Nuclear War Survival Skills (1987) [pdf](oism.org)
oism.org
Nuclear War Survival Skills (1987) [pdf]
http://oism.org/nwss/nwss.pdf
24 comments
To be fair, no book is going to be very useful in a crisis. It's helpful only if you read and prepare before hand. In the actual crisis, there likely won't be time to read it, gather supplies, build a shelter, etc.
Why downvote this? What's the counter point?
This offers a modern approximation to both targets and fallout maps, but not sure I would say it's "better" as in my area (Seattle) the targets east of Tacoma seem suspiciously placed.
https://www.nuclearwarmap.com/
https://www.nuclearwarmap.com/
What the heck is NE of Appomattox, VA that deserves such a plastering?
They're labeled as Norfolk Naval Shipyard. Uncertain if it's just an error in the map or if they're assuming some missiles will miss.
It took a long time (for the general public) to learn how strategically important the Greenbrier was; there could be all sorts of baggage there.
With some basic tools, a very simple shelter can be constructed with 2-3 days. Sufficient enough to keep you alive and radiation free.
The real trick is not starving after.
The real trick is not starving after.
I looked into what to do:
If a bomb goes off, don't look at the blast, go to an area in your house without windows and little air access, close the doors and wait there for 24 hours.
Ideally, it's a closed basement surrounded by ground and concrete. If not, maybe a bathroom wine cellar, etc. the idea is to isolate yourself from the surrounding radiation in the air.
Hopefully, you have a shortwave radio with fresh batteries or one you can hand crank. Because cellphones and access to information will be limited, the shortwave radio is important because ideally, city officials will be broadcasting where to avoid going outside and safety instructions.
Don't go outside within the first 24 hours, as small radiation particles will fall on you and cause serious health issues.
If you do go outside get rid of all your clothes and take a shower, don't use conditioner which binds radioactive material to your body.
They say that after 24 hours, radiation levels should drop off significantly, since the winds will hopefully blow them away. But that's why a shortwave radio is important to have, so you know which directions of the city are getting the radiation.
If a bomb goes off, don't look at the blast, go to an area in your house without windows and little air access, close the doors and wait there for 24 hours.
Ideally, it's a closed basement surrounded by ground and concrete. If not, maybe a bathroom wine cellar, etc. the idea is to isolate yourself from the surrounding radiation in the air.
Hopefully, you have a shortwave radio with fresh batteries or one you can hand crank. Because cellphones and access to information will be limited, the shortwave radio is important because ideally, city officials will be broadcasting where to avoid going outside and safety instructions.
Don't go outside within the first 24 hours, as small radiation particles will fall on you and cause serious health issues.
If you do go outside get rid of all your clothes and take a shower, don't use conditioner which binds radioactive material to your body.
They say that after 24 hours, radiation levels should drop off significantly, since the winds will hopefully blow them away. But that's why a shortwave radio is important to have, so you know which directions of the city are getting the radiation.
Where did you get this from? The book recommends 14 days underground if you are in an area hit by fallout. After this, radioactive fallout will have decayed to levels that are not immediately lethal. If you have a reliable dose rate meter that can detect high dose rates, use that to judge if your area is safe.
Underground shelter should ideally have one meter of soil between occupants and all surface area that could contain fallout. Air should ideally be filtered, water should definitely be.
You have around 30 minutes after the blast before fallout hits the ground. Rain accelerates this. You can use the prevailing wind direction to judge whether you are downwind of a detonation. Ground detonations produce fallout, air detonations hardly do.
Lethal effects from a detonation is the initial, instantaneous flash, then pressure wave and explosive debris/structural failure that accompanies it, then radiation from fallout and radiation from ingested radioactive material.
This is a quick recap after reading this book some years ago.
Underground shelter should ideally have one meter of soil between occupants and all surface area that could contain fallout. Air should ideally be filtered, water should definitely be.
You have around 30 minutes after the blast before fallout hits the ground. Rain accelerates this. You can use the prevailing wind direction to judge whether you are downwind of a detonation. Ground detonations produce fallout, air detonations hardly do.
