# Consequences of a large nuclear war.



## RevWC (Mar 28, 2011)

Click on the site for an active map with time line.

http://www.nucleardarkness.org/warconsequences/hundredfiftytonessmoke/

Summary of consequences: U.S.-Russian war producing 150 million tons of smoke

1. 2600 U.S. and Russian strategic nuclear weapons on high-alert are launched (in 2 to 3 minutes) at targets in the U.S., Europe and Russia (and perhaps at other targets which are considered to have strategic value).
2. Some fraction of the remaining 7600 deployed and operational U.S. and Russian strategic nuclear warheads/weapons are also launched and detonated in retaliation for the initial attacks.
3. Hundreds of large cities in the U.S., Europe and Russia are engulfed in massive firestorms which burn urban areas of tens or hundreds of thousands of square miles/kilometers.
4. 150 million tons of smoke from nuclear fires rises above cloud level, into the stratosphere, where it quickly spreads around the world and forms a dense stratospheric cloud layer. The smoke will remain there for many years to block and absorb sunlight.
5. The smoke blocks up to 70% of the sunlight from reaching the Earth's surface in the Northern Hemisphere, and up to 35% of the sunlight is also blocked in the Southern Hemisphere.
6. In the absence of warming sunlight, surface temperatures on Earth become as cold or colder than they were 18,000 years ago at the height of the last Ice Age
7. There would be rapid cooling of more than 20°C over large areas of North America and of more than 30°C over much of Eurasia, including all agricultural regions
8. 150 million tons of smoke in the stratosphere would cause minimum daily temperatures in the largest agricultural regions of the Northern Hemisphere to drop below freezing for 1 to 3 years. Nightly killing frosts would occur and prevent food from being grown.
9. Average global precipitation would be reduced by 45% due to the prolonged cold.
10. Growing seasons would be virtually eliminated for many years.
11. Massive destruction of the protective ozone layer would also occur, allowing intense levels of dangerous UV light to penetrate the atmosphere and reach the surface of the Earth.
12. Massive amounts of radioactive fallout would be generated and spread both locally and globally. The targeting of nuclear reactors would significantly increase fallout of long-lived isotopes.
13. Gigantic ground-hugging clouds of toxic smoke would be released from the fires; enormous quantities of industrial chemicals would also enter the environment.
14. It would be impossible for many living things to survive the extreme rapidity and degree of changes in temperature and precipitation, combined with drastic increases in UV light, massive radioactive fallout, and massive releases of toxins and industrial chemicals.
15. Already stressed land and marine ecosystems would collapse.
16. Unable to grow food, most humans would starve to death.
17. A mass extinction event would occur, similar to what happened 65 million years ago, when the dinosaurs were wiped out following a large asteroid impact with Earth (70% of species became extinct, including all animals greater than 25 kilograms in weight).
*18. Even humans living in shelters equipped with many years worth of food, water, energy, and medical supplies would probably not survive in the hostile post-war environment.*


----------



## AmishHeart (Jun 10, 2016)

But...I would like to try!


----------



## Tweto (Nov 26, 2011)

I'm not sure that massive fires will happen. In nuke tests in the 50's, wood frame house were hit with near by ground burst and air burst nuclear explosives with massive destruction but no fires. What was common was a very intense first high heat blast from the explosion and then 10-30 seconds later a blast n the other direction made of only high speed winds of several hundred MPH's. The reverse blast will not have the same intense heat as the first and if any fires do develop should be blown out.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki had massive fire because almost every house used grills on their deck made with coal and other flammable material to cook with and their explosions were at breakfast time. Plus Japanese homes wear built on top of each other with highly flammable paper walls.

The US, Europe and Russia uses heat from other sources.

I'm not saying there won't be fires, yes there will be fires, but I can't see fire storms raging across todays concrete cities and housing all separated by yards and miles of farming land and desert.

Of coarse this is just my onion and not worth much.


----------



## CrackbottomLouis (May 20, 2012)

I would have to be a millionaire to prepare adequately for that scenario. Back to prepping for the Zombie Apocalypse.


----------



## readytogo (Apr 6, 2013)

Consequences of a large nuclear war. Wow; If 1% of the nuclear weapons now ready for war were detonated in large cities, they would utterly devastate the environment, climate, ecosystems and inhabitants of Earth. A war fought with thousands of strategic nuclear weapons would leave the Earth uninhabitable but why is this a preppers topic ,after all , is unsurvivable .


----------



## hiwall (Jun 15, 2012)

readytogo said:


> Consequences of a large nuclear war. Wow; If 1% of the nuclear weapons now ready for war were detonated in large cities, they would utterly devastate the environment, climate, ecosystems and inhabitants of Earth. A war fought with thousands of strategic nuclear weapons would leave the Earth uninhabitable but why is this a preppers topic ,after all , is unsurvivable .


Your statement and the the OP's article only offer OPINIONS. Do a search on the web and you can easily find many articles offering Very different end scenarios. Scientists very rarely agree on anything and certainly not on this topic. If you are at ground zero of a nuke strike then yes you will die. Otherwise there is a good chance you will survive.

Read this FREE book and get the facts. This guy is the real deal.
http://www.ki4u.com/nwss.pdf


----------



## BillS (May 30, 2011)

hiwall said:


> Your statement and the the OP's article only offer OPINIONS. Do a search on the web and you can easily find many articles offering Very different end scenarios. Scientists very rarely agree on anything and certainly not on this topic. If you are at ground zero of a nuke strike then yes you will die. Otherwise there is a good chance you will survive.
> 
> Read this FREE book and get the facts. This guy is the real deal.
> http://www.ki4u.com/nwss.pdf


The conventional wisdom has always been that a full scale nuclear war with Russia would kill off all human life on earth. I don't of anyone with any credentials who believes otherwise.


