Suppose a US City Gets Nuked. . .

Scott - Depending on which way the wind blows it might not make any difference how you prepare. If me I'd start driving up to the N. Pole to live with Santa and the Elves.

"Plutonium" is so incredibly toxic that only one part per million will kill you. Today's bombs are much more powerful and even though supposedly "cleaner" (you go figure how a nuclear explosion could ever be "clean") there will be gobs of little nasties in the atmosphere waiting to zap you. This would be no nuclear meltdown power plant scenario. If you hike up into the mountains you may actually be putting yourself at greater risk, again depending on the winds. If you go into a cave you might have to live your life there because the half-life of plutonium is pretty long, about 25,000 years or so. I'm really not sure if there is any defense if folks start tossing this stuff about.

Check this out. A nuclear explosion is a terrible thing. The earth has never experience one using a plutonium core. If it had been used in Japan in WWII there would be vast parts of that island that would be a desert.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_radiation_experiments

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_contamination

Fun stuff, huh?

Thoughts?
 
As long as I live long enough to feed the a. hole that started it, one piece at a time to a pack of hungry mutts.
 
Look at the traffic in TX getting out of Rita's way.
They knew it was coming, and it was 'only' a weather event.
Now consider the traffic with a suprise nuke and the absolute panic that it would cause.
(As we said back in the 60's Bend over, put your head between your knees and kiss your butt goodbye.)
One can't get out of NYC on a sunny summer Friday afternoon.
Forget catastrophies.
You'll die, sitting it out at home or on the highway in stuck in traffic.

BTW, I think a suitcase 'dirty' bomb is much more likely.
And that is scary enough.
 
DGG wrote: "Check this out. A nuclear explosion is a terrible thing. The earth has never experience one using a plutonium core. If it had been used in Japan in WWII there would be vast parts of that island that would be a desert."

IIRC Actually the Nagasaki bomb was a plutonium bomb.
Gene :D
 
Load your gun, nail shut your back door, and wait for it to pass. Surviving the lack of food and elements wont be the problem. Surviving the moron who thinks their only way of surviving is to take what you have will be the tough part. Luckily those type people usually move slowly and present a large target due to their fat, lazy bellies.
 
I don't live or work near enough to any big city to really worry.

The city I work in has extensive chemical facilities and they have exensive evacuation plans and policies. My wife worked on them.

I live in the country, have my own well, dairy goats for milk, chickens and a garden. I usually have at least a months supply of feed and lots of food. I have my own gas well and gas refrigerators should the power go off and I own 85 acres and there's plenty of game and wild edibles.
 
TikTock said:
Load your gun, nail shut your back door, and wait for it to pass. Surviving the lack of food and elements wont be the problem. Surviving the moron who thinks their only way of surviving is to take what you have will be the tough part. Luckily those type people usually move slowly and present a large target due to their fat, lazy bellies.
Click to expand...


Think again. If its fallout and radiation your door wont do squat. Uncontaminated food and water along with a radiation resistent shelter is whats needed short term ie; months. Without those all the guns in the world wont help you.

Highly complicated.

Skam
 
Ranger88 - good input. I hadn't considered the chain saw.

Several of my friends survived the WTC. They talked about how quickly they were rescued, decontaminated, given physical exams and treatment, clothing, and busses to their homes. Absolutely amazing. No widespread panic. Note: most of the responding emergency services were local, not federal. Maybe that is why they did better than New Orleans.
 
crawfordew said:
IIRC Actually the Nagasaki bomb was a plutonium bomb.
Gene :D
Click to expand...

Lets see. . . dredging up history from the vague recollections in my head. . .

I think Hiroshima (the first one) was plutonium. It was the "Fat Man" bomb, used fucused implosion with a plutonium core. I think they used it first because they weren't certain it would work, even though the design was tested in the desert. Nagasaki got a U235 gun-type bomb. If they needed to follow up (which they did) they wanted shot #2 to work. It wasn't a big deal if the surprize first attack was a fizzle.

Anyway, those were ~12-15 kT I think.

Spies stole the plans for the main US attack warhead that is (or was) in the subs -- the W88 warhead/reentry vehicle. The "physics package" is the same is in nuclear cruise missiles, I think. It's a ~425 kT weapon with variable (!) output depending on tritium doping at the time of use. The spies were Chinese, if memory serves.

I believe devices developed for artillery, i.e., those suitable for "suitcase bombs" are on the order of 1-5 kT. They are quite sophisticated though, as they rely on carefully focused explosive effects to compress a very carefully made and necessarily high quality core.