Lethal effects from a detonation is the initial, instantaneous flash, then pressure wave and explosive debris/structural failure that accompanies it, then radiation from fallout and radiation from ingested radioactive material.
This is a quick recap after reading this book some years ago.
It's more or less a recap of: https://www.ready.gov/nuclear-explosion
The most important part from the website:
"Try to maintain a distance of at least six feet between yourself and people who are not part of your household. If possible, wear a mask if you’re sheltering with people who are not a part of your household. Children under two years old, people who have trouble breathing, and those who are unable to remove masks on their own should not wear them."
Contracting COVID is the last thing you want during WW3.
"Try to maintain a distance of at least six feet between yourself and people who are not part of your household. If possible, wear a mask if you’re sheltering with people who are not a part of your household. Children under two years old, people who have trouble breathing, and those who are unable to remove masks on their own should not wear them."
Contracting COVID is the last thing you want during WW3.
>> it's a closed basement surrounded by ground and concrete.
Underground parking garages. The goal is to have lots of mass between you and the glowing stuff and a concrete monolith does that. All those 90-degree corners in the structure will then mitigate any blast damage without risk of being trapped behind any door. Just like an earthquake, you want to be far away from glass. A wet climate is also better as rain will wash the fallout out to sea. And not too cold. Fallout and snow is a bad combination. Just look at how dirty streets become when the snow melts. That's where the fallout will concentrate. So the best place to be on the day is probably a parking structure in a non-targeted city somewhere the pacific northwest.
Underground parking garages. The goal is to have lots of mass between you and the glowing stuff and a concrete monolith does that. All those 90-degree corners in the structure will then mitigate any blast damage without risk of being trapped behind any door. Just like an earthquake, you want to be far away from glass. A wet climate is also better as rain will wash the fallout out to sea. And not too cold. Fallout and snow is a bad combination. Just look at how dirty streets become when the snow melts. That's where the fallout will concentrate. So the best place to be on the day is probably a parking structure in a non-targeted city somewhere the pacific northwest.
I'd suggest longer than 24 hours if you have the supplies to do so. The radiation will continue to drop off quickly into day 2 and 3.
if you live alone and has no one to care of, sure. Otherwise all that is irrelevant if your family was in the school, work, etc.
The US Army's Survival manual is much more useful imo. It's an actual guidebook covering all kind of survival techniques and practical informations (very basic things too like how to build a fire which most urban people doesn't even know) https://irp.fas.org/doddir/army/fm3-05-70.pdf
For nuclear and other hazards see chapter 23/page 358 (Survival In Man-Made Hazards)
For nuclear and other hazards see chapter 23/page 358 (Survival In Man-Made Hazards)
Previously discussed here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15305892
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28481782
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15305892
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28481782
Have to admit, my nuclear war anxiety has never been as high as it is now.
You must be young. I was very young when "The Day After" came out, and that friggin' movie gave me nightmares for many, many years. Into my twenties. Every time I heard a jet, I was convinced it was an inbound ICBM. My case may be extreme, but the Cuban Missile crisis was by that time well understood, the immorality of the USG was apparent thanks to Vietnam and Nixon, and classic movies like Wargames and James Bond used the threat of nuclear war constantly. Getting nuked by Russia was a real threat for 40 years. But you realize it's out of your hands, and deal with the stuff in front of you.
(The real question is: what is the path away from nukes, entirely? It seems to me that a world in which any individual can launch nukes is a world with a very short lifetime. This gets worse the fewer human barriers there are to launch. Even if we get past this conflict, we have this fundamental problem which affects democracies and autocracies both.)
(The real question is: what is the path away from nukes, entirely? It seems to me that a world in which any individual can launch nukes is a world with a very short lifetime. This gets worse the fewer human barriers there are to launch. Even if we get past this conflict, we have this fundamental problem which affects democracies and autocracies both.)
"Threads" is also a nice one, I would say it is more brutal and anxiety inducing than "The Day After".
Yup, The Day After feels like willy nilly optimistic romantic comedy next to Threads, I have same feeling about extremely overrated romantic movie The Shawshank Redemption compared to much more realistic Das Experiment (judging by my military experience which was sort of prison).
Can recommend "Miracle Mile".
