Tough conversations.

a reply to: incoserv

While ducking under elementary school desks in the mid 50s that became my plan as well. ''THIS is gonna save us? ''

originally posted by: nugget1
I hope and pray if it comes to nukes flying I'll be at ground zero; same wit Yellowstone erupting, and I'm close enough to qualify.

There is evidence of more than one cataclysmic event in our past, with stories of the few survivors going underground to survive; Hopi's are one who have such legends.

History always repeats itself. People continue to make the same mistakes in life over and over-until they learn the lesson those mistakes are meant to teach them.
Man has not learned from the mistake of ruling through violence and destruction of our environment, so here we are again....at the crossroads of decision.

There are ancient underground tunnels and huge cities all over the world; archeologists 'supposedly' have no idea how or why they were created and abandoned.

In a 'worst case' scenario, history tells us the best-maybe the only chance-of survival is escaping whatever life-endangering conditions exist on the surface for an extended period.

Government officials have underground facilities to survive in for years, if need be. The have the Svalbard Global Seed Vault to do a hard restart when the danger has passed.

If I really wanted to survive and live in/through an apocalypse I'd start digging now; fast and deep.

There's a reason why we say caveman.

Think about it you don't even have to dig deep into the ground.

Cavemen or right all along.

originally posted by: incoserv
I've always said that in the event of a nuclear strike, I would locate ground zero and get there before the detonation if possible.

You my good friend is funny as hell.

Having read through this thread, all your concepts of targets in a nuclear war are wrong.

First will be high altitude air bursts to EMP the area. It saves bombs, two or three would cover the entire continental USA. Next targets, if they continue, are large bodies of water. It multiplies the destruction of people without distraction of infrastructure. The radius of radioactive steam is many times any dry fallout from a blast. This also saves on bombs used in case you need them for future attacks.

The mentioned Sanfransisco bay is a prime target, in the water. That boat buggout idea is not good for any large body of water will be a prime target, even if you are well downstream of it. Figure a thousand miles down wind from any large body of water is a dead zone.

Also almost anywhere in the USA is less than 50 miles from at least one nuclear reactor. I am in an area where you can't get over 30 miles from at least one. This is significant as they all will go up in steam explosions after an attack. This is from lack of cooling. The spent fuel ponds will also dry up by not having water pumped to them. Both cases will spew radioactive material into the surrounding area for many miles. The good news is you will have from hours to a few weeks for this to happen depending on the design.

The fallout from the nuclear blast are the least of your worries if you make it through the first two weeks. The hardest radiation from that material will be spent as it has short halflifes before it breaks down.

As for Yellowstone, I am in an area that is estimated to have 3 to 6 inches of ash fall from it. That is in Georgia. The danger is breathing in the silica while trying to keep your home from collapsing from the weight of the ash. It will have to be removed before a rain or the weight on the roof will crush most homes. For areas closer, the weight of the feet of ash alone on the roof is enough to collapse buildings. That is the west side of Alabama and on that direction.

If you breath in the silica, it triggers bone growth in your body. You will have bone fusion in a few months after exposure. Not a nice death.

Should the Azores split, I will probably hear the tsunami but I am on the west side of Georgia and over 700 feet above sea level. Not a real danger for me. The East coast of the USA will just be a mud flat after that mile high wave hits.

Sorry for all the bad news.What other disasters do we want to discuss?

a reply to: beyondknowledge2

The reactor meltdown deal (long story short) is something I personally believe has happened before and was the cause of some of the “mass migrations”/entire societal collapses… the “fire in the sky” legends and whatnot along with widespread “radon” deposits and other “ground radiation”…

a reply to: SwissMarked

That makes sense. The reactors would also do this from a natural EMP. They need power to cool the reactor cores for a month to shut them down and years to deal with the spent fuel cooling. Most have diesel generators but only fuel for a week at most. That is assuming the EMP takes out the power grid and not the reactor control system and backups as well.

