caught fire after the explosion.
My only really viable option is to throw essentials in the car and drive off down the dirt road nearby and hope everyone else here doesn't think the same.
Useful_Calendar_6274@reddit
just stay living underground for 2 weeks and you will be fine and dandy. the problem is surfacing to a fallout videogame. do people have an actual plan for long term survival? with no milita community of similarly trained and prepared preppers (lol) it's all useless
joelnicity@reddit
All I have to do is look outside and see that there are two dams within a few miles of my house and more and more data centers being built all the time around here. This would be a really good place to hit if somewhere was going to be attacked. But that’s also why I’m not worried about it, none of us would see it coming and then we would be gone
JRHLowdown3@reddit
Knowing all the targets in your area and at least state further Westward from you has always been the starting point in this.
Knowing the rough distances and directions from target areas give you a starting point. If I see a flash far to the Southwest, I know Moody 1 1/2 hours away probably just went up. To the east/south east by 2 hours would be Kings Day, etc. Kings Day not a concern for us, we could get fallout from Moody so KNOWING this was the target gives us a small bit of time to block and chain gates, perhaps spread some old billboard vinyls out in the garden areas, covered the small building the rabbits and chickens are in, firewood sheds, etc. Everything else is mostly "in place".
aesther_tesseract@reddit
I thought we are supposed to get under our desks and cover our heads with our hands... That's what I remember from 1987 in school.
Wise_Artichoke6552@reddit
None, really. My house is old and not airtight, my region is not a major target, and I'm not sure I want to prep to live with super cancer. We're a long way off from nukes, anyway. Many many things will happen before nukes are a legitimate concern for me. I have a bottle of wine and three cans of tuna for our three cats so we can go out happy, but that's more of a protective talisman than a prep lmao
tempest1523@reddit
US is big enough where it’s not that big of a concern for a singular nuke. You can’t pick where it hits so it’s not worth worrying about.
If there is a large exchange of nukes from multiple countries then even if you survive the fallout is going to be so huge it’s not anything you can prep for at a lower level, any more than you prep for everything else.
I’d be more concerned with an EMP. Instead of killing people, it just takes out electronics and leaves the people to kill themselves.
livestrong2109@reddit
Here go watch this you won't spend a minute prepping for anything other than the EMP caused by the blast. Personally I have a pair of Tyvek suits and 3m respirators for leaving an affected area that's the extent of it but that's only because its an easy cross over between painting / lead casting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUmUz8ol9Ow&t=1s
Chief_Kief@reddit
That movie looks terrifying but seems like an important watch regardless
ResolutionMaterial81@reddit
I feel that just a little nuclear preparation goes a long way....depending on your location & considering all the wild cards such as prevailing winds, secondary fires, population in your area, number in household, etc.
So someone having a copy of NWSS (Nuclear War Survival Skills...preferably the 2022 edition), knowing the contents, food/water/sanitation/security for a week or 2 & adequate shelter from fallout effects has a MUCH better chance of emerging from the event than the unprepared.
As for me & mine ...most would think my nuclear preparation is overkill (& I sincerely pray they are right). Basically it is a hobby.
My preps are a rather long list; from where I live (rural BOL with little expected fallout if normal prevailing winds) & even have a small, but well stocked 1000+ PF fallout shelter with multi-stage air filtration/HVAC, toilet/sink, multi-source backup power, LED Lighting, books/DVD/Blu-Ray for education/entertainment, low/high level radiological detection gear with personal Dosimeters/remote monitoring/Marinelli Beakers/etc, EMP shielded night vision/thermal/security cameras/drones, intrusion detection, etc, PPE & Decontamination Gear & enough food, water, etc for literally years.
Would I rather be in remote South America if GTW....sure....but that is not where I ended up! 😏👍
KTeacherWhat@reddit
I know for a fact that I'm near enough a target that if they go for it I'm dead. Which frankly is preferred to being in the fallout zone further off.
Emotional_Seat_7424@reddit
I have prepped able to survive for 3 months completely isolated and likely have an additional months in the normal household stores (cat food, birdseeds and stuff like that) Next step is 6 months. But I do expect to eventually have to go outside again.
I additionally stock for self sufficiency, although not intensively: have some hunting, fishing farming gear, a decent water purification capability, some solar panels, handtools and books about various topics, including a book which was made not to preppers but to africans who live in the savannah which covers repairs, well building, basic medicine, tool making, farming and alot of other things.
CCWaterBug@reddit
I have given this topic zero serious thought
I'm not expected to survive the first week of ww3
Anonymo123@reddit
I live within eyesight of a important Air Force Base.. I'm not planning for nukes, I'll just sit on my lawn and watch it happen.
Once I move it will be purposefully not anywhere near military bases or known ICBM sites. My normal preps will also help with fallout but thats all dependent on location, weather, air vs land impact, amount.. too many variables.
7o7A1@reddit
highly unlikely/not worth it
69stangrestomod@reddit
I love near a major base. I’m gonna get a lawn chair, SPF1,000,000, and my best bottle of bourbon for the show.
learninglife1828@reddit
Where I live.. if a nuke goes off anywhere on my continent, it's probably over. I'm drinking all my booze and eating all my best food and partying for a few days. When that's empty... gunna pop some pain pills, have a warm bath and cut my arms open.
OutlanderMom@reddit
We live 20 miles from a nuclear power plant, so I stock iodine pills to protect our thyroids, in case of an accident. But if a nuclear bomb hits, we’re toast, and there’s not much to do for that. I’ve read about people buying plastic to seal windows and doors, and hazmat suits, etc. But in my opinion, we won’t survive. The soil and will be radioactive. I think an EMP is more likely, so we are prepared for no power, no computer or cars, and have seed banks and hand tools.
Derfel60@reddit
I feel like if youre in an area where there are few to no natural disasters like i am then prepping solely for nuclear warfare makes sense. If youre prepared for that then youre prepared for everything else as well.
Foxontherox888@reddit
Whenever I think about post apocalyptic survival I reread The Road and remember I agree with his wife
TheRealBunkerJohn@reddit
Short answer? As much as I can. As long as you're not in the immediate blast zone, a nuclear strike is fairly survivable. (Respiratory protection, etc.)
The real challenge is in a full exchange where you survive the year after, which involves 1+ years of food, EMP protection, medications, etc. Doable, but basically an end-goal prep, because it's so involved.
EnergyLantern@reddit
I have seen models and my opinion is you can’t do much unless it is limited. I don’t know if the models I have seen are scientific or not but I don’t think it matters.
qszdrgv@reddit
One decent rule of thumb is that if governments stockpile something, and it’s affordable, you might do well to have some too. The stockpiles are never sufficient for everyone. Potassium iodide is cheap. Dosimeters are cheap. Simple PPEs are cheap. If you are downwind of nuclear plants, there are plenty of possible incidents that are not all-out nuclear war that could cause your area to become unsafe and where some protection would be helpful.
mediocre_remnants@reddit
I'm prepared to bug in at my house for quite a while. It doesn't really matter why I have to bug in, but I'm ready for it. It could be severe civil unrest, terror attacks, civil war, a nuke or 10 going off in the country, martial law, total grid collapse, whatever. The details of what caused it aren't important.
And yeah, you could argue that a nuclear attack is a special category due to fallout and radiation. But I'm far enough away from everything that it won't be an immediate concern. And if it's a massive attack, to the point where society has essentially collapses, I have no interest in living in that kind of world so a single bullet is the only prep I need. Maybe two, I doubt my wife would want to live through that either.