Over the last few decades we've lulled ourselves into a false sense of security. The reality is that the number, deliverability, and distribution of nuclear weapons has continued to increase.
It is only a matter of time before we see some degree of nuclear weapons use.
If limited, it might cause a major shift in how humans choose to distribute themselves. Living in a city might come to be seen as an unnecessary liability.
It is only a matter of time before we see some degree of nuclear weapons use.
If limited, it might cause a major shift in how humans choose to distribute themselves. Living in a city might come to be seen as an unnecessary liability.
Your not alone, I feel the same way. Born after the cold war ended, I never thought I would be worrying about nuclear annihilation in my lifetime.
While I understand your anxiety, it is baseless. This mad person who is so afraid of even his close collaborators that he sits several meters away from them wanted something very different: capturing a country he felt he lost. Who will praise him if there is nobody on the Earth?
Also, make no mistake, his inner circle is full of people who know how to calculate risks and will betray their colleagues in a blink. Putin might be cornered but a collective suicide is not exactly the dream of people around him.
Also, make no mistake, his inner circle is full of people who know how to calculate risks and will betray their colleagues in a blink. Putin might be cornered but a collective suicide is not exactly the dream of people around him.
The anxiety definitely has a basis: we live in a world where individual humans control powerful nuclear weapons that can be delivered, without real possibility of interception, and with minimal warning, right over every major city. The only real safeguard we have are the chain of human soldiers between the leader, the launch order, and the launch. There are like 10 brains in the world that can order a launch, and best case 10 brains to launch. So the world's nuclear safety is in 110 brains, best case, 10 brains, worst case.
Brains, meanwhile, are highly plastic. Emotion, impulse, greed, fear - these are universal human drives. Now attach them to ever growing control over resources, power, to see your will be done, to cheat and get away with it, but only if you keep escalating... How could this possibly end with Putin backing down?
My belief: Putin will order a launch. This will result in either nuclear war, if his proxies are loyal to him, or his immediate loss of power, if his proxies are not.
Brains, meanwhile, are highly plastic. Emotion, impulse, greed, fear - these are universal human drives. Now attach them to ever growing control over resources, power, to see your will be done, to cheat and get away with it, but only if you keep escalating... How could this possibly end with Putin backing down?
My belief: Putin will order a launch. This will result in either nuclear war, if his proxies are loyal to him, or his immediate loss of power, if his proxies are not.
Why are you so certain that Putin will order nuclear armageddon?
The odds of ordering nuclear Armageddon are quite different from ordering a limited nuclear strike to show them you mean business and to deter further intervention. The Russians might opt to nuke a carrier. Or a small city. Putin is explicitly holding the world hostage at nuclear knife-point, and you let him take your wallet, let him slice off a finger (Crimea). Now, the nuclear thug shoots you in the arm and nukes a town. What do you do? Do you allow them to mutilate you because if you don't you'll be in a struggle where you could both easily die? Or do you choose to resist, and risk death, because they are going to take more and more of you anyway?
As long as the nuclear bully refrains from this behavior, it's all good. Once he starts it though, we're in a new era of nuclear risk. I hope that all of our governments have explicit, mechanical contingencies in place to react to a limited nuclear strike, and that immediate escalation is NOT standard operating procedure. But what is the proportional response for the US if Russia nukes a small city in Western Ukraine? I have no idea. This is all really very terrible and we'll be lucky to get out of it without at least one town glowing in the dark.
As long as the nuclear bully refrains from this behavior, it's all good. Once he starts it though, we're in a new era of nuclear risk. I hope that all of our governments have explicit, mechanical contingencies in place to react to a limited nuclear strike, and that immediate escalation is NOT standard operating procedure. But what is the proportional response for the US if Russia nukes a small city in Western Ukraine? I have no idea. This is all really very terrible and we'll be lucky to get out of it without at least one town glowing in the dark.
Wouldn't nuking a small city in Ukraine also affect Russia physically?
Same. I have already done at least one bit of prep: buying a Geiger counter.
I was having dinner with a climate researcher in his 60s a while ago. What he did previously came up, and he said he was a nuclear nonproliferation researcher before, but climate change seemed like a bigger threat. Time has come to switch back, maybe?