This almost happened in northern Alabama several years ago. Several tornados took out the power lines in the area and the reactor almost ran out of diesel before they got the power lines back up.

originally posted by: watchitburn
She wanted to know why I didn't plan to go help her.

She's cool, but she's morbidly obese and has several other health conditions. I'm too polite to tell hell she's not going to make it if it comes to that. But also she'd be a liability that will get others killed.

So what did you actually say when she asked you?

If the SHTF, you go help others. As futile as that seems, it is the only way that things could eventually get better, if that is even possible.

You go on your own, you eventually become a problem for anyone and everything else, and when you do succumb, you have contributed nothing positive to an unfathomable crisis.

originally posted by: asabuvsobelow
Not nukes I don't think that mate.

I'm thinking Mass Power Outage combined with a True Biological Outbreak. But you see that is why there is such a push for full electric Everything , Cars , Stoves etc etc etc .

So when the Grid goes down everyone will be truly helpless . Then comes a Deadly Biological Outbreak and people will simply die in the dark.

Stock up on Canned foods the shelf life is basically indefinite.

Meanwhile the non chosen few (so called elite) will wait it all out on Hawaii. These secluded islands are quite handy for this scenario.

what his plan was if the nukes started dropping

A rocking chair on the front porch .
A bottle of fine cognac just waiting.
One welder's helmet.
Forgot the fine cigar. Waiting as well .
The plan .

Should things go SHTF, having some plans and preparations will help.

If it is nuclear war, hope it is quick and get taken out in the initial blast. For those that do survive, many will be too weak to fight, others will offer what support they can.

If society just gradually falls apart, that will get messy. Being a part of some local community will help. If Civil and Martial law fail, Tribal law is next in line to pick up the pieces.

As for this obese lady, she may not be able to do much physically, what about preparing and having enough supplies for a few months should things all shut down?

As for your dog, having one will make it harder for anyone to surprise you late at night.

Maybe if things are bad enough you will have to let these and many others go. Until then, maintain our humanity as best we can.

a reply to: watchitburn


Just watched the latest Canadian Prepper podcast about surviving and he was warning people with addictions. Something I have thought about for awhile.

Those people will be affected the worst, how can you survive without your meds/fixes. I have no vices, but I have family members who do. They also can’t live without their Dunkin’s and Starbucks.

I have plans A,B,C ….. and D if the others fail.

I try to warn them all, but they are clueless and fairly comfortable so they truly do not see it coming.

I’ll do the best I can for them, and no matter what we will stick together til then end!

a reply to: Itisnowagain

I said her ex-husband would help her out. She has custody of their teenage kids.

In such tough conversation with a narcissist I know, she was adamant, she 'had to survive as she was too important to the world'. She told me how she knew how to do it, she could skin a rabbit and grow veg and people would come to her for help. I asked her why she thought anyone would survive. She could not grasp how in any cataclysmic geo-event, the chances of anyone surviving were negligible. She lives in her own little ego-driven bubble, gobbling up drivel fed by apoco-porn tv and truly believes she is exceptional.

I pointed out how geo-events were entirely natural, had happened before, caused mass extinctions and Earth to 'snowball' for thousands of years. I think i was meant to validate her self-perception. All I managed to do was anger her. She vehemently demanded i tell her what I would do. I told her I did not know. She seemed to think this meant I was stupid. I said until it happens, nobody would know what it was or what was feasible in that situation. I said if in the unlikelyhood I survived such thing, I might hole-up at home for a bit or just go straight away, walk the 150 miles to my daughter, see how she was doing. The narcissist asked why I would bother walking, couldn't I just use my car? I facetiously asked her if the fuel stations would still be operating, fully stocked up and staffed.

What could have been a 'tough conversation' was a very entertaining half hour of listening to a mind of madness. And being polite enough to not laugh out-loud at the absurdity.