I would guess that any physics grad student can make a gun-type bomb, given enough U235.

Israel and South Africa used to have nukes. Pakistan, India, North Korea, and China have them, plus the remnants of the fractured USSR. Iraq tried once, but Israel put that out of service before it got started. Up until now you have a situation where relatively powerful nations have them for their own military and political interests. Now you have Iran apparently in the process of making bomb materials. They hate the US. North Korea hates the US, but probably isn't stupid enough to go starting a war that they will lose.

The thing that gives me pause is Iran. El Presidente Nutjob has declared that he will spread the technology if attacked. (I assume you would not spread power generation technology out of revenge, so this must mean weapons.) But how could you not attack Iran? So, you have a seemingly inevitable conflict which apparently will result in the Iranians doing everything they can to get a nuke on US soil.

My gut is that the current higher-ups see this proposition as highly likely if not worse.

You have a crazy man, possibly a former terrorist, who seems to want nukes more than anything. That is not good.

Scott
 
Just a thunk here: if concerned about clogged or restricted roads. Get good topo maps and make sure you are familiar with railway lines and natural areas/trails. My retreat is about 100 miles south/sw- I can do 90% on railway beds- some unsued. A mountain bike, off road motorcycle or ATV is a good thing. Some folks near rivers could consider getting out by canoe.

Bill
 
beezaur said:
Israel and South Africa used to have nukes.
Click to expand...
What makes you believe that Israel doesn't still have nuclear weapons? I think that is a partial explanation of why Iran wants nuclear weapons, because Israel still has a very active nuclear weapon stockpile.

When Iran makes calls for a Nuclear Free Middle East, they're talking about Israel getting rid of their nukes....

GeoThorn
 
I suppose Israel could have some.

I was getting at the idea that the nuclear cat is out of the bag, as they say. Nuclear weapons are just about within reach of any halfway developed country that wants one.

Moreover, a bigger problem seems to be developing where would-be nuclear powers are beginning to look more like sellers than users.

Scott
 
beezaur said:
I was getting at the idea that the nuclear cat is out of the bag, as they say. Nuclear weapons are just about within reach of any halfway developed country that wants one.

Moreover, a bigger problem seems to be developing where would-be nuclear powers are beginning to look more like sellers than users.
Click to expand...
I completely agree.

Once we open one Pandora's Box (or another...), we have to deal with the "fallout" of that opening. When new types of weapons are first used in a war, we change the rules. That's always happened. Introducing nuclear weapons wouldn't be any different from the change from Spanish steel blades to firearms. Once firearms proved their superiority to swords and armor, swords and armor went out the window, and every nation needed firearms in order to compete.

As time passes, and technology advances, virtually all around the world, we can have folks making their own nukes, if their local physics department is well-equipped enough. The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bomb plans have been available, during some point in time, and, as those were the most rudimentary weapons, they compose a starting point for today's would be nuclear bombers.

What if now, what with the advent of lasers, scientists are trying to learn how to detonate a nuke with lasers...? Maybe to make smaller "briefcase nukes"...?

So-called "briefcase nukes" are a sinister weapon, because they are so transportable, and, apparently, when the Soviet Union was "put up on blocks," their supply of briefcase nukes were sold to the highest bidder(s). We just don't know who those highest bidders were, and, if the bidders had sufficient nuclear scientists and nuclear engineers to maintain the briefcase nukes, in order to keep them capable of operating.

Could "briefcase nukes," dating from the collapse of the Soviet Union, say between 1989 and 1991, still be operable today, if they have been properly supervised and maintained...? I don't personally know. Does anyone know any nuclear scientists/engineers...?

One positive note, well, kind of...if "the bomb" goes off in your city, you may not have to worry if you are prepared, and have gotten enough food, water, power, medication, etc., etc....

-------------------

Hm, an extra supply of iodized salt might help, too...but, likely not too much. Radioactive iodine, like that carried on the winds in nuclear fallout, seeks out human thyroid glands, and taking iodine pills or using iodized salt will help combat the effects.

I know that because "downwinders" from the above-ground U.S. nuclear tests, in the 40s and 50s, started getting increased thyroid cancers, and iodized salt became a mainstay in American pantries....

GeoThorn

P.S.
Divine Strake Still on Course For June

Edward Lawrence, Reporter
April 27, 2006 03:44 PM

The Department of Defense is on track for a giant explosion at the Nevada Test Site on June 2, and that test, Divine Strake, will use some 700 tons of explosives to blow up a mountain on the site.