The preferred way to survive nuclear war is to not to provoke one in the first place.
No, it's not. And thinking like that is not helpful. "Best way to get rid of a drug addiction is to not get addicted in the first place" is similarly helpful, which is not at all.
There are ways to act that maximises the chance of surviving a nuclear attack, just like there are ways of maximising the chance of getting rid of a addiction.
There are ways to act that maximises the chance of surviving a nuclear attack, just like there are ways of maximising the chance of getting rid of a addiction.
The preferred way to survive nuclear war is to maximize the chance of not provoking one in the first place.
Again, you're doing a semantic dance around the question.
I, personally, am not in control of global politics. However I am, personally, in control of building a shelter in my basement.
I, personally, am not in control of global politics. However I am, personally, in control of building a shelter in my basement.
You could do both, though. Take care lunatics don't cause global disruption by influencing your sphere of influence. Works in recursion, at least.
Unfortunately taking the life of innocents to save some semblance of an empire is a risk the powers are willing to take. You cannot imagine the stakes here. After this event even if it is confined to just the aggressors it will lead to a life of hardship for you that will never end. Peace is always better than war and its troubles if it can be avoided. No one knows the aftermath. We have to see it with our own eyes. Ever seen a man suffering from bone cancer? That could be you and me someday.
You can never break an addiction you want to have.
You can never break an addiction you want to have.
But at this point you need to ask, what for? Surviving a conventional attack is completely different - you move somewhere else and live on, possibly coping with PTSD. Surviving a nuclear war means only prolonged suffering with no purpose, that's all.
> There are ways to act that maximises the chance of surviving a nuclear attack,
This reads like a monty python skit
This reads like a monty python skit
If you survive a nuclear attack you will wish you were dead. Any "nuclear attack survivability guide" is probably counterproductive because it reinforces the illusion that there is any such thing as a world the day after a nuclear attack. It's all over.
This is complete nonsense. You can absolutely survive a nuclear war if you are prepared.
Maybe you'd prefer not to bother preparing because you think the probability is too low of it happening, but you cannot make that choice for the rest of us.
Maybe you'd prefer not to bother preparing because you think the probability is too low of it happening, but you cannot make that choice for the rest of us.
Nobody is trying to prevent you anything....but he's right: surviving the blast and the fallout is one thing, surviving the collapse of society another
Can you survive your fellow citizens trying to murder you to take your things?
I’m not concerned with the bombs themselves, but more so the total collapse of civil authority in the event of a total nuclear exchange between say, the US and Russia. There are a lot of small arms in the US.
I’m not concerned with the bombs themselves, but more so the total collapse of civil authority in the event of a total nuclear exchange between say, the US and Russia. There are a lot of small arms in the US.
Just not as long as we could before the war is the point I wish to make.
With current warheads, it (unfortunately) is survivable. It's more or less as if any city on the world looks like germany after WW2 - plus some radiation, but most of it is gone after a few weeks.
Fucked up, sure. But survivable for some.
Fucked up, sure. But survivable for some.
[deleted]
Prevention is better than cure.
Seems to be down, believe it’s this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_War_Survival_Skills
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=VPFTAAAAMAAJ&printsec=fr...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_War_Survival_Skills
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=VPFTAAAAMAAJ&printsec=fr...
IPFS: bafykbzacedqk3izhcrqsk4lmnebhmi6dv2sn4h2nundwnyhuu5hmbleoqqiqm
https://cloudflare-ipfs.com/ipfs/bafykbzacedqk3izhcrqsk4lmne...
https://cloudflare-ipfs.com/ipfs/bafykbzacedqk3izhcrqsk4lmne...
This is basically the perfect use case for IPFS.
In the past we had bit torrent... Which would also do the job?
Can't help but think about The Day After https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_After
Or "Threads", an even bleaker and realistic look at what a nuclear exchange looks like.
It certainly feels like we’re having something of a Dr. Strangelove moment at this point.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Strangelove
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Strangelove
Amazing movie, had a big impact.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNQ694QzLqY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNQ694QzLqY
You better watch Threads for a more accurate take.