----------



## TheLazyL (Jun 5, 2012)

I will agree that an all out nuclear exchange will change the large majority of our lives.


----------



## forluvofsmoke (Jan 27, 2012)

Ah, yeah, if a fight comes to blows with even just a smaller percentage of the ready-to-fire nuclear war heads there's really only one thing left to do...put your head between your legs and kiss...(I'll be nice)...everyone you love good-bye.

There's a reason they call it mutual destruction...no-body walks away from that...or, they won't walk very far, or for very long.


----------



## Tweto (Nov 26, 2011)

For those that think that any nuke war is a death sentence realize this.

So far there have been 2,183 nuclear explosions on earth. 481 explosion in above ground tests and 109 explosions in sea tests.

The US has had 215 above ground tests in Nevada and Soviet Union has had 219. When I was a kid they used to report how many tests would be this week so that if they were at night you could see the light from hundreds of miles away.

Also, back in the 70's there were expected nuclear explosions in the southern Atlantic by some unknown state (probably Israel). These have never been documented but were reported in the papers as strange happenings. Estimates are that there were more then 20 explosions.

So when some one says that if even a small number of nuclear explosion happen in a war and then to think that it's death to all humans has to wonder why we are not already dead.


----------



## hiwall (Jun 15, 2012)

> There's a reason they call it mutual destruction...


Countries Can nuke each other into destruction....of the government and the economy but they Can not kill every human.


----------



## HardCider (Dec 13, 2013)

Bottom line is there will be no winners or losers, just survivors. Ironically it also throws everyone back into the stone age where no one has an advantage anymore


----------



## LastOutlaw (Jun 1, 2013)

*Shall we play a game?*


----------



## forluvofsmoke (Jan 27, 2012)

hiwall said:


> Countries Can nuke each other into destruction....of the government and the economy but they Can not kill every human.


They can come close...if you live near a strategic target such as any large metro area, any major infrastructure such as hydroelectric or nuke power plants, oil refineries...I'll just stop with that...those areas will be pummeled given the chance and provocation. If enough nukes went off, could enough people hide from or dodge the fallout and soil/water contamination for 40 or 50 years? Then, replant enough of the destroyed vegetation for it to begin to re-establish the environment back to a somewhat normal density to support wildlife and livestock (IE: human food), then re-breed enough wildlife and domestic animals to sustain a growing human population?

Maybe I see this possible scenario coming to pass differently, but wouldn't most, if not all of the exposed wildlife and livestock be dead from the fallout, if not from loss of vegetation to eat? Would not at least some of the ocean-dwelling life be destroyed? Freshwater lakes, streams and rivers would likely not sustain life due to fallout. Sure, it may not be a total global destruction, but certain vegetation and animal species from, say, South Africa or South America couldn't just be transplanted here in the US and expected to do well...it will be colder...growing days will be shorter due to reduction in sunlight. Not to mention, the grid is down...transporting of anything over a few thousand miles, let alone inter-continental, would not be a likely option.

It could take a massive convoy of support vehicles just to keep the transport vehicles up and running. Roads would likely be impassible with typical transport vehicles, as roads, bridges and so much of the entire infrastructure would be destroyed by weather alone over this many years. Everything necessary to make the journey, round-trip, would have to be carried by specialized heavy 4x4 support vehicles. The transports would need to be a specialized vehicles as well. How many impasses would be encountered, even with these vehicles, requiring hundreds of miles in detours every several days or weeks. Road maps would need to be redrawn. Best case, send out a recon team (in specialized vehicles) to find the best route before sending transports out to find their own way. All the while using massive amounts of fuel for said vehicles, which may or may not even exist anymore.

Hmm, and all that planning and expenditure of resources on a whim that you can reach your destination and return with whatever it is you set out to transport, with only the possibility of ham radio transmissions for long-distance comms...that would take a pretty decent network of ham operators to make contact with the right people before you came to an agreement on a barter/trade, or whatever was needed to take possession of the goods. Sounds like a nightmare...comms are probably doable, but the rest...I don't see having the resources to make it happen unless there was a major involvement to stockpile and preserve a dozen or so truckloads of fuel...that's just the tip of the ice-burg, IMHO. Maybe I'm overthinking this, maybe not.

In the end, no they can't kill off every human...not in the short-term, but they'd make it damned difficult for the majority of us to survive very long. Blockage of sunlight due to dust/smoke, if only 50%, will reduce vegetative growth a lot. Even if we were just cut-off from the southern hemisphere, say the grid and all (most) transport is toast near the equator to the north pole...what does that leave the majority of survivors? Will those residing in the southern hemisphere come to our aid, and will their aid be sufficient, knowing that the US is a key supplier in the global food chain and now we want those countries to reverse the flow of food and vital supplies, just like flicking a switch? I don't think they _can_ do it...I don't think they _would_ do it because of the immediate crisis they would encounter. Their food supplies from the US just got cut-off...they are now plunged into a crisis. How could they be expected to return the food they received when they will now be faced with food shortages? I don't see it happening and...nope, just checked...I don't have my rose-colored glasses on, either. I see global economic and food/supply issues with any and every country who trades with the US and Russia...or whatever 2+ countries would decide to push the nuke button...it's a snowball effect, no matter how you look at it. It would be a super-massive poop-sandwich, and we're all gonna take a bite, if it comes right down to it. The logistics involved in the prevention of the loss of the majority of the population in the northern hemisphere is unimaginable, even to me...and I have a pretty good mind for logistics and planning.

