NUCLEAR WAR SURVIVAL?!?!

If theres a nuclear war, I would rather be right in downtown NYC. That way I can die instantly. No pain, no suffering, I wont even know what hit me.

Nuclear warfare is very survivable, and to me, is much preferred to the other unconventional weapons choices out there. I do find all the defeatist attitudes humorous. I'm glad that I will not be sharing a foxhole or survival community with y'all.

A good book to have in your home library is The U.S. Armed Forces Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Survival Manual, ISBN 0-465-00797-X.

To all you who believe if nuclear weapons are used we are all toast, all I have to say is that you are beaten before anything begins. Your lack of knowledge is understandable as not everyone has worked with them, but your lack of backbone and courage is unforgivable.

It all depends on the type of attack, the type and number of the nuclear weapons employed. The weapons effects from a 10-20 KT atomic bomb and a 10 megaton thermo nuclear weapon are radically different. A limited nuclear war is highly survivable if you are not close to a target ground zero. However, you had better be prepared to survive on your own for sometime after the attack.

Originally posted by HardBall
It all depends on the type of attack, the type and number of the nuclear weapons employed. The weapons effects from a 10-20 KT atomic bomb and a 10 megaton thermo nuclear weapon are radically different. A limited nuclear war is highly survivable if you are not close to a target ground zero. However, you had better be prepared to survive on your own for sometime after the attack.

I was basing my little survival training post on a 4mt device at an airburst of a few thousand feet.

The standard attack plan is to decimate a city with a number of medium sized warheads, probably 15-20 1mt bombs over a city, that way you would kill everyone.

If you know that nuclear war comes, run to area without cities, large population or military targets. By this way, you should be long distance from closest ground zero, in safest possible place.. Dont drink water from river or lake without living fishes, insects, etc, because it is radiated. Take as much supplies as you can. Spend first 24-48h from detonation under ground level so ou will avoid fallout,blast and strongest radiation.Take any weapons you have, you must protect youself from animals, robbers and shop looters. If you realy want to have a car or motorcycle take old one, without electrical things.

And, if it ever comes to all that, you'll find that all the fallout noise is way over-talked.
The stress suffered because of a nuclear exchange will be worse than any fallout. The nation will be in a greater need of Prozac than iodine pills!
Heck, a great percentage can't handle work and family life without little helping pills, can you imagine a nuclear detonations?

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
And, if it ever comes to all that, you'll find that all the fallout noise is way over-talked.
The stress suffered because of a nuclear exchange will be worse than any fallout. The nation will be in a greater need of Prozac than iodine pills!

Heck, a great percentage can't handle work and family life without little helping pills, can you imagine a nuclear detonations?

It's good that you are so positive as most people seem ready to die without second thought...however if we were ever in a full on nuclear war with say russia, there wouldn't be much chance for survival. Tens of thousands of deaths have already been documented from past nuclear testing which was far more off target and less powerful than what we would be hit with.

Russia has over 750 icbm's armed with more than 3500 warheads totaling above 2000 MT from icbms alone. Assuming we could take out most of these in first strike, there would still be enough to devastate the country...and the radiation would be quite bad.

That's pretty optimistic TC... So, is there anything in that manual about how to deal with the facts that:

1. a nuclear war will likely be full-scale.
2. if the initial blasts and fallout don't kill you, there are other things to take into effect.
3. food won't exactly grow in the soil.
4. the world economy, government, and all institutions of man, will pretty much be toast.
5. society will become a bunch of scavengers, survival of the fittest, and akin to the raiding societies of the Vikings.
6. anybody who does manage to hoard supplies, survive, etc. will then also have to contend with such raiders, in order to keep them.
7. the environmental effects would be disastrous.
8. with the destruction of crops, polluting of soil, water, and the destruction of any wild game, humans will be just as vulnerable as the dinosaurs were to their fate.
9. once simple medical ailments, will again become lethal, due to lack of medical supplies, infrastructure, and pharmacetical production.
10. simply put, we'd be #ed.

I wish I could share your optimism...but sadly, logic won't allow it....

[Edited on 22-12-2003 by Gazrok]

If we entered nuclear war with another country, couldn't the government just fire up HAARP to stop the missiles ?

Originally posted by Rabbit
If we entered nuclear war with another country, couldn't the government just fire up HAARP to stop the missiles ?

lol, dont get your hopes up buddy...out of several hundred missiles being launched at us, we would be lucky if our "countermeasures" stopped more than maybe 5 missiles if that

I'd wager it's far more effective than 5 missiles... The point though, is that once the countermeasures are used, they are then vulnerable to the second wave, hence, then more get through, etc. etc. So, even if all are stopped on the first wave, it's the followups that will be bad news....

Contrary to popular opinion, the initial strikes would be limited, and aimed at each others' missle deployment capability, and possible C&C centers. This is done mostly to ferret out any countermeasures and identify them, so that the next wave then seeks to eliminate them, while the third then goes after the actual targets.

We'd have to simply hope that they are worth the billions we've put into them since the last couple years of shuttle missions.

Originally posted by Gazrok
I'd wager it's far more effective than 5 missiles... The point though, is that once the countermeasures are used, they are then vulnerable to the second wave, hence, then more get through, etc. etc. So, even if all are stopped on the first wave, it's the followups that will be bad news....