Browseable HTML version:
http://www.ki4u.com/free_book/s73p911.htm
http://www.ki4u.com/free_book/s73p911.htm
To everybody reading this. Maybe in the 50s or 60s it made sense when Russians had 50 nukes or so. Now they claim they have a few thousand. I believe 10% of these will nuke them during takeoff, based on the deplorable state of their equipment we see now. Maybe a few ICBMs will be shot "down" in the last moment but I'm not sure how much this will help. When the world around you dies, do you really want to survive? I would prefer to live in the city and quickly die with my friends rather than move 200 miles away from civilization and experience inevitable illness, famine, nuclear winter and painful death.
Also, I don't believe a nuclear war will happen because those who actually push the buttons proved in the past they are far more rational than their leaders.
Also, I don't believe a nuclear war will happen because those who actually push the buttons proved in the past they are far more rational than their leaders.
I'm with you in the "prefer instant annihilation" camp.
Here's all the places that a nuclear strike would hit: https://i0.wp.com/www.armenpogharian.com/wp-content/uploads/...
Looks like the only survival strategy is "live in the west, away from major cities and away from nuclear launch sites."
Here's all the places that a nuclear strike would hit: https://i0.wp.com/www.armenpogharian.com/wp-content/uploads/...
Looks like the only survival strategy is "live in the west, away from major cities and away from nuclear launch sites."
Neat map. It's easy to think "NYC, DC, SF will get hit, stick to a smaller city to improve your odds", but there are tons of worthwhile targets. However, this map is also very US-centric, and if Putin loses his mind, might he attack many NATO countries? Or would e.g. Spain and Greece be largely unscathed? Or maybe South America and Africa and Asia would mostly be intact.
Now, ~5k warheads is certainly enough to hit the top 10 cities in every country, which might cause chaos that we can't recover from, but I doubt they would be distributed that way.
Now, ~5k warheads is certainly enough to hit the top 10 cities in every country, which might cause chaos that we can't recover from, but I doubt they would be distributed that way.
> When the world around you dies, do you really want to survive?
Yes.
> I would prefer to live in the city and quickly die with my friends rather than move 200 miles away from civilization and experience inevitable illness, famine, nuclear winter and painful death.
I despise this attitude. Almost everyone who gets old dies painfully. Are you going to kill yourself at 45 to avoid aging?
And this idea that only life in a city is worth living -- what the hell? Of course life lived hand to mouth outside a city is worth living.
Yes.
> I would prefer to live in the city and quickly die with my friends rather than move 200 miles away from civilization and experience inevitable illness, famine, nuclear winter and painful death.
I despise this attitude. Almost everyone who gets old dies painfully. Are you going to kill yourself at 45 to avoid aging?
And this idea that only life in a city is worth living -- what the hell? Of course life lived hand to mouth outside a city is worth living.
> I despise this attitude. Almost everyone who gets old dies painfully. Are you going to kill yourself at 45 to avoid aging?
FWIW I agree with the parent comment, and comparing "living in a barren nuclear winter wasteland" with "living past age 45 in the country" is a strawman and not really what the comment you replied to was talking about.
I've got my "nuclear war survival plan", and it involves a big fucking bag of weed, some super expensive wine, and having sex with the person I love until the nuclear fallout gets us.
Obviously I'm being somewhat hyperbolic, but depending on the scope of a nuclear conflict I don't think it's irrational at all to decide on a comfortable end.
FWIW I agree with the parent comment, and comparing "living in a barren nuclear winter wasteland" with "living past age 45 in the country" is a strawman and not really what the comment you replied to was talking about.
I've got my "nuclear war survival plan", and it involves a big fucking bag of weed, some super expensive wine, and having sex with the person I love until the nuclear fallout gets us.
Obviously I'm being somewhat hyperbolic, but depending on the scope of a nuclear conflict I don't think it's irrational at all to decide on a comfortable end.
It's not a strawman (can we retire that term? Just make your argument), the parent wrote:
> I would prefer to live in the city and quickly die with my friends rather than move 200 miles away from civilization and experience inevitable illness, famine, nuclear winter and painful death.
Some of those things are virtually guaranteed (inevitable sickness, painful death). Aging, culimating in death, is everyone's own personal apocalypse.
