Nuclear War & Survival Help

[Clyde]

Ok, I got the idea for this thread from two areas. Iran and North Korea. You remember those countries. They two countries that act like 2 year olds, and that's an insult to 2 year olds everywhere.The other is the tv show Jericho.

Iran is not listed on here as they, according to the Gov't and UN, do not have one as of yet, but we all know they are feverishly trying to get one. If that happens someone is getting nuked.

I am going to list the countries who have nuclear weapons and how many at last count.

Map of nuclear weapons countries of the world.

​

NPT nuclear-weapon states (China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, United States)

​

Other states with nuclear weapons (India, Pakistan, North Korea)

​

Other states believed to have nuclear weapons (Israel)

​

NATO nuclear weapons sharing states (Belgium, Germany, Netherlands, Italy, Turkey)

​

States formerly possessing nuclear weapons (Belarus, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, South Africa)
CountryWarheads active/totalYear of first testCTBT status

The five nuclear-weapon states under the NPT​

Country......................Warheads Active/Total​

United States..........2,150 / 8,000​

Russia....................1,800 / 10,000​

United Kingdom.............160 / 225​

France............................290 / 300​

China..............................n.a. / 240​

Non-NPT nuclear powers​

India.........................n.a. / 80–100​

Pakistan.......................n.a. / 90–110​

North Korea.....................n.a. / <10​

Undeclared nuclear powers​

Israel..........................n.a. / 80–200​

Large stockpile with global range (dark blue)
Smaller stockpile with global range (medium blue)
Small stockpile with regional range (pale blue)

Blue: Nuclear Weapons Free Zone by international treaty, including territories that belong to a Nuclear Weapons State that has agreed the territory is subject to a zone. (Do not add unilaterally declared national or subnational zones with no international treaty, until we have a thorough survey of these.)
Red: Nuclear weapons states and territories belonging to them that are not in any NWFZ
Orange: Nuclear sharing (US nuclear arsenal stationed there for host country use in wartime)
Gold: None of the above (but party to the Non Proliferation Treaty(NPT))

​

​

​

(Wikimedia Foundation, Inc, 2012)​

 

[Fordrocks1986]

So pretty much the world is one giant nuke and the first person to hit the button everyone else will hit there's and then bamoo we are all dead.

 

[Clyde]

So pretty much the world is one giant nuke and the first person to hit the button everyone else will hit there's and then bamoo we are all dead.

Yeah pretty much.... unless....... you can make it to the south pole real quick.

 

[Maverick]

for marginal protection Stock up on Potassium Iodate (KIO3) it's cheap just make sure it's FDA approved and 160mg per capsule, like anything else wind direction is important

 

[DavyRocket]

I personally do not feel like any of us will ever go through a nuclear war. That is NOT to say there won't be a small nuclear bomb explosion or several here in the US, or possibly in the UK blaming Iran. That will start WW3. North Korea is no threat to anyone IMHO except maybe Japan or SK. NK is all talk.

 

[bill harrell]

Yeah pretty much.... unless....... you can make it to the south pole real quick.

Go south young man. Winds circumnavigate the globe east to west...not north to south.
But realistically to think it will never happen is ludicrous to me. I know we have all of them secured and can trust all owners to secure theirs. Have you ever seen Cinderella's castle....that's next on the tour.

 

[WilliamAshley]

The issue is not just the bombs but the result of using the bombs, secondary effects are much worse than the bombs themselves.

Of course I'd be willing to bet money no one is going to launch.

I'd bet $1000 there won't be nuclear explosions within the next 24 hours.

I'll give 100 to 1 odds. any takers,, $10 only..

 

[bill harrell]

Ill bet anyone $ 100000 dollers that they wont take a direct hit from a 18 megaton warhead in the next 100 years. Ill give 1000 to 1 odds. I'm sure there wont be any takers. As far as after effects, don't know what could be worse than the blast radius of a nuke. Maybe because you die slower.

 

[bill harrell]

Yeh, considering our popularity in countries like Pakistan, it'll never happen. They love.us. they hide our mortal enemies while on our payroll. But its not personal, 25000000 wouldn't get one of them to sell Ben layedown down the river. But they only have at least 100 nuclear weapons. And their largest blast they were able to achieve in testing was only 42 kilotons. But ....then there's the problem of delivery. I doubt they could find a volunteer since it would mean sure suicide. Surely there's no one in Pakistan who would offer his life to take a few of ours. If you believe this, my friend, you are very gullible. Its just a matter of when not if.

