# Nuclear War Survival Book



## camo2460 (Feb 10, 2013)

As most of you know I purchased the Book "Nuclear War Survival Skills" by Cresson H. Kearny, and I just received it. I haven't read it, just bits and pieces, but this Book is chock full of information with lots of Illustrations, step by step Instruction for shelters, improvised Tools and Clothing, Supply Lists, Facts and Myths Etc, Etc. This Book is useful not only as a guide to Nuclear War Preparation, for which it was intended, but would be useful in any Grid Down Survival Situation, and should be in every Preppers Library. This Book is well worth it at Three times the Price, and I highly recommend it.


----------



## Tweto (Nov 26, 2011)

I can recommend this book also. I have one in my library that was published in 1980.


----------



## terri9630 (Jun 2, 2016)

Where did you buy it? I looked on amazon and the used books START at $48.99. New is $999.00. That's nuts!


----------



## Tweto (Nov 26, 2011)

I purchased mine in the 80's and the price sticker on the book says $12.95 in paper back. I can't remember where I purchased it but I do remember ordering it over the phone from some publishing house.


----------



## hiwall (Jun 15, 2012)

You can read the book here.................
http://www.ki4u.com/free_book/
You can also download the PDF version on that site for free.


----------



## terri9630 (Jun 2, 2016)

Thank you!


----------



## mosquitomountainman (Jan 25, 2010)

Try this website. I got this for free many years ago and they are still offering it. I do not think it is pirated (like I said, it's been available for many years).

http://www.ki4u.com/nwss.pdf


----------



## hiwall (Jun 15, 2012)

The site that mosquitomountainman and I directed you to has A LOT of nuke information. Shane there seems like a good guy and will answer your questions without giving you any bs.


----------



## camo2460 (Feb 10, 2013)

terri9630 said:


> Where did you buy it? I looked on amazon and the used books START at $48.99. New is $999.00. That's nuts!


I bought it on Amazon for About $15.00 I think.


----------



## terri9630 (Jun 2, 2016)

I saved the site so I can go through it and print stuff out.


----------



## tsrwivey (Dec 31, 2010)

terri9630 said:


> Where did you buy it? I looked on amazon and the used books START at $48.99. New is $999.00. That's nuts!


Terri I just checked the price on Amazon this morning & it $16.99 for the latest version. Here's the link: https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_...ix=Nuclear+war+su,aps,1656&crid=13WCAVA7SW1FD


----------



## Meerkat (May 31, 2011)

Well we need to realize thsi is not your old fashioned nukes. We don't know whats in thsoe new age bombs.


I read a few years ago charcoal that if nothing else just rub iodine on your stomach. And take charcoal tablets which is also good for your intestines and helps remove metals. I read about this in my medical encyclopedia a couple decades ago.


----------



## camo2460 (Feb 10, 2013)

Meerkat said:


> Well we need to realize thsi is not your old fashioned nukes. We don't know whats in thsoe new age bombs.
> 
> 
> I read a few years ago charcoal that if nothing else just rub iodine on your stomach. And take charcoal tablets which is also good for your intestines and helps remove metals. I read about this in my medical encyclopedia a couple decades ago.


Meerkat what do you mean by "New Age Bombs"? You either have Nuclear Fusion or you don't, you either have a Nuclear Explosion or you don't.


----------



## labotomi (Feb 14, 2010)

Meerkat said:


> Well we need to realize thsi is not your old fashioned nukes. We don't know whats in thsoe new age bombs.


When was the last time anyone other than North Korea tested a nuclear weapon? There's no fundamentally new nuclear weapons in service. It's hard to implement something new if you can't test it. There are only a few nations capable of advancing in this field and none of them are currently performing any tests.

** North Korea's tests do not fall into the category as new. They are having trouble getting existing designs to function reliably.


----------



## labotomi (Feb 14, 2010)

camo2460 said:


> Meerkat what do you mean by "New Age Bombs"? You either have Nuclear Fusion or you don't, you either have a Nuclear Explosion or you don't.


There's fission weapons which are a lot simpler to produce. Neither fission nor fusion bombs are new technology so I'm also not sure to what "New Age Bombs" refers.


----------



## Meerkat (May 31, 2011)

I'm not about to google and write it all out. But the atomic bomb of Heroshimo and the hydrogen bomb of today are different.
In hort class we worked with lots of formulars and touched on this subject. More to it than just splitting the atom in todays bombs.

Atomic bad, hydrogen worse. If the hydrogen bombs had of been dropped on Japan today there would be no survivors and no life for milliniums.