We don't know what a "nuclear winter wasteland" looks like. It has never happened. That aside, you and the parent are the wife in The Road (who kills herself rather than face life post civilization). To me it's very obvious that life stripped of almost everything is still worth living. People who don't understand that are, sorry, shallow.
> I would prefer to live in the city and quickly die with my friends rather than move 200 miles away from civilization and experience inevitable illness, famine, nuclear winter and painful death.
Some of those things are virtually guaranteed (inevitable sickness, painful death). Aging, culimating in death, is everyone's own personal apocalypse.
We don't know what a "nuclear winter wasteland" looks like. It has never happened. That aside, you and the parent are the wife in The Road (who kills herself rather than face life post civilization). To me it's very obvious that life stripped of almost everything is still worth living. People who don't understand that are, sorry, shallow.
It is a strawman. Why would we retire a term that describes the exact logical fallacy you were/are making?
The original argument was essentially "I would prefer to die quickly than go through a nuclear holocaust". Your response was to put up a much weaker form of pain or suffering (i.e. living past 45 or in a rural area) so you could bat that down: "Are you going to kill yourself at 45 to avoid aging?"
That is literally the exact definition of a strawman argument.
The original argument was essentially "I would prefer to die quickly than go through a nuclear holocaust". Your response was to put up a much weaker form of pain or suffering (i.e. living past 45 or in a rural area) so you could bat that down: "Are you going to kill yourself at 45 to avoid aging?"
That is literally the exact definition of a strawman argument.
It doesn't matter if it's 45 or 55 or 85, at some point you're going to suffer, and quite a lot. I mentioned 45 to head off most suffering (i.e. most of us are relatively healthy at 45).
Aging aside, there are millions of people alive today whose lives are worse than you and the original commenter's hypothetical lives following a nuclear holocaust. Are their lives not worth living?
As far as "strawman" goes I've never seen an internet argument improved by someone calling out "logical fallacies". There's a reason people disagree over things and it's worth thinking about why rather than posting some stupid gotcha.
Aging aside, there are millions of people alive today whose lives are worse than you and the original commenter's hypothetical lives following a nuclear holocaust. Are their lives not worth living?
As far as "strawman" goes I've never seen an internet argument improved by someone calling out "logical fallacies". There's a reason people disagree over things and it's worth thinking about why rather than posting some stupid gotcha.
>Aging aside, there are millions of people alive today whose lives are worse than you and the original commenter's hypothetical lives following a nuclear holocaust. Are their lives not worth living?
I don't think you need to establish the value of the lives of others to make your own self-determination, nevermind a nuclear wasteland being an altogether distinct frontier of suffering and survival than growing up in a slightly more uncomfortable place than middle class America; nevermind surviving such an environment as an actual elderly person
I don't think you need to establish the value of the lives of others to make your own self-determination, nevermind a nuclear wasteland being an altogether distinct frontier of suffering and survival than growing up in a slightly more uncomfortable place than middle class America; nevermind surviving such an environment as an actual elderly person
I think it's clearly relevant that lots of people live in conditions of terrible privation and still enjoy life and don't think of killing themselves. Your argument is that suffering is relative, which is true to some extent, but suffering is also absolute and people can adjust to new circumstances quickly.
"Barren nuclear winter wasteland" is not a likely outcome of even a major nuclear war.
WHat would you do, if you had (small) kids, murder them?
The apparent disregard of the risk of nuclear war that is evident in a lot of the internet commentary around the Ukraine war can only be worrying.
Many people are willing to at least declare in internet posts that they think the risk of a nuclear war is worth taking in order to better help the people of Ukraine.
Thankfully the people running countries are treating the issue more seriously. But it is still concerning that such a careless and foolish attitude is being aired. It is inarguable that there is more political pressure on leaders now to act rashly with regard to a topic that needs the most careful handling.
Many people are willing to at least declare in internet posts that they think the risk of a nuclear war is worth taking in order to better help the people of Ukraine.
Thankfully the people running countries are treating the issue more seriously. But it is still concerning that such a careless and foolish attitude is being aired. It is inarguable that there is more political pressure on leaders now to act rashly with regard to a topic that needs the most careful handling.