 

[WilliamAshley]

Ill bet anyone $ 100000 dollers that they wont take a direct hit from a 18 megaton warhead in the next 100 years. Ill give 1000 to 1 odds. I'm sure there wont be any takers. As far as after effects, don't know what could be worse than the blast radius of a nuke. Maybe because you die slower.

I'll take that bet. Is this inflation adjusted, and what currency is it in? If its USD deals off. Last thing I want to do is get stuck owing money if I win.

 

[bill harrell]

Its a bet then. Let me know when you've taken a hit.

 

[kcdevildog]

I don't see the US getting hit by one that is launched through the air. To many missile defense systems in place. Would be shot down over the ocean. The only way I see a nuclear blast in the US is if it is detonated on the ground after being snuck in on one of our many weak borders.

 

[bill harrell]

I say that's a good call

 

[Todd@T2_Tactical]

I wish Vegas had the same odds! If you wanna prep for nuclear strike, by a plot and a casket.

 

[bill harrell]

I hear its one of the best cremations already.... amazing what you can do with several million degrees.

 

[Todd@T2_Tactical]

Ya forget the plot, maybe just an urn!

 

[rudyc]

The issue is not just the bombs but the result of using the bombs, secondary effects are much worse than the bombs themselves.

Of course I'd be willing to bet money no one is going to launch.

I'd bet $1000 there won't be nuclear explosions within the next 24 hours.

I'll give 100 to 1 odds. any takers,, $10 only..

Ill bet anyone $ 100000 dollers that they wont take a direct hit from a 18 megaton warhead in the next 100 years. Ill give 1000 to 1 odds. I'm sure there wont be any takers. As far as after effects, don't know what could be worse than the blast radius of a nuke. Maybe because you die slower.

i want to take on thses bets, but what if it does happen? i'll never get the money,cus i might not survive, or some men in black will be coming to my house and asking how i knew it was gonna happen.

 

[bill harrell]

My point exactly, its easy to bet on a scenario that you can't loose. Kinda like insurance companies

 

[WilliamAshley]

I don't see the US getting hit by one that is launched through the air. To many missile defense systems in place. Would be shot down over the ocean. The only way I see a nuclear blast in the US is if it is detonated on the ground after being snuck in on one of our many weak borders.

imo its the oceans that are the threat, really only China and Russia have nuclear submarines.

None the less while US missile defence sounds really good, I've been following the missile tests etc.. and my confidence level went down dramatically after learning they don't have 100% kill ratio and there arn't very many interceptor missiles. The general consensus is that it would have to be a rogue attack because niether China nor Russia want to face the consequences of mutually assured destruction.

For limited scale it will definately be in proxy states, but we will still be hit with fallout it travels in the wind, and the US can't shoot it down.

Sneaking suitcase nukes into the US would not be difficult though by sea or by land. Those are low yeild though.

The US has a lot of active sensors, minute men, sea based sensors, ships at sea, radar etc.. however people still get into the US from land and sea illegally.

A lot of shipping aircraft and land based transport cargo etc.. also occurs from around the world, the US sea ports airports etc.. are not immune to a sneak attack from a non missile system. It would be very easy to hit the US with NBC weapons by any major state. However the repercussions of that would be tremendous.

Its just not likely at all because it isn't in anyones interests, because the US only attacks countries that can't defend themselves or at least cannot threaten the US. But it can happen. It just isn't very likely to happen within the next 24 hours.

Most countries use these same principles although there have been some instances where there were actual conflicts that could have went either way such as the Iran/Iraq war, the Israeli wars against the Arab states, WWII, Korea... but most wars since the 1980's have been one sided wars. The same rules are applied to nuclear war. You don't bomb no one that can bomb you.

The US is not immune from attack, but attack is not likely.

 

[kcdevildog]

imo its the oceans that are the threat, really only China and Russia have nuclear submarines.

None the less while US missile defence sounds really good, I've been following the missile tests etc.. and my confidence level went down dramatically after learning they don't have 100% kill ratio and there arn't very many interceptor missiles. The general consensus is that it would have to be a rogue attack because niether China nor Russia want to face the consequences of mutually assured destruction.

For limited scale it will definately be in proxy states, but we will still be hit with fallout it travels in the wind, and the US can't shoot it down.

Sneaking suitcase nukes into the US would not be difficult though by sea or by land. Those are low yeild though.

The US has a lot of active sensors, minute men, sea based sensors, ships at sea, radar etc.. however people still get into the US from land and sea illegally.

A lot of shipping aircraft and land based transport cargo etc.. also occurs from around the world, the US sea ports airports etc.. are not immune to a sneak attack from a non missile system. It would be very easy to hit the US with NBC weapons by any major state. However the repercussions of that would be tremendous.