Contrary to popular opinion, the initial strikes would be limited, and aimed at each others' missle deployment capability, and possible C&C centers. This is done mostly to ferret out any countermeasures and identify them, so that the next wave then seeks to eliminate them, while the third then goes after the actual targets.

We'd have to simply hope that they are worth the billions we've put into them since the last couple years of shuttle missions.

if ALL are stopped on the first wave? impossible. these countermeasure systems have never been tested, so it is not possible to know if they even work. If you do a little research on the technicalities of actually being able to target and shoot down or disable a moving ICBM, you will see that it would be pure luck to get any hits.

also you cant really say anything about what will happen in a nuclear war, as each country has their own policy regarding their actual attack plan etc.

bottom line is we dont want a nuclear war, as we will all be blown to bits

I'll agree with your bottom line....but yes, all. I'm not talking about Patriot-like countermeasures. I'm talking HEL's and EMP. It's speculation, but based on research, and close examination of military shuttle and rocket missions. They were placing a space-based SDI system up there...no doubt about it....(at least in my mind). The Soviets have a similar system (though it's last addition was a longer time ago than ours, and it isn't near as covering (but then again, it doesn't have to be).

I am not aware of any EMP system designed for stopping nuclear weapons...SDI is primarily designed to protect US ICBM forces and command centers, and maybe some civilian targets, a couple concentrated population areas. Even so, it is highly unlikely that it would work at all, as our government has even stated that it is not really capable of doing what it should..the future may change that. Here is something interesting I found that was said by someone working on the SDI, during an interview with computer experts from around the country.

"Parnas, a prominent software engineer and consultant for a number of US defense projects, was the first speaker. He was a part of the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization (SDIO) and a member of a computer research advising panel. He resigned from the panel, because he felt "SDI cannot meet its advertised goals," and because "SDIO is not a good mechanism for funding research. Parnas claimed that reliable software for SDI could never be written. He said development of a successful "Star Wars" operating system is less likely than ten thousand monkeys randomly typing the Encyclopedia Britannica.

"

Furthermore, I think people will see that the whole idea of trying to shoot down nukes is just a waste of time and money, as it is completely worthless. This will just speed up the nuclear arms race, as well as increase tension...SDI is to be used with first strike by the United States. If Russia were to attack us first with nuclear weapons, there is no way it could effectively counter all of these missiles, whereas apprx 6% of their total nuclear forces would remain after a US first strike. This shows that what we really need to address is our good relations and "retalitory only policy" that russia and china have already agreed to.

Judging from the way things are going these days, I wouldnt be surprised if we all get to see first hand how well these systems actually work, although I really hope we dont because if and when they fail, kiss your ass goodbye

[Edited on 22-12-2003 by Shoktek]

Originally posted by Gazrok
That's pretty optimistic TC... So, is there anything in that manual about how to deal with the facts that:

1. a nuclear war will likely be full-scale.
2. if the initial blasts and fallout don't kill you, there are other things to take into effect.
3. food won't exactly grow in the soil.
4. the world economy, government, and all institutions of man, will pretty much be toast.
5. society will become a bunch of scavengers, survival of the fittest, and akin to the raiding societies of the Vikings.
6. anybody who does manage to hoard supplies, survive, etc. will then also have to contend with such raiders, in order to keep them.
7. the environmental effects would be disastrous.
8. with the destruction of crops, polluting of soil, water, and the destruction of any wild game, humans will be just as vulnerable as the dinosaurs were to their fate.
9. once simple medical ailments, will again become lethal, due to lack of medical supplies, infrastructure, and pharmacetical production.
10. simply put, we'd be #ed.

I wish I could share your optimism...but sadly, logic won't allow it....

[Edited on 22-12-2003 by Gazrok]

Great going, Gazrok! Looks like our message board "patriot" has got nothing to say to your post...

Who the # wants to survive a nuclear war? Maybe some people here should look at the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and ask if they want to be the immediate survivors of that!

And THAT was done to show the Russians we had power. The Japanese were prepared to give up, ASKED THE US IF THEY COULD GIVE UP, definitely prepared after the first bomb--The Enola Gay which is still being protested to this day!

No one wants to survive a nuclear war. If by luck I did, I would HATE man. I would hate the human race, i.e I would hate myself for being a part of such...evil.

Look iinto Nagasaki and Hiroshima and ask if you want to be a "survivor."

It ain't about the LIE about "Duck and Cover," either. That more repugnant war-mongering bull#.

Yep, Japan was on the brink of surrendering, we didn't need to drop either of those bombs. We wanted to make an example of them and show russia we werent to be messed with.

i don't thik any one would survive a nuclear attack. You can hide in the ground but the radiation is going to get you.

Originally posted by ProjectX
If theres a nuclear war, I would rather be right in downtown NYC. That way I can die instantly. No pain, no suffering, I wont even know what hit me.

I agree I rather bask in the white light and dissovle instantly rather than be living in post nuclear america.

ooh look my hair is falling out and so are my teeth... and my skin can't stop dripping off

I found a text I had included in a school project about nuclear weapons a couple of years ago, that might be of interest. It deals with, among others, the factors that Nerdling guided us through in his post. I ran a few searches using sentences from the text and found a page containing the text, with the name of the author on it. (I was thinking of posting the whole thing, but it's better to just post the link).

www.3ammagazine.com...