Meet me at the courthouse and we can play a few diddys
what is your closest Nuclear target.......
- Thread starter user 6493
- Start date
Help Support Homesteading & Country Living Forum:
Just jokin Billy .but ...i do get up there sometimes
I'm one of the few folks here who doesn't play, Bill, but next time you come up, shoot me an e-mail.
Wattsbar and oak ridge nuclear power plants . Redstone arsinal just south of here across thr TN / BAMA state line Arnold Airforce base with one of the biggest wind tunnels for testing aircraft in theU.S is near here . Im not as concerned about a nuke attack as i use to be but its still on the table .
I didn't bother to Google, can you recommend a good map/site? I'm in Phoenix, if it matters.
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2016
- Messages
- 6,474
http://modernsurvivalblog.com/nuclear/us-nuclear-target-map/
you might want to play with this one
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/security/a20873/modern-nuclear-war-look-map/
Well played South Dakota, well played
the guidance systems on missiles (once emp's, blasts, winds are in effect) are so pathetic, it wont matter much where you are for a full on nuke attack. I'd try to not live close to a nuke reactor, tho. An all out attack is likely to change weather patterns by a massive amount, so current wind patterns might well mean nothing.
EMP blasts are around 250 miles up no fallout, missiles are in the KT range today not MT, fallout would be of concern dependent on winds and if ground blast or air blast, also the war heads are far more accurate than the 50s 60s and 70s, most would come in within yards of its target!
You'd be surprised. So many of us grew up thinking a nuclear war would be unsurvivable. This just isn't really the case. Try nukemap (google it, not sure of link). Now consider that most modern nukes just aren't that big. (between 100 and 170 kilotons...that's right, not the megatons of the Cold War)...
My nearest target is McDill AFB. It would take about a 7 megaton explosion there, to reach my house (and that's not the blast, but more of the fallout range). So...if at home...I'm probably fine. Also, modern weapons are airburst, so not a lot of fallout (which is really more a result of nuclear bombs, not modern missiles.)
But, I work just across the bridge. Even still. If one of the largest (350kt) missiles was detonated there, I'd still be fine just across the bridge in St. Pete....(though I'd have a hell of a time getting home, as I drive through Tampa). So I'd have to drive WAY around that, hehe....
My point is that a lot of us are STILL under the very false impression, that a nuclear war means complete destruction. It just really isn't the case. There are a LOT of targets, and you can bet the enemy will be concentrating on those that are of key import. (So McDill AFB is likely to get a few hits). Even still, it may take a 3 hour drive or more, but I could still get home.
The real danger of a nuclear war will be AFTER it. Loss of the grid. Loss of infrastructure. Desperation of survivors, etc.
The funny part is...I bet if I went up to TEN people I work with (none of which are dumb), and asked them, if the largest nuke currently in active service in the US, were to hit McDill AFB, do you think we'd be toast? I'd wager TEN of TEN would say yes, absolutely. And they would all be wrong.
My nearest target is McDill AFB. It would take about a 7 megaton explosion there, to reach my house (and that's not the blast, but more of the fallout range). So...if at home...I'm probably fine. Also, modern weapons are airburst, so not a lot of fallout (which is really more a result of nuclear bombs, not modern missiles.)
But, I work just across the bridge. Even still. If one of the largest (350kt) missiles was detonated there, I'd still be fine just across the bridge in St. Pete....(though I'd have a hell of a time getting home, as I drive through Tampa). So I'd have to drive WAY around that, hehe....
My point is that a lot of us are STILL under the very false impression, that a nuclear war means complete destruction. It just really isn't the case. There are a LOT of targets, and you can bet the enemy will be concentrating on those that are of key import. (So McDill AFB is likely to get a few hits). Even still, it may take a 3 hour drive or more, but I could still get home.
The real danger of a nuclear war will be AFTER it. Loss of the grid. Loss of infrastructure. Desperation of survivors, etc.
The funny part is...I bet if I went up to TEN people I work with (none of which are dumb), and asked them, if the largest nuke currently in active service in the US, were to hit McDill AFB, do you think we'd be toast? I'd wager TEN of TEN would say yes, absolutely. And they would all be wrong.
Last edited:
Even though it may be survivable from the initial blast, as Gaz pointed out the afteraffects of no grid, communication, fuel, grocery supply, etc would end the world as we know it. I also noticed all the talk is about kilo ton vs mega ton. That's in our arsenal. Do we really know what's in Russia's or China's?
Oh JOY! We can, might, could, maybe, survive a nuclear war.