Its just not likely at all because it isn't in anyones interests, because the US only attacks countries that can't defend themselves or at least cannot threaten the US. But it can happen. It just isn't very likely to happen within the next 24 hours.

Most countries use these same principles although there have been some instances where there were actual conflicts that could have went either way such as the Iran/Iraq war, the Israeli wars against the Arab states, WWII, Korea... but most wars since the 1980's have been one sided wars. The same rules are applied to nuclear war. You don't bomb no one that can bomb you.

The US is not immune from attack, but attack is not likely.

The US does not attack only countries that cannot defend themselves or cannot threaten the US. Japan and Germany two of the biggest power houses of their times got their dicks stomped in the dirt. If that were the case Mexico and Canada would be ours.

 

[Gazrok]

The bigger nuclear threat is what will happen to the nuclear plants if they lose both primary and backup power in a SHTF situation. If that happens, meltdown, and the same thing we saw in Chernobyl or Japan.
Here's a map showing the areas affected. You can zoom in to see where you fall.

http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/fallout/

Luckily, according to this, we should be good, but just to be safe, we'd shelter for at least 48 hours to two-weeks, depending on the event. (assuming it happens after building my redoubt bunker).
This is also why a Geiger Counter should be part of EVERY prepper's tools. You can pick up modern versions for less than $100. While nuclear war isn't a big possibility...the nuclear disaster is an almost certain consequence if the grid goes down.

Personally, if I was North Korea or a terrorist, I'd ship a big nuke in a cargo container, and then blow it up in a major harbor. I think that's a more realistic threat than any missile or bomb. Even still, it'd be a groundburst detonation, so less of an area, and most likely around 2-5mt tops. Still enough to take out a large chunk of a big city though. I'm sure DHS is fully aware of the threat too, so hopefully, there are a lot of protocols in place, but we get SO many of these containers daily, I just have to be a little worried (if I lived or worked in a port city)....

 

[Gazrok]

I wish Vegas had the same odds! If you wanna prep for nuclear strike, by a plot and a casket.

You'd be surprised. A nuclear war is a LOT more survivable than you think it is. I used to think the same way, until I did the research. There are many areas that won't even be affected. Also, there are a lot less active nukes around, and the average mt of these weapons is way less than during the Cold War. Add the missile defense system in to limit it more (it is far from full-proof or even highly effective), and you're not looking at a WarGames kind of event.

 

[hills have eyes]

https://www.usnews.com/news/nationa...ve-nuclear-attack-amid-us-north-korea-threats
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/t...onation/ar-BBHVcDK?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

 

[Gazrok]

As we know here, always good to PLAN for the worst, but it's really not warranted. As stated, Un has nothing to gain by actually attacking, just by threatening.

 

[Maverick]

CDC to hold briefing on how public can prepare for nuclear war
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cdc-nu...r-emergency-preparation-north-korea-tensions/

When we have politicians and Government entities going around striking fears it's no wonder people are nervous. All I can say is deja vu of the red scare past.

"Both former Vice President Joe Biden and Admiral Mike Mullen have said in recent days that they worry the U.S. has never been closer to nuclear war with North Korea" when we get comments like this it does nothing but a disservice to reality with adverse consequences!

 

[Gazrok]

And I've never been closer to being a millionaire, because I bought a Lotto ticket... See? It's a "true" statement, though not a likely outcome....lol.

This kind of fear mongering though, is really just another daily dig at our current administration. See? Look how horrible he is!!! Oh my God! Most of us are just plain sick of it.

 

[lonewolf]

an all out nuclear war would see no winners just a lot of losers, and who wants to live on a dead planet anyway.

 

[BillMasen]

Preparing for such a disaster takes on many aspects. You will need to do the regular preps like laying in food, but a solid communication plan will also have to be set up. There is so much to learn about radiation and shielding. It is best to start sooner than later. No matter how well prepared we are though, one has to wonder when it comes to widespread nuclear war how well can we possibly prepare. The results of such a catastrophe are lasting and widespread.

More spam the guy is using the forum to advertise his magazine. Offgrid magazine is vastly superior in quality and far better produced. .

 

[lonewolf]

wouldn't have got past OP on the forum I moderate.

 

[Maudite]

So pretty much the world is one giant nuke and the first person to hit the button everyone else will hit there's and then bamoo we are all dead.

As a heads up, the Russians can launch beyond the grave.... Russia May Still Have An Automated Nuclear Launch System Aimed Across The Northern Hemisphere