Do I live in fear of a nuke strike? No - fear is the mind killer and I refuse to be mind-controlled by systemic actors trying to be the boss of me. Do I think there will be a nuke strike? Looking around the world, beyond Biden, I do not see any national leader insane enough to push the button and he, Biden, has been stripped of that power so no, I do not think a nuke strike is likely. Do i think other WMD would be deployed? Yes, but only if the arms industry is on board in the decision making process and have ensured their markets are protected.

a reply to: watchitburn

Mike Tyson has the best quote ever on subjects like this.

“Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth”

Basically in the SHTF scenario your plan isn’t going to be as important as your ability to adapt to situations and the skills you’ve acquired that allow you to adapt.
Then there’s the question, do you even want to survive? In the case of nuclear annihilation…. Eh, maybe not.

a reply to: watchitburn
i believe your plan will only work in a very limited to moderate exchange. unless you live in area that has no strategic value. i'm just guessing but i would say that at least 60% of the continental U.S. is in a target zone for some sort of reason
in a full scale exchange.
even then only those that are deep down in a government hole or under a mountain will emerge in any kinda shape to to survive. then it will be tough for them depending on how massive the full exchange was. they may wind up having to stay in those holes for a very long time, could emerge to all kinds of ecological conditions, that would make living top side all but impossible. i'm sure many would die due to that.

there have been studies in the past that suggest that even a small 100 weapon exchange between India and Pakistan would have world wide consequence and possibly cause a nuclear famine.
so far is the only article i could find from last year. not a real great one, but it does give some information.

One study published two years ago looked at the likely impacts of a nuclear exchange of about 100 Hiroshima-sized detonations (15 kt yield each) on the most-populated urban areas of India and Pakistan. Each detonation was estimated to incinerate an area of 13 square km, with this scenario generating about 5 Tg (teragrams) of soot as smoke from wildfires and burning buildings entered the atmosphere.

Food exports collapse as stocks are depleted within a single year, and by year four a total of 1.3 billion people face a loss of about a fifth of their current food supply. The researchers conclude that “a regional conflict using

a reply to: BernnieJGato

for some reason even though i cut the text it won't post all of the eternal quotes or link, so the the last one and link

they say that the humans species will survive, don't say how many or how long it would take but hey we still survive.

This implies that some humans would survive, eventually to repopulate the planet, and that a species-level extinction of Homo sapiens is unlikely even after a full-scale nuclear war. But the vast majority of the human population would suffer extremely unpleasant deaths from burns, radiation and starvation, and human civilization would likely collapse entirely. Survivors would eke out a living on a devastated, barren planet.

Could humans survive a nuclear war between NATO and Russia?

a reply to: Bluntone22

Well yeah, of course. That's been common sense long before Tyson said it. In the military we understood that every plan pretty much goes out the window once you make contact with the enemy.

But having logical outlines for how to maneuver through likely situations allows you to more effectively adapt to them.

a reply to: beyondknowledge2

Ive just moved to the Missouri from North Dakota. I have been all over and Ive NEVER seen as many nuke silos as I have there. They are literally everywhere and the funny thing is that sunflower fields are literally everywhere. Planting these fields is supposed to replenish and detox soils with nuclear contamination. I dont have to mention that nothing of any consequence lives in North Dakota and it would be impossible to survive long with the rest of the low population. Due to the fear of whomever would nuke us as far as a return volley.. theyd definitely hit the Northern Midwest aka North Dakota.

IMO it would be foolish to nuke and destroy a land you want to conquer and/or occupy. I see EMPs and pandemics much more than outright nuclear assaults. Maybe precision bombing with Nukes.. but done Armageddon strikes.

Given the discovery of the covid lab they found in Cali, pandemics seem much much more likely.

Just my opinion.

a reply to: MelissaP

IMO it would be foolish to nuke and destroy a land you want to conquer and/or occupy.

That's where using neutron b*ombs would be most effective.