Yippee, overjoyed I am.
Where I am the blast won't kill us but the chaos, break down of the
infrastructure, lack of resources, medical care, law enforcement, and
roving gangs of hungry people that were once neighbors ...............
WILL KILL US.
I'll prep but I don't live in a delusional world.
Just sayin'.
Yippee, overjoyed I am.
Where I am the blast won't kill us but the chaos, break down of the
infrastructure, lack of resources, medical care, law enforcement, and
roving gangs of hungry people that were once neighbors ...............
WILL KILL US.
I'll prep but I don't live in a delusional world.
Just sayin'.
Not too different than any other grid ending catastrophe.
We have a pretty good idea.
Plus, we really approached nukes from a COMPLETELY different philosophy than Russia or China. In the 70's and then successive decades, we started making nukes that would last many, many decades and still perform their duties flawlessly. This cost a LOT of money to do. The Russians (and China, through working with Russia) made nukes that were flashy, but only really be serviceable for about 10 years.
We go more for accuracy, they go more for destruction (but in doing so, knocking out their inbounds is a bit easier). Though, with some of Russia's, we better get them in the first 3 stages of defense, vs. after it separates into different warheads (and thus, targets).
This different outlook even extends to the delivery mechanism, in Russia and China, decades old, crappy trucks vs. hardened silos. And extends to the people manning those missiles....paid and professional career soldiers vs. conscripts.
The simple fact is though....we could never knock out all of Russia or China's inbounds, neither could they do it from us. In addition, they could never neutralize all of our delivery methods, nor us them. In the end, the concept of MAD or Mutually Assured Destruction, is the only thing keeping us all from nuking each other.
This same concept does NOT apply to NK, who simply doesn't have the needed number of warheads to get past our defense systems, or the ability to survive and counterstrike. It is apples and oranges here.
Even Russia and China though, have gone to a more average 150kt warhead. Some have up to a 300kt warhead, but the days of 5mt and 10mt missiles being more then norm are long, long gone.
Russia's subs are also getting ancient, and simply put, are corroding. They aren't making new subs at a rate enough to replace them, and basically over HALF of them will be past their service life within 10 years. For subs, this is non-negotiable, as they simply corrode over time. You can't just modernize them like you can with other war vehicles.
We have a pretty good idea.
Plus, we really approached nukes from a COMPLETELY different philosophy than Russia or China. In the 70's and then successive decades, we started making nukes that would last many, many decades and still perform their duties flawlessly. This cost a LOT of money to do. The Russians (and China, through working with Russia) made nukes that were flashy, but only really be serviceable for about 10 years.
We go more for accuracy, they go more for destruction (but in doing so, knocking out their inbounds is a bit easier). Though, with some of Russia's, we better get them in the first 3 stages of defense, vs. after it separates into different warheads (and thus, targets).
This different outlook even extends to the delivery mechanism, in Russia and China, decades old, crappy trucks vs. hardened silos. And extends to the people manning those missiles....paid and professional career soldiers vs. conscripts.
The simple fact is though....we could never knock out all of Russia or China's inbounds, neither could they do it from us. In addition, they could never neutralize all of our delivery methods, nor us them. In the end, the concept of MAD or Mutually Assured Destruction, is the only thing keeping us all from nuking each other.
This same concept does NOT apply to NK, who simply doesn't have the needed number of warheads to get past our defense systems, or the ability to survive and counterstrike. It is apples and oranges here.
Even Russia and China though, have gone to a more average 150kt warhead. Some have up to a 300kt warhead, but the days of 5mt and 10mt missiles being more then norm are long, long gone.
Russia's subs are also getting ancient, and simply put, are corroding. They aren't making new subs at a rate enough to replace them, and basically over HALF of them will be past their service life within 10 years. For subs, this is non-negotiable, as they simply corrode over time. You can't just modernize them like you can with other war vehicles.
Last edited:
or the ability to survive and counterstrike.
Good point.
Russia's subs are also getting ancient, and simply put, are corroding. They aren't making new subs at a rate enough to replace them, and basically over HALF of them will be past their service life within 10 years.
Russia is basically still bankrupt.
I doubt either China nor Russian want a nuclear was.
Stupid they are not. China has a huge income from export to the free
world especially the relatively rich U.S.A.
Without Walmart China could go broke.
Good point.
Russia's subs are also getting ancient, and simply put, are corroding. They aren't making new subs at a rate enough to replace them, and basically over HALF of them will be past their service life within 10 years.
Russia is basically still bankrupt.