It seems like when I had read about this it was the plutonium that made it difference, but that may be worng? :dunno:


----------



## labotomi (Feb 14, 2010)

Meerkat said:


> I'm not about to google and write it all out. But the atomic bomb of Heroshimo and the hydrogen bomb of today are different.
> In hort class we worked with lots of formulars and touched on this subject. More to it than just splitting the atom in todays bombs.
> 
> Atomic bad, hydrogen worse. If the hydrogen bombs had of been dropped on Japan today there would be no survivors and no life for milliniums.
> ...


I covered hydrogen bombs. The term for it's reaction is "fusion". The term hydrogen bomb comes from it's use of "heavy hydrogen"


labotomi said:


> either fission nor fusion bombs are new technology so I'm also not sure to what "New Age Bombs" refers.


It was developed in the early 50s. I don't consider things that happened before I was born to be new age, but that's just me.

As for the no survivors for millennia...
We've tested thousands of hydrogen bombs, so have many other countries. The overwhelming majority of nuclear weapons in existence are hydrogen bombs. The difference in a fission or fusion bomb with respect to damage created is nothing more than the amount of power it produces. 
In fact, a fusion weapon produces less fallout than a comparably sized fission only weapon because the atoms formed by combining hydrogen atoms are still on the smaller side of the periodic table and nowhere close to size needed to be radioactive.

Uranium was used as the fuel for Little Boy which was dropped on Hiroshima
Plutonium was used as the fuel for Fat Man which was dropped on Nagasaki

Uranium and plutonium are fission elements and are used as fuel in fission bombs. They are also used in fusion/hydrogen bombs. The fusion reaction of the heavy hydrogen increases the rate at which the uranium/plutonium undergoes fission. This increase in the rate of fission is what makes hydrogen bombs more powerful.


----------



## Meerkat (May 31, 2011)

labotomi said:


> I covered hydrogen bombs. The term for it's reaction is "fusion". The term hydrogen bomb comes from the fuel source which is "heavy hydrogen"
> 
> It was developed in the early 50s. I don't consider things that happened before I was born to be new age, but that's just me.
> 
> ...


 Thanks for writing it out. I still think they said a hydrogen is more catastrophic than a atomic.:scratch


----------



## DFrost (Jan 12, 2014)

I believe that what Meerkat is trying to point out, is that we no longer measure strategic nuclear weapon yields only in kilo tons yields.

The "Little Boy" weapon had an explosive force estimated to equal 15,000 tons of TNT!

The "Fat Man", that of 21,000 tons!

"Big Ivan" has an estimated 50,000,000 tons of TNT!

Back in the 70's, when I began my life as a survivalist (we didn't have preppers back then, it sounded too much like the weirdoes that attended SciFi Cons!) we debated whether or not suitcase bombs were even feasible and never entertained the thought of dirty bombs.

So, yes, I too think times have changed in how we view potential nuclear attacks as part of our SHTF preparations. Kearny did too! That was why he wrote the updated edition in 1982, again in 1987 and finally, so far, in 2012. (although with another author) Fusion is fusion and fission is fission, but remember, the more things stay the same, the more they change!!! (-;


...And these atomic bombs which science burst upon the world that night were strange even to the men who used them. 

H. G. Wells, The World Set Free, 1914


----------



## labotomi (Feb 14, 2010)

DFrost said:


> So, yes, I too think times have changed in how we view potential nuclear attacks as part of our SHTF preparations. Kearny did too! That was why he wrote the updated edition in 1982, again in 1987 and finally, so far, in 2012. (although with another author) Fusion is fusion and fission is fission, but remember, the more things stay the same, the more they change!!! (-;


And I will state that the weapons themselves have not changed over that time. The weapons that we have today are the same as those that existed in 1982. I'm not saying they are the same design or even similar... *they are the exact same*. This is due to several treaties with I believe the SALT II being the main limitation or at least the start.

The only thing that may have changed that needed to be updated in book is that now the potential players have changed and a "dirty bomb" is more likely. I don't place dirty bombs in the same category because they are not nuclear weapons. In addition, the affected area will be small. It would have to be deployed in a high density/high value area to have a meaningful effect. Even then, while the area could be hazardous for some time, just staying out of it would be all that is required to protect yourself.


----------



## AmmoSgt (Apr 13, 2014)

Suitcase bomb 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Atomic_Demolition_Munition

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device)






http://www.guntruck.com/DavyCrockett.html


----------