Your best bet (jokingly) is in-air refueling of your Lear jet while you flee the north and head to a well-stocked BOL in the southern hemisphere...can't land for fuel...won't be any, unless you're really lucky to get far enough away from the damage in time. Chances of having to dodge an incoming nuke mid-flight would be relatively low, so you'd have that one good thing going for you, right? Figure on a life-time supply of goods in the BOL though, 'cuz you probably won't be able to buy what you need once you get there. But, you could survive, at least...hunter/gatherer style.

***

As for a couple thousand nukes being detonated in the US and Russia for testing? That didn't all happen over a period of 5 minutes...it was spread out over dozens of years...there's a difference in the amount of residual effects it would have on the environment. 5 minutes doesn't leave any time for absorption/dispersion...the effects will be somewhat more immediate and noticeable away from ground-zero. Below-ground vs surface vs above ground (at altitude) also have major differences in the impacts they leave behind. The earth is big place, but nukes can cover a rather large area, over time...the residual destruction of the environment and it's inhabitants (human, animal and plant) through the lingering contamination would be my biggest concern after the impacts/explosions had ceased. If genetic mutations were a possibility, that alone could really screw things up for future generations of everything on the planet in the effected zones.


----------



## CrackbottomLouis (May 20, 2012)

If enough nukes went off at once to create a several years long nuclear winter it would be darn close to an extinction event. Same thing with a super volcano.


----------



## RevWC (Mar 28, 2011)

If a rogue state launches an ICBM and hits America would probably trigger, I hope, MAD against that country! No telling if other country's would join in or not. I pray this doesn't happen but the Mid East countries are nuts! 

Plus I would rather play on the net!


----------



## Tweto (Nov 26, 2011)

Just for the preppers that believe in total nuke annihilation, this movie is for you.


----------



## terri9630 (Jun 2, 2016)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/14325323

Pictures from 2011 of Chernobyl. The forest and wild life has recovered. There is a problem with decomposition near the blast site though. Plants aren't breaking down as fast as they should.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-radiation-disaster-zone-reclaimed-nature.htm.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...s/110426-chernobyl-25th-anniversary-wildlife/


----------



## readytogo (Apr 6, 2013)

It seems to me that some members are only thinking of doom days scenarios with no winners in sight like the movie War Games and maybe the idea of a little shelter in the woods or even a basement to survived it, which is nothing but fictional I like to think or prepared for the survival type of scenario like heavy rain or high winds hell even 2 feet of snow here in Miami ,because in all actuality generations of Japanese people are still dying from the two little bombs drop on them in WW2.


----------



## forluvofsmoke (Jan 27, 2012)

readytogo said:


> It seems to me that some members are only thinking of *doom days scenarios with no winners in sight* like the movie War Games *and maybe the idea of a little shelter in the woods* or even a basement to survived it, which is nothing but fictional I like to think or prepared for the survival type of scenario like heavy rain or high winds hell even 2 feet of snow here in Miami ,because in all actuality generations of Japanese people are still dying from the two little bombs drop on them in WW2.


That's not even close to my thoughts...except for the "no winners". If your country gets pummeled and you're away from any close strikes 2-3 days later, above ground instead of 20ft underground, you're going down a slow death-path. Nuclear winter is only a small piece of the picture.

Can I prepare for this? Hell no!!! Would I if I could? Well, at this point I don't see it as a high probability because the countries possessing nukes know the outcome (MAD) if they push the button. It's like a board-game with no rules...who wants to move first? Everybody's nervous because they don't exactly what their opponent is thinking.

But, we even have those such as North Korea trying to get ready to be a threat so they don't get overlooked in the overall big scheme of things. They've been accused of having WMDs for years. North Korea gave a nose-up and threatened to quit the Nonproliferation Treaty. Trump says he's going to stop them from development of nukes...what if they already have them, ready to go, in larger numbers than our intel community thought possible? Any country capable of developing nukes will do just that if they feel threatened over a long enough time-frame. Everyone wants their slice of the pie, too. Is it our place, or the UN for that matter, to say they can't? We have 'em, Russia has 'em, why can't everyone have 'em? It's like an insurance policy...hope you never need to use it, but you'll be glad you have it if you do need it. Where would we be if every country in the Middle East, Asia and Europe had WMDs? Now that would be something to take note of and pay close attention to.


----------



## robinray649 (Sep 21, 2010)

*just my 2 cents*

I think I would look more at the emp effects. Take out the power grid and then step back and let nature take its course. Very little residual radio activity, very little damage to infrastructure and max damage to target. Time the detonation say for around 9:00 am so that the population is out and most active. Can you imagine how many people would be in elevators at that time. How many cars and trucks would be out moving around. Max disruption at the least I think.

Now that being said, ya'll have a good day.


----------



## hiwall (Jun 15, 2012)

Russia has a very active civil defense program in place and has been expanding it for years. They have spent time and money informing and training their population in what to do and how to survive a nuke war.


----------



## Sybil6 (Jan 28, 2013)

Let's bring this back now that North Korea has threatened us with nukes. Let's say they do hit us with a nuke. Even if it is all in vain, what should I prep for? What will I need?


----------



## hiwall (Jun 15, 2012)

Sybil6 said:


> Let's bring this back now that North Korea has threatened us with nukes. Let's say they do hit us with a nuke. Even if it is all in vain, what should I prep for? What will I need?