The purpose is to find out how much explosives are needed to reach an underground bunker.

Doug Bruder, the director of counter weapons of mass destruction technologies, says 700 tons of explosives will fill the crater on top of the mountain, and the blast is expected to rip through the earth over a man made tunnel.

"Particularly a charge of this size would be more related to nuclear weapons," Bruder explained.

The reason for the test is so that the DOD can see how the vibration from the explosion will damage the underground tunnel.

"We should be able to diffuse a facility with a different depth and calculate the best charge size that would be best to destroy that facility," Bruder said.

The DOD will use the information on the battlefield and in future development of weapons.

Bruder also says countries like North Korea builds its weapons facilities underground.
Click to expand...
Would this test blast maybe rock the San Andreas fault...? Could it, too, be another Pandora's Box...?
 
I recommend "Nuclear War Survival Skills, by Cresson H. Kearney" for those who are interested in further reading on this topic. I found that the issues it discussed increased my confidence level that a level headed person with a modest amount of foresight could survive fairly well in a nuclear war scenario (assuming they're not at ground zero of course!), at least in the medium term.

as for discussions about contamination:

'Contamination' of food and water requires very specific circumstances, and can be counteracted if it even occurs. Water cannot 'become' radioactive, rather it will contain suspended fallout particles that can be filtered out with relative ease. A homemade, multistage filter can be constructed without much effort or materials. Underground sources such as covered wells would be largely free of such contamination at least in the short term (filter to be sure). Packaged and stored foods will not become radioactive if exposed to radiation, nor will plants (though they may die). At worst, they will be covered with fallout particles (if they were left outside in a fallout zone), which one could wash off thoroughly. Animals may ingest fallout particles and therefore be 'contaminated', so caution would be warranted with game animals, though generally the gastrointestinal system would be the most likely to be dangerous in this regard.

Knowledge is your greatest ally; radiation may be invisible to all of our senses, but it does obey physical laws and behaves in a predictable manner. Make yourself truly familiar with how radiation 'operates' and you'd be surprised how much you can do to keep yourself safe.
 
Then we'd have to deal with the fallout.. from liberals telling us it was all our fault, and Bush caused it!

This would be even more irritating than the looting, arson and rioting that would follow.
 
Erasmus said:
Then we'd have to deal with the fallout.. from liberals telling us it was all our fault, and Bush caused it!

This would be even more irritating than the looting, arson and rioting that would follow.
Click to expand...
You bring up an interesting point, though in a round-about way.

How would we find out if a U.S. city has been nuked? If we don't physically live in the U.S. city that has been nuked, we would have to get our information either through the television/radio media, or, through the U.S. government. But, what if the U.S. government doesn't want to acknowledge a nuclear attack upon America...?

Does the U.S. government more fear a nuclear attack, or a chaotic evacuation from a nuclear attack...? I guess that we'll just have to wait and see....

GeoThorn
 
geothorn said:
How would we find out if a U.S. city has been nuked? If we don't physically live in the U.S. city that has been nuked, we would have to get our information either through the television/radio media, or, through the U.S. government. But, what if the U.S. government doesn't want to acknowledge a nuclear attack upon America...?
Click to expand...

People would be screaming about it on the blogs and message boards, if nothing else. And CNN, MSNBC, even Faux News would have to cover the story (although they would spin it to make it be John Kerry's or Hillary Clinton's fault).

Not something you can cover up ....
 
Even if the guberman puts a clamp on the press, a nuclear blast would be visible for quite a ways and anyone that sees it and isn't killed, will certainly spread the news one way or another.
 
longbow50 said:
Even if the guberman puts a clamp on the press, a nuclear blast would be visible for quite a ways and anyone that sees it and isn't killed, will certainly spread the news one way or another.
Click to expand...
Well, I don't know about you, but I've been taught that anyone witnessing a nuclear explosion would most likely be blinded by it. Another factor could/would possibly be EMP, or Electro-Magnetic Pulse, which would fry any electronics within, and for many miles beyond, the actual nuclear attack, depending upon a ground or an air blast.

We might learn of a nuclear attack in the U.S. by hearing that hundreds of Americans have just gone blind and that there is no communication or motor traffic either entering or leaving a semi-circular portion of the U.S. continent....

GeoThorn
 
I recomend reading the book Alas, Babalon, Its about life for about a year after a nuclear attack. It is fictional and somewhat outdated (written in the Cold War era) but it brings up some good points and does a good job of openning a window to what life would be like post nuclear war.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top