In case of nuclear war

Since things are getting heated and so many in the world , including here on ats, are pushing for war with russia.
I started thinking.

If putin were to launch at the states where would he be aiming? Are there any maps showing strategic sites that he would want to hit?
Or simulations showing where the radiation would fall?

I'm asking ats to find as much information about what a nuclear battle with russia would actually look like.
This information could maybe save lives if the worst does happen.
At least some of us could run.....

a reply to: scraedtosleep

I dont think we would be going any near that.

I'm sure we are tracking the boomers and those will be taken out as soon as something goes hot .

I just hope our missile defense is up to par .

a reply to: scraedtosleep

To answer your question, at least in a general way, turn the question around:


If the US were to launch a nuclear strike against Russia, where would they be aiming?

What would we want to hit?


Why would you think Russia would think any differently?

a reply to: scraedtosleep


Ummm…I’d be crisped…I’m about 10 miles as the crow flies…from a major military base…

However…in the event of a nuclear detonation…the NBC NCO always instructed us to immediately take a seated position…place our heads between our knees…and kiss our asses goodbye…


I always thought that was sage advice…provided I had the time to perform the scenario…





YouSir

Try this one.
nuclearsecrecy.com...

Major military bases, by major I mean command and control, first strike capabilities, weapon storage areas, hubs for controlling the electrical grid/internet.

Then figure out the prevailing wind patterns in your area are you upwind or downwind from anything like that.

But honestly its the subs that will get everyone, more people will survive a first strike than people think but then some amount of time later the subs will come up to firing depth and finish off the world.

eta: doesnt matter if I am at home I am about 8 miles as the crow flies from a WSA, or I am at work I am toast if the bombs go up, hell I wont even have time to pop the top on a good bottle of scotch most likely considering how absolute #e our civil defense is.


ETA again: google up some of the old cold war maps that are declassified it will give you a decent run down of projected target areas.

a reply to: scraedtosleep

Somewhere, not that long ago, like within the last month, I linked to the FEMA maps for 500 and 2000 warhead scenarios. I'll see if I can find it again.

Pretty much anywhere near military bases, state capital cities, major critical infrastructure was on the list for the 500 scenario.

Edit to add:

Link to post

Just be very far away from wherever Joe Biden is and you will probably be safe. Good advice even without nukes.

a reply to: scraedtosleep

Only takes a few miles high above the earth to EMP a whole swath of land, like a whole country.

No fallout, no physical destruction, just kneecaped a whole nation.

Womp womp.

Doubt any of it will happen though... But who knows, life's weird. Maybe the world makes peace and then a solar flare says psyche lol. The decade of surprises.

Graffiti I once saw in a public toilet,'in case of atomic attack duck under this urinal it hasn't been hit yet...think about it

1. Are many ATS members pushing for war with Russia? That's news to me. I believe JAGStorm created a thread on the topic, that was essentially a poll on whether or not the U.S. should enter the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Did you read the thread? I would recommend reading it; I think your view on the general opinion of ATS on this matter is off the mark.

2. What would common sense tell your about probable targets that one nation's military would compile against an adversary, irrespective or nuclear or conventional weapons? Military installations? Infrastructure? Industrial centers? We have history from earlier widespread conflicts to draw on that are probably a good indicator of where nuclear weapons would be aimed. The only difference would be that the need for accuracy is greatly reduced when using 10+ megaton thermo-nuclear device ("Close only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades, and nuclear weapons")

3. Do you believe that anything other than a "limited nuclear exchange" is really survivable, in a long term definition of the term "survive"? Are you familiar with the concepts of radioactive fallout, radiation poisoning, the significance of the acronym E.M.P. the term "nuclear winter"? Do you believe that, in a nuclear war scenario, more people would die during the fighting, or after? Some of the theories on how it would play out might surprise you

a reply to: scraedtosleep

They way global wind systems travel….. depending on which bomb was used. (If the Tsar) then the radioactive fallout would reach back to Russia if the hit anywhere on the eastern or western seaboard.

There are numerous sites to run simulations

originally posted by: Ravenwatcher
I'm sure we are tracking the boomers and those will be taken out as soon as something goes hot .

I just hope our missile defense is up to par .

The missile defense system mainly protects DC and strategic air bases, and of course the areas where bunkers for those people are. Us, well, those blown up nukes will rein down on anywhere between those places and Russia, we are expendable, the ones who run the weapons and start the wars aren't

originally posted by: Nickn3
Try this one.
nuclearsecrecy.com...

Lol...
Tsar Boom Boom!



Actually member Jagstorm posted a map the other daily. Pittsburgh was number 5 on the list.

I mean, the world has truly gone masochist. After the 2 year trauma of COVID now we have returned to nuclear annihilation!

Maybe that's really not too unique since in the 50s and 60s were many other viruses, polio, and smallpox were killers too and we were also then fearful of nuclear war.

It seems every time humanity makes progress something happens to stop it and bring us back to danger.


I think we need to forget most of our causes for a while in the world and finally take on nuclear WMD eradication. If that's possible.

Nuclear war has now become feasible to these insane leaders.

a reply to: scraedtosleep

To be perfectly honest a couple of high altitude nukes miles off of each coast would be devastating.

No direct blast damage but EMP's would cripple the electric grid.

a reply to: Bigburgh

Air burst would have a much further fallout. Also who knows what TPTB around the world actually have in their tool chest .

But I have in the last couple of years; practiced mindfulness, it is key to living a life in which you make the changes you can. Some questions aren’t supposed to have answers, if we stop feeding the negativity, it will cease to persist.

P.s. the whole Russia/Ukraine/ whatever thing going on is definitely smoke and mirrors, many other threads on it. But if you can critically think and know history of warfare, analytics, etc…. Nothing that is being displayed as the “narrative” makes any sense.

ESPECIALLY a nuke war…. Because no one wins that.

a reply to: SeektoUnderstand

the whole Russia/Ukraine/ whatever thing going on is definitely smoke and mirrors, many other threads on it.

I wouldn’t exactly call real blood being spilled as smoke and mirrors, with the threat of nuclear accidents and WMD threats.

Unless you want to be more precise in your point.

If they go for ground blasts, water. After the obvious targets, they will hit large bodies of water. Radioactive steam kills more and farther than radioactive dirt. It also will do less damage to the buildings outside the actual blast area for future use.