Go to this web site and read. Its full of good info.

http://www.ki4u.com/


----------



## LastOutlaw (Jun 1, 2013)

Sit in a chair, place your head between your knees and kiss your butt goodbye.


----------



## Tweto (Nov 26, 2011)

The last I heard was that NOKO could only reach Hawaii or maybe Seattle. So if they do nuke us most of the country wouldn't know about it until they saw it on the news.

The real threat from NOKO would be to South Korea and Japan.

What interests me is thinking about what Trump has planned for NOKO.


----------



## TheLazyL (Jun 5, 2012)

Tweto said:


> The last I heard was that NOKO could only reach Hawaii or maybe Seattle...


And did you hear this from the same source that told us the Affordable Care Act would reduce medical costs and we could keep our existing Doctor?

To put it more bluntly; the Federal government has lied so many times why should we believe them on NOKO nuclear capabilities?


----------



## Pessimistic2 (Jan 26, 2017)

*Nuclear war....*

The "clean bombs" aren't......

https://books.google.com/books?id=j...=onepage&q=the fallacy of clean bombs&f=false

WWIII goes nuclear, and it's pretty much over....survival long term is VERY problematic, no matter where you are. The following is a very "simplistic" analysis, but true, nevertheless. Distinguish between "nuclear incidents (very limited)," and all-out "nuclear WAR." BIG, BIG difference.

http://www.newsweek.com/lets-be-clear-there-no-surviving-nuclear-war-364675:bump:


----------



## drfacefixer (Mar 8, 2013)

Funny how the people that the closest to being subject matter experts on the topic are the quietest.


----------



## Pessimistic2 (Jan 26, 2017)

Caribou said:


> I see N. Korea as our largest nuclear threat with Iran not too far behind. They don't need much of a targeting system if they can get a missile over the middle of the country and at 250 miles, plus or minus, in altitude it would cause massive disruption. Sybil, what I think you need is a lot of food and a way to get more, clean water source, security, and energy. You will also need all those little things that we take for granted like TP, nuts and bolts, pencils and pens, hand tools, the list is endless. In a nutshell you need to be self sufficient. You will have problems with manufacture but more so with distribution. Your widget factory has a million units in the warehouse and enough raw material to make a similar amount. Do you have the energy to produce anything? How do you transport your product, or ship in draw materials? How does the customer communicate their need? Can the farmer get his equipment running? Can he get enough fuel to plant and harvest?


Just my opinion....maybe good, maybe not...
A. Any nuke going off in America's airspace is gonna result in massive EMP effects....kiss all the electronic marvels goodbye.
B. One nuke goes off ANYWHERE in America, the entire "distribution system" will shut down so fast it'll make yer head swim...food, fuel, farm-to-market, medical supplies, you name it, no more "deliveries," period.
C. PANIC would be rampant, whether justified or not. Panic does not lead to good (or rational) decisions. Let ONE nuke go off in America, and yer in the SHTF scenario RIGHT NOW, no waiting....it'll all go to hell in a handbasket within HOURS.


----------



## Pessimistic2 (Jan 26, 2017)

drfacefixer said:


> Funny how the people that the closest to being subject matter experts on the topic are the quietest.


I got a sneaking suspicion that's due to the fact that people really wouldn't like the answers! Could be wrong.....


----------



## hiwall (Jun 15, 2012)

Posted again from above because it is THE GO TO book for surviving a nuke war. And you can read it free! There is a HUGE amount of mis-information out there. This book is the real deal. It tells you how you can survive the war and more importantly it goes on to with telling you how to survive well after the war. If you are concerned about a nuke war or not it is still just a good general survival book.

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


----------



## Pessimistic2 (Jan 26, 2017)

CARIBOU...You said, "I see N. Korea as our largest nuclear threat with Iran not too far behind. They don't need much of a targeting system if they can get a missile over the middle of the country and at 250 miles, plus or minus, in altitude it would cause massive disruption."

Yes, most definitely....you're talking about "leaders" who are actually CRAZY/STUPID enough to USE a nuke pre-emptively, and "damn the consequences!" Especially Kim Jong Un....that guy is a REAL basket case...NOTHING he does is rational!


----------



## hiwall (Jun 15, 2012)

Pessimistic2 said:


> Just my opinion....maybe good, maybe not...
> A. Any nuke going off in America's airspace is gonna result in massive EMP effects....kiss all the electronic marvels goodbye.
> B. One nuke goes off ANYWHERE in America, the entire "distribution system" will shut down so fast it'll make yer head swim...food, fuel, farm-to-market, medical supplies, you name it, no more "deliveries," period.
> C. PANIC would be rampant, whether justified or not. Panic does not lead to good (or rational) decisions. Let ONE nuke go off in America, and yer in the SHTF scenario RIGHT NOW, no waiting....it'll all go to hell in a handbasket within HOURS.


A. Is only guess work, whether it is said by an average Joe or by a PHD.
B. While possible, I don't see a reason it would happen.
C. I agree, Panic is going to happen ASAP. But hard to say if it will continue or subside fairly quickly.


----------



## Pessimistic2 (Jan 26, 2017)

hiwall said:


> Posted again from above because it is THE GO TO book for surviving a nuke war. And you can read it free! There is a HUGE amount of mis-information out there. This book is the real deal. It tells you how you can survive the war and more importantly it goes on to with telling you how to survive well after the war. If you are concerned about a nuke war or not it is still just a good general survival book. http://www.ki4u.com/nwss.pdf


Good material....the only thing I "don't" like is they take a lot of things for granted, and it just might not go that way.....but if you download/save all the material, yes, should be extremely helpful.