I doubt either China nor Russian want a nuclear was.
Stupid they are not. China has a huge income from export to the free
world especially the relatively rich U.S.A.
Without Walmart China could go broke.
Regardless what we may think, china russia and the US care about it's own people and human life in general (perhaps not to the degree we would like) and have a full understanding of the consequence. The main nuclear powers understands MAD! I believe NK government and military fully understand they are toast if they fired off a nuclear warhead in anger at any country. Because of MAD and consequential thinking (propaganda aside) I don't see nuclear war occurring. Trumps saber rattling is perhaps more for china's benefit as it is NK in trying to force china's hand in ending NK nuclear program. The only difference between 1962 and today's political brinkmanship is that it's not behind closed doors today given instant access news, the millennials haven't lived through the red scare (for the young folks, before CNN and the internet) so this whole nuclear war talk is all new and scary to them and a good part of the information they receive are coming from other millennials (using 1959 data) such as youtube facebooks and the likes of alex jones.
For the young folks, you can't use 1959 data and apply it to today's nuclear arsenal, targets, tactics and destruction scenarios. All the data being used today on the internet from 1968/1984 are derived from the original papers of 1959, it doesn't apply today!!!! Almost all nuclear war survival books are rehashed from the 1950s/60s DoD Civil Defense TMs and handouts, a lot of information are very dated and in some cases wrong, their are good information but much won't apply by today's standards and nuclear arsenal.
For the young folks, you can't use 1959 data and apply it to today's nuclear arsenal, targets, tactics and destruction scenarios. All the data being used today on the internet from 1968/1984 are derived from the original papers of 1959, it doesn't apply today!!!! Almost all nuclear war survival books are rehashed from the 1950s/60s DoD Civil Defense TMs and handouts, a lot of information are very dated and in some cases wrong, their are good information but much won't apply by today's standards and nuclear arsenal.
The amount of BAD and FALSE information out there on nuclear war is absolutely incredible. Almost none of it is even remotely accurate, relevant, or reliable in any way. As mentioned above, it's mostly because it is outdated, and even guesswork (nuclear winter, since shown false).
It is true though...MAD will keep most nations in line.
The TRUE nuclear threat isn't from a nation, but from a terrorist group acquiring one. I personally think we'll see a terrorist dirty nuke detonated in a US harbor, in my lifetime. It's simply too soft a target. How we've kept the tech out of their hands for decades is still a mystery to me, but bravo to those doing so.
I can't even imagine the political fallout from such an act. (or the literal fallout). It won't be from NK, China, or Russia. I just hope the target isn't the Port of Tampa. (That's pretty unlikely). My guess, is it would be in CA, as it's closer to Asian ports.
It is true though...MAD will keep most nations in line.
The TRUE nuclear threat isn't from a nation, but from a terrorist group acquiring one. I personally think we'll see a terrorist dirty nuke detonated in a US harbor, in my lifetime. It's simply too soft a target. How we've kept the tech out of their hands for decades is still a mystery to me, but bravo to those doing so.
I can't even imagine the political fallout from such an act. (or the literal fallout). It won't be from NK, China, or Russia. I just hope the target isn't the Port of Tampa. (That's pretty unlikely). My guess, is it would be in CA, as it's closer to Asian ports.
Note; Almost all the information regarding nuclear war that many on the internet and media sites are using to get their info from is from the Atomic Weapons Requirements Study 1959 (sm 129-56) from General Curtis LeMay Commander in chief of the Strategic Air Command
Now ask yourself, if the information is still valid today why was it declassified? (declassification should be a major hint) also keep in mind some of the info was redacted leaving it up to the internet keyboard generals to fill in the blanks with modern day guess work using old information or hollywood scripts.
Now ask yourself, if the information is still valid today why was it declassified?
(declassification should be a major hint) also keep in mind some of the info was redacted leaving it up to the internet keyboard generals to fill in the blanks with modern day guess work using old information or hollywood scripts.all the British info on nuclear war is based on reports from the 1970s and 1980s, civil defence dosent exist it was shut down 30 or 40 years ago, we don't have any government food stocks, that was all done away with as part of our joining the EU in 1975, the only food now is in the supermarkets and the warehouses.
It's absurd to think the govt is capable of taking care of everything. A little personal responsibility folks....
Same here Paul. We have FEMA but at a far far smaller scale than the days of the Department of Civil Defense, almost all the nuclear war info that FEMA has is all from the days of Civil Defense.
3 hrs ENE of Denver. Yup, we’re toast.
