Do you have a plan?

a reply to: ni91ck

Earthquakes yes, Nukes no, I would have no way out. I live in the Valley in LA. There would be nowhere to go, the freeways would be jammed. I would just have to pray....I am 20 MIN from down town. I would have to stay put, and hope for the best, like the missile or missiles not hitting to close to me. I think I would have a few drinks during my panic, and hug my partner, maybe be with neighbors, we have some great ones.

a reply to: Blaine91555

Most of those gangs will either be glass or die of radiation sickness soon after.

Most large cities will likely be rendered uninhabitable.

People will be fried on the highway. If you have 30 minutes to the first impact there is now way to go with your car. Only far away from the city. So your radius must be small and the best on foot. Emp wil fried all electronics. Plan for the closest shelter.

a reply to: Bluntone22



Watch the movie, On The Beach, about Australia not being hit, but the radiation slowly approaching, that is what you would be able to look forward to. You would get sick, and die....Even if everything in your area "looked normal" you would get sick as well as the animals, and die....there is another Movie Testament, that will make you cry, too (very good though)...Yeah everyone will eventually die in an all out nuclear attack. Lets hope the people in charge realize that...The fact that before trump becoming president he actually had to ask why we don't use nukes more than once (google it your damn selves if you question me), is one of the reasons I don't care for him.

a reply to: kurthall

There have been 520 atmospheric nuclear tests for over 500 megatons.

That may be part of why he asked.

That doesn't mean setting them all off at once would at all be good for our health, but ... that also doesn't mean we would all die either. Where the fallout and contamination goes would heavily depend on where the blasts were the atmospheric conditions.

Nuclear plant meltdowns afterward would be the far bigger catastrophe.

a reply to: ketsuko


Not sure about you, but that little fukishima plant, has sent RADIATION to the WEST COAST WHERE I LIVE....trump was asking why we don't use them in war, and if you don't know the answer to that you might want to do some RESEARCH as to why we don't. Damn it, this is where America is now???

Are nuclear plants protected from the emp? Normally they go in auto shut down.

originally posted by: kurthall
a reply to: ketsuko


Not sure about you, but that little fukishima plant, has sent RADIATION to the WEST COAST WHERE I LIVE....trump was asking why we don't use them in war, and if you don't know the answer to that you might want to do some RESEARCH as to why we don't. Damn it, this is where America is now???

Nuclear plant is magnitudes of different from a nuclear weapon.

I do believe I did say setting them off at once wouldn't be good, but still, if those bombs were all fukushima level, then none of us would be here.

In fact, I also said that the *real* disaster would be the nuke plant meltdown after the war.

Do go and read what I said please.

a reply to: ni91ck


I just hope it's quick.

Not planning for a mad max future.

a reply to: burgerbuddy

A good thunderdome would be nice. Winner gets all the radioactive girls.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: kurthall
a reply to: ketsuko


Not sure about you, but that little fukishima plant, has sent RADIATION to the WEST COAST WHERE I LIVE....trump was asking why we don't use them in war, and if you don't know the answer to that you might want to do some RESEARCH as to why we don't. Damn it, this is where America is now???

Nuclear plant is magnitudes of different from a nuclear weapon.

I do believe I did say setting them off at once wouldn't be good, but still, if those bombs were all fukushima level, then none of us would be here.

Look, Nuclear weapons are meant for one thing, to KILL people not just stuff, we have bombs, that not with one or two, but 30 or 40 that can do the same damage without killing thousands of innocent people and the radiation affects for those outside of the blast zone too , It would be a crime against HUMANITY to use one.....Anyone who uses one next, is no better than Hitler.

a reply to: kurthall

So you say. Its better to use a neutron bomb? Kim and his followers dead and the people will be free.

No one is ever going to waste that kind of fire power on Holland, bud.

You're safe.

a reply to: SR1TX

Whe have the best cheese and wooden shoes. And Amsterdam the best weed. Yeah who would spoil that.

As long as it doesn't happen on Monday I'm fine with it.

a reply to: dfnj2015

You can always make a request

originally posted by: ni91ck
a reply to: kurthall

So you say. Its better to use a neutron bomb? Kim and his followers dead and the people will be free.

None other than Russia has THE best non Nuke to date, they are part of the U.N., why not use their new bomb to destroy NKOREAs Military, or if not that, just go in and bunker bomb the hell out of their military bases, and be done with it. Man NKorea is like the size of Texas....


Seriously though, there is no need to use anything other than conventional weapons to defeat NKOREA....That is it. I mean what, Bush knew for damn sure there were "weapons of mass destruction" that was a bust huh? We didn't use anything else there. Still I wonder why he didn't go for Afghanistan, hmm. Wasn't that where Osama Bin Laden was found?

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: ni91ck

I"m going to be the guy who's running around the streets waving my arms screaming at the top of my lungs completely and totally insane. That's my plan.

You're definitely leaving the planet first.

a reply to: ni91ck

Bunkers for the government thats it.

Of course the government takes care of themselves.

Evil has to be preserved at all costs so they can rise again to control us, enslave us and be a catalyst for world conflicts. They're hand is always on the button to stamp out any hope for world peace.