----------



## Pessimistic2 (Jan 26, 2017)

hiwall said:


> A. Is only guess work, whether it is said by an average Joe or by a PHD.
> B. While possible, I don't see a reason it would happen.
> C. I agree, Panic is going to happen ASAP. But hard to say if it will continue or subside fairly quickly.


Hope you're right, and I'm just "Pessimistic!" Nukes are REALLY an unknown quantity....their development since Hiroshima/Nagasaki is maybe equivalent to writing on clay tablets, to using a modern word processor. Today's nukes are HUNDREDS of times more lethal than the ones used in WWII. Hell, we have 4-5KT tactical, battlefield nukes that can be launched from Apaches to take out Rail centers, Command Complexes, Armored staging areas, etc., and these are BATTLEFIELD weapons, not STRATEGIC/THEATER weapons! Jesus! I was briefed/trained on the OLD "XM-1 N-TAC" helo launched missiles in the late 1960's.....God knows what we have NOW. :dunno:


----------



## Meerkat (May 31, 2011)

LastOutlaw said:


> Sit in a chair, place your head between your knees and kiss your butt goodbye.


 Sadly that's about all any of us could do. I don't want to survive a nuke war. I hope if it happens it land right on top of me. Who in my life will be left? What kind of world would it be?


----------



## hiwall (Jun 15, 2012)

The worst thing about surviving a nuke war is the likelihood of having to deal with Godzilla. What if I was the only guy left and then Godzilla shows up?


----------



## VoorTrekker (Oct 7, 2012)

Tweto said:


> Just for the preppers that believe in total nuke annihilation, this movie is for you.


Linky no worky...


----------



## VoorTrekker (Oct 7, 2012)

Linky also is a mass compilation of YouTube videos.


----------



## VoorTrekker (Oct 7, 2012)

HardCider said:


> Bottom line is there will be no winners or losers, just survivors. Ironically it also throws everyone back into the stone age where no one has an advantage anymore


So WWIV will be fought with spears and slings?

What about that I have to repopulate the world after being "captured" by hot mutant nympho survivors?


----------



## AmishHeart (Jun 10, 2016)

Hiwall would have his girlfriend, Godzilla.


----------



## Starcreek (Feb 4, 2015)

Yesterday my oldest son (31) stopped by on his way to work, and we were talking about N. Korea. He said he thinks the recent lengthy talks between Trump and Xi included some agreement about cooperating in taking over N. Korea. About that time, the Chinese moved something like 150,000 troops to the border with N. Korea, divided into 2 groups, and the U.S. steamed a carrier group to the South China Sea.

Not an hour later, I ran across a (just-posted) clip from Trump's latest post, talking about him and Xi coming to an understanding about N. Korea. I kid you not. Made me realize DS's idea may not be too far-fetched.


----------



## Pessimistic2 (Jan 26, 2017)

Caribou.....You said, "B. I'm not sure about which distribution system you are referring to. Assuming that you are talking about the electrical grid we have four or five grids in the country. Only those hit by the EMP should be affected."

Actually I meant ALL the "distribution systems." Food, fuel, electrical, farm-yo-market, medical supplies, water systems, rail, truck, aircraft......Let one nuke go off IN America, and I'll bet money the entire country shuts down IMMEDIATELY, and the "massive panic (justified or not)," will begin RIGHT NOW....


----------



## Pessimistic2 (Jan 26, 2017)

VoorTrekker said:


> So WWIV will be fought with spears and slings?
> 
> What about that I have to repopulate the world after being "captured" by hot mutant nympho survivors?


Voortrekker, you are.....never mind! LMAO artydance:


----------



## Pessimistic2 (Jan 26, 2017)

Starcreek said:


> Yesterday my oldest son (31) stopped by on his way to work, and we were talking about N. Korea. He said he thinks the recent lengthy talks between Trump and Xi included some agreement about cooperating in taking over N. Korea. About that time, the Chinese moved something like 150,000 troops to the border with N. Korea, divided into 2 groups, and the U.S. steamed a carrier group to the South China Sea. Not an hour later, I ran across a (just-posted) clip from Trump's latest post, talking about him and Xi coming to an understanding about N. Korea. I kid you not. Made me realize DS's idea may not be too far-fetched.


Sooner or later, China is going to have to so something with their "wayward son," and it wouldn't surprise me at all if that wasn't included in the talks. Kim Jong Un is crazier than a sand lizard on LSD, and China knows it. Interesting to see what comes down the line vis a vis China/N. Korea.


----------



## terri9630 (Jun 2, 2016)

hiwall said:


> The worst thing about surviving a nuke war is the likelihood of having to deal with Godzilla. What if I was the only guy left and then Godzilla shows up?


You'd either be Godzilla's boyfriend or morning snack....


----------



## Iafrate (Oct 9, 2013)

Tweto said:


> For those that think that any nuke war is a death sentence realize this.
> 
> So far there have been 2,183 nuclear explosions on earth. 481 explosion in above ground tests and 109 explosions in sea tests.
> 
> ...


What is being overlooked in this post, is all the above ground nuclear detonations took place over a period of several years. In a nuclear war multiple detonations, potentially thousands, will take place in a span of hours to a few days. Also all of those above ground tests took place in remote isolated areas, not major population centers and not simultaneously. So yes, even a limited nuclear change would have catastrophic effects on a global scale.


----------



## Pessimistic2 (Jan 26, 2017)

Iafrate said:


> What is being overlooked in this post, is all the above ground nuclear detonations took place over a period of several years. In a nuclear war multiple detonations, potentially thousands, will take place in a span of hours to a few days. Also all of those above ground tests took place in remote isolated areas, not major population centers and not simultaneously. So yes, even a limited nuclear change would have catastrophic effects on a global scale.


Excellent point. Let just ONE nuke go off in/near any major metro area (New York, L.A., for coastal "easies").....and America would shut down quicker than a bear trap, and panic would be immediate.


----------



## Pessimistic2 (Jan 26, 2017)

Caribou said:


> If it is a high altitude detonation then I concur. If it is a ground blast, say a shipping container with a bomb sent to Seattle, I don't expect much very far outside the blast area. If you want to attack the people a high altitude nuclear detonation works. If you want to hurt the military and prevent retaliation you need a near ground blast. Most military weapons are going to be hardened against EMP.


With what N. Korea could "deliver," by way of container ship, would likely not do much physical/radiation damage outside of the "harbor area," for that matter, I'll go along with that....."Public reaction" is another story entirely.....may be wrong, but I think you'd see instant nationwide panic and massive shut down. (Not to mention the effect on our economy...remember the financial meltdown on 9/11?)

EMP effects: The MILITARY BASES/Comm Systems would probably come through OK, they are (hopefully) all hardened by now.....everything ELSE would be kaput.


----------



## jeager106 (Mar 24, 2017)

hiwall said:


> The worst thing about surviving a nuke war is the likelihood of having to deal with Godzilla. What if I was the only guy left and then Godzilla shows up?


Godzilla showing up?
Switch brands of booze.:rofl:
But really is Godzilla showed up where I live I'd kill it and eat it!artydance:

Long term survival eating on that overgrown lizard.


----------



## Meerkat (May 31, 2011)

Pessimistic2 said:


> Caribou.....You said, "B. I'm not sure about which distribution system you are referring to. Assuming that you are talking about the electrical grid we have four or five grids in the country. Only those hit by the EMP should be affected."
> 
> Actually I meant ALL the "distribution systems." Food, fuel, electrical, farm-yo-market, medical supplies, water systems, rail, truck, aircraft......Let one nuke go off IN America, and I'll bet money the entire country shuts down IMMEDIATELY, and the "massive panic (justified or not)," will begin RIGHT NOW....


 I agree, the nuke fallout alone will make most resources toxic for awhile if not forever.


----------



## Pessimistic2 (Jan 26, 2017)

Caribou said:


> Hiroshima and Nagasaki are both thriving today.


"Today," is 72 years later...and the bombs are a LOT more lethal! Keep in mind these were VERY SMALL (The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were relatively low yield weapons with yields of 15kt and 21kt of TNT respectively.) The average nuclear warhead today has a yield of about 200kt and the most powerful nuclear device ever detonated had a yield of 50mt with a maximum of 100mt.Apr 21, 2015." (Google)
To quote from a "Yahoo Answers page,"
"Radiation deaths subsided after seven or eight weeks but latent effects continued to appear for a long time. Fetuses irradiated in the wombs of their mothers were subject to high rates of miscarriage, stillbirth, and birth defects--many kids were retarded or had unusually small heads (microcephaly), stunted growth, or other afflictions. Cases of leukemia surged in 1947 and peaked in the early 1950s. Additional problems included other cancers and blood disorders, cataracts, heavy scarring (keloid), and male sterility."

Might find this interesting, keeping in mind these were "small" bombs!
http://www.atomcentral.com/hiroshima-nagasaki.aspx

If you want a modern day scenario, with TODAY'S nukes, check this out, it's awesome! http://taskandpurpose.com/interactive-map-shows-nuclear-bomb-hometown/

:wave:


----------



## drfacefixer (Mar 8, 2013)

Pessimistic2 said:


> "Today," is 72 years later...and the bombs are a LOT more lethal! Keep in mind these were VERY SMALL (The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were relatively low yield weapons with yields of 15kt and 21kt of TNT respectively.) The average nuclear warhead today has a yield of about 200kt and the most powerful nuclear device ever detonated had a yield of 50mt with a maximum of 100mt.Apr 21, 2015." (Google)
> 
> To quote from a "Yahoo Answers page,"
> 
> ...


The bombs of the super powers are much more lethal. DPRKs tests in 2006 and 2009 were estimated to be 2-7kt. Their main show of force has actually been to make the world believe they have advanced technology to make smaller bombs using less than 2kg of plutonium. Which isn't a bad play since their Taepodong-2 ICBM may also lack military effectiveness and have failed twice now. They don't have a stable missile systems capable of the 5500km range needed to reach the west coast. Their best deterrent is threatening the ROK armies and the US assets on the peninsula.

High alt EMP blasts could only be achieved by countries with advanced ICBM capabilities since they have to be able to reach (and fly) in the upper stratosphere. There have been plenty of non nuclear devices made since the 1950s that use non nuclear generated emp blasts, but so much of our military has been hardened against it through various measures that it's not generally talked about. Modern electronic ware fare is more about disabling links and communication or putting out battlefield misinformation, rather than trying to fry each other's electronics. If you don't think the military lacks SOPs on these situations you probably didn't serve recently or weren't serving in an area that needed to deal with this potential threat.

Another great deterrent of EMP is that hurting our civilian population does nothing to disrupt our military capability. Shut down the grid....so what our icbms are self sustained and hardened. Hit those, there are others outside the US. Hit those, guess where the subs are? An EMP strike still does nothing to disable a counter strike. It's only purpose would be for terror and nothing short of a super power has that technology. Not to mention, signature isotopes are a dead give away of who did what....which is in itself a deterrent.


----------



## Pessimistic2 (Jan 26, 2017)

drfacefixer said:


> The bombs of the super powers are much more lethal. DPRKs tests in 2006 and 2009 were estimated to be 2-7kt. Their main show of force has actually been to make the world believe they have advanced technology to make smaller bombs using less than 2kg of plutonium. Which isn't a bad play since their Taepodong-2 ICBM may also lack military effectiveness and have failed twice now. They don't have a stable missile systems capable of the 5500km range needed to reach the west coast. Their best deterrent is threatening the ROK armies and the US assets on the peninsula. High alt EMP blasts could only be achieved by countries with advanced ICBM capabilities since they have to be able to reach (and fly) in the upper stratosphere. There have been plenty of non nuclear devices made since the 1950s that use non nuclear generated emp blasts, but so much of our military has been hardened against it through various measures that it's not generally talked about. Modern electronic ware fare is more about disabling links and communication or putting out battlefield misinformation, rather than trying to fry each other's electronics. If you don't think the military lacks SOPs on these situations you probably didn't serve recently or weren't serving in an area that needed to deal with this potential threat.
> Another great deterrent of EMP is that hurting our civilian population does nothing to disrupt our military capability. Shut down the grid....so what our icbms are self sustained and hardened. Hit those, there are others outside the US. Hit those, guess where the subs are? An EMP strike still does nothing to disable a counter strike. It's only purpose would be for terror and nothing short of a super power has that technology. Not to mention, signature isotopes are a dead give away of who did what....which is in itself a deterrent.


Oh Lord, let me count the years.......Dr., when I did my part for Uncle the damn Huey Cobra was a brand new item! I was an instructor at the USAOC & S at Aberdeen PG, and I was working with super duper brand new "wire guided missiles" (now pretty much obsolete, though they're still being used), Quad M-60 mounts, and 2.75" rockets, etc.

http://www.military-today.com/helicopters/ah1_hueycobra.htm

Mostly what we had was the mashed up UH-1 modified to take box launchers (2.75" rockets), and pylons for the anti-tank missiles, and the quad M-60 setup, etc.
http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=42

We got the manuals (but no missiles) for the experimental XM-1 N-TAC, which was to have a 4kt nuclear warhead, and was designed as a wire-guided, optically controlled weapon supposedly to take out rail yards, armor staging areas, ordnance depots, command complexes, airfields, and the like.....never made it into production. (Geee, I wonder why....couldn't have been that max range of 5km, could it!)

Whew, boy, it's been a while! I don't remember anyone even talking about EMP back then! :dunno:


----------



## Tacitus (Dec 30, 2012)

Pessimistic2 said:


> ...missiles in the late 1960's.....God knows what we have NOW. :dunno:


Nothing new, I wouldn't think. I'm no expert, but I do know that we agreed by treaty to stop testing nukes 25 years ago...before the Internet and cell phones. I mentioned this over in the North Korea thread, but can you really develop, deploy and rely upon a weapon system that you have NEVER tested? I don't think so. Sure, the delivery systems have been tested and are modern. But the bombs haven't been tested for 25 years, and the designs are several decades old.


----------



## Tacitus (Dec 30, 2012)

Pessimistic2 said:


> Whew, boy, it's been a while! I don't even remember anyone even talking about EMP back then! :dunno:


It was less of a problem back then. But, the smaller our transistors get, and the more devices that use mircroprocessors, the more important EMP effects become. Back in the 90's, the Army still used slide rules as backups to computers for some purposes, in part because of fear of EMP. Not sure if they still do that. Hopefully, if there is an nuke EMP, our cars microprocessors will survive. If not?...it won't be pretty.

These are the things that make me worry about food and water. Small probability? Perhaps. Great harm, though. And *Risk = Probability x Effect*. If Probability is low, but Effect is very high, then Risk is non-negligible.


----------



## fteter (May 23, 2014)

There are some events one can prepare for and some one cannot. Meteor strikes and all-out nuclear war are examples of things that fall into the latter category. No real point in worrying about the things you can neither control nor address.

EMP, earthquake, civil unrest, hurricane, civil unrest, bad winter storms, short term job loss...those things fall more into the former category. Still outside of my control, but I can at least make preparations that give me and mine a fighting chance of survival. That's where I'm burning my energy.


----------



## Foreverautumn (Oct 25, 2010)

hiwall said:


> Your statement and the the OP's article only offer OPINIONS. Do a search on the web and you can easily find many articles offering Very different end scenarios. Scientists very rarely agree on anything and certainly not on this topic. If you are at ground zero of a nuke strike then yes you will die. Otherwise there is a good chance you will survive.
> 
> Read this FREE book and get the facts. This guy is the real deal.
> http://www.ki4u.com/nwss.pdf


Kresson H. Kearny's book is one of the prime reasons I eventually became a prepper. I didn't want to just give in to the defeatist propaganda I was regularly fed in high school.


----------



## Foreverautumn (Oct 25, 2010)

BillS said:


> The conventional wisdom has always been that a full scale nuclear war with Russia would kill off all human life on earth. I don't of anyone with any credentials who believes otherwise.


I respectfully disagree. No offense, Bill, but I've come to have a certain amount of contempt for conventional wisdom. Conventional wisdom, back in the late 19th century, said that if God had meant man to fly, he would have given us wings.


----------



## Pessimistic2 (Jan 26, 2017)

Foreverautumn said:


> I respectfully disagree. No offense, Bill, but I've come to have a certain amount of contempt for conventional wisdom. Conventional wisdom, back in the late 19th century, said that if God had meant man to fly, he would have given us wings.


Conventional wisdom said Hillarious was a "sure winner," too. Somebody forgot to tell Trump and the Electoral College apparently. Conventional wisdom said Obamacare was the "cure-all" for the health system.....that didn't work out so well, either.

An all-out nuclear war would leave survivors, yes......but how many, and for how long? Nuclear winter, crop failures, long-term radiation poisoning of the human population, "modern man" being thrown back (literally) to the, what, 16th-17th Century??

Short-term, yes, there would be survivors. Long-term, I wouldn't bet the farm on it. All-out nuclear war would involve TENS OF THOUSANDS of nukes going off, nearly all falling in the most highly developed nations on earth.

The "undeveloped nations" can't even feed themselves NOW without the help of the "developed" nations....they may survive the radiation wars, but they'll starve, be decimated by disease, or kill each other off in their tribal/religious wars among themselves.

JMO....:hmmm:


----------



## tmttactical (Nov 23, 2015)

I think there will be survivors. Those that do survive will form groups and then into small bands and then small armies and then the Warlords fight over the bones.

Key to survival, be too far away from everything and everybody or be the Warlord.


----------



## Foreverautumn (Oct 25, 2010)

My take on this is that we need *something* in the way of a civil defense program. This would be a *legitimate* function of government. We've already got a military, why shouldn't we also have a civil defense program? Sure, it's not going to be perfect, but nothing ever *is*. Why shouldn't we at least try?

That being said, we each have an individual responsibility to provide for ourselves as far as we can. That's why we're preppers - so that we'll at least have a better chance than most.


----------



## tmttactical (Nov 23, 2015)

Foreverautumn said:


> My take on this is that we need *something* in the way of a civil defense program. This would be a *legitimate* function of government. We've already got a military, why shouldn't we also have a civil defense program? Sure, it's not going to be perfect, but nothing ever *is*. Why shouldn't we at least try?
> 
> That being said, we each have an individual responsibility to provide for ourselves as far as we can. That's why we're preppers - so that we'll at least have a better chance than most.


We do have a civil defense, it's called prepping. Civilization has negated Darwin and nature by protecting those who will not protect themselves, most of the time from themselves.

If it hits the fan, Darwin kicks in and those that prepped survive and mother nature will deal with those that waited for the government to save them.


----------



## CrackbottomLouis (May 20, 2012)

Foreverautumn said:


> My take on this is that we need *something* in the way of a civil defense program. This would be a *legitimate* function of government. We've already got a military, why shouldn't we also have a civil defense program? Sure, it's not going to be perfect, but nothing ever *is*. Why shouldn't we at least try?
> 
> That being said, we each have an individual responsibility to provide for ourselves as far as we can. That's why we're preppers - so that we'll at least have a better chance than most.


Isnt that what the national guard was supposed to be before the one army concept swallowed it into the maw of the federal government?


----------



## hiwall (Jun 15, 2012)

> TENS OF THOUSANDS of nukes going off


Um, there aren't that many.


----------



## Pessimistic2 (Jan 26, 2017)

hiwall said:


> Um, there aren't that many.


How about 16,300? Forgot the "inventory" has been reduced.. "Tens of thousands" might have been a stretch!:wave:

http://www.businessinsider.com/nine-nations-have-nukes--heres-how-many-each-country-has-2014-6

This is from the 2014 Report cited in the link..
"According to a new report from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), nine nations - the United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea - possess approximately 16,300 nuclear weapons. in total."


----------



## Dove150 (Jun 5, 2011)

Well, like the Bible says, "After you've done all you can do, stand."


----------



## AmishHeart (Jun 10, 2016)

Where does it say that?


----------



## Pessimistic2 (Jan 26, 2017)

AmishHeart said:


> Where does it say that?


I think Dove150 is referring to Ephesians 6:13: (NASB version).."Therefore, take up the full armor of God, so that you will be able to resist in the evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm."

There are many different wordings for this verse, depending on which Bible you are using. :wave:


----------



## Starcreek (Feb 4, 2015)

Foreverautumn said:


> My take on this is that we need *something* in the way of a civil defense program. This would be a *legitimate* function of government. We've already got a military, why shouldn't we also have a civil defense program? Sure, it's not going to be perfect, but nothing ever *is*. Why shouldn't we at least try?
> 
> That being said, we each have an individual responsibility to provide for ourselves as far as we can. That's why we're preppers - so that we'll at least have a better chance than most.


From what I understand, Switzerland maintains enough well-stocked fallout shelters to accommodate every Swiss citizen. They also require everyone to serve a year in the military and to keep and practice with their firearm after they get out of the military.

I have had some friends that were Swiss, and they are the most easy-going, courteous people you would ever want to meet. Very friendly, sweet people. And the country is neutral in every war. Yet they have an excellent civil defense program.

Maybe we could learn something from the Swiss.


----------



## tmttactical (Nov 23, 2015)

Starcreek said:


> From what I understand, Switzerland maintains enough well-stocked fallout shelters to accommodate every Swiss citizen. They also require everyone to serve a year in the military and to keep and practice with their firearm after they get out of the military.
> 
> I have had some friends that were Swiss, and they are the most easy-going, courteous people you would ever want to meet. Very friendly, sweet people. And the country is neutral in every war. Yet they have an excellent civil defense program.
> 
> Maybe we could learn something from the Swiss.


Starcreek, I really do wish we could be like the Swiss, but it is never going to happen. We have enough trouble keeping our guns, much less forcing everybody to keep and bear arms. The Swiss can afford the civil defense because they are not gotten 20 trillion in debt. We fight the wars, they stay neutral and hide the money. Makes their government a bit smarter than ours.


----------