Check out this graphic:
https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/t4hyik/oc_...
Russians had about as many warheads in the 60s as they do now. In the 50s they had twice as many as China does now.
https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/t4hyik/oc_...
Russians had about as many warheads in the 60s as they do now. In the 50s they had twice as many as China does now.
You should read the Myths and Facts sections in chapter 1.
> inevitable illness, famine, nuclear winter
Each one of these myths are debunked in that section to an extent.
> inevitable illness, famine, nuclear winter
Each one of these myths are debunked in that section to an extent.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
By mid cold war, RAND calculated that it will take 20 years for the US to reach full reconstruction to pre-war level in an even of a Total Nuclear War
The book is nice, and really eye-opening, but in the practice, the bomb will probably be dropped when people are living their life, so probably the people that you love won't be all at home under the shelter. So imagine the scenario where your kid is in kindergarten, your wife/husband at work. You can survive the drop on your little basement, but you will want to go out to save your beloved as soon as you can, instead of stay 14 days there eating tuna, drinking bottled water and cranking your little shortwaves radio.
Any recent update on the correctness of the 'nuclear winter' concept?
Some interesting stuff in here. Some of it could even be useful for "normal" things, like the pump information.
I do wonder how much is outdated and that there are likely newer tech and designs that could work for some things.
I also wonder how much warning the government would give the people in order to seek shelter. I guess they do an OK job of it in HI (false alarms). But I wonder if they would even bother telling the highly populated east coast in a full scale event due to the panic and subsequent issues for the survivors.
I do wonder how much is outdated and that there are likely newer tech and designs that could work for some things.
I also wonder how much warning the government would give the people in order to seek shelter. I guess they do an OK job of it in HI (false alarms). But I wonder if they would even bother telling the highly populated east coast in a full scale event due to the panic and subsequent issues for the survivors.
I will guess that some form of internet will survive a nuclear exchange, but what is likely to be the best way to connect to it? IP over ham radio?
Who is trying to make me afraid of nuclear war, when this situation so far does not seem like nuclear war is imminent?
Here are the concern points:
The invasion itself is a bit insane. In winter? An invasion? The preparations look slapshod, the troop morale of the invaders seems to be low to begin with. It doesn't reek of desperation, since there was no imminent threat to Moscow. It seems like insanity, or worse, dementia.
Putin is a strongman, a narcissist, a sociopath. He cares not for the fate of this world. He may have terminal cancer (speculation, a possible reason the invasion seems rushed and ill-timed). Some men just want to see the world burn.
Putin may be cornered. What is the endgame of this invasion? Humiliation is the minimum. A sign of weakness where he is deposed and likely assassinated in the process. A NATO or EU member Ukraine with a well-armed and seasoned populace (probably several million Ukrainians are training to be soldiers, and are very motivated to be good soldiers) that HATES you, and only about 300 miles of distance.
Putin has lost this war already it seems. This nutso strategy seems to only work if he assumed all of Ukraine would lay down for his forces like Crimea. That's not happening, and there will be drones, TOW missles, MANPADS, and more arms flooding in from bordering NATO countries to arm and help the Ukrainians.
Putin is paranoid of NATO/EU encroachment into his sphere. This was supposed to be his grand rebuke / riposte to the gradual incursion into his sphere of influence.
But now it has failed badly, and from Putin's standpoint, strengthens the West's hold on Ukraine, buttresses the regime, motivates the populace.
That leaves Belarus as the only buffer/border state, and they invaded Ukraine, and have a despot that likely can be easily deposed with NATO/EU allies to the north, south, and west. Belarus has invaded Ukraine too, so Ukraine has a casus belli to counterinvade them.
The invasion itself is a bit insane. In winter? An invasion? The preparations look slapshod, the troop morale of the invaders seems to be low to begin with. It doesn't reek of desperation, since there was no imminent threat to Moscow. It seems like insanity, or worse, dementia.
Putin is a strongman, a narcissist, a sociopath. He cares not for the fate of this world. He may have terminal cancer (speculation, a possible reason the invasion seems rushed and ill-timed). Some men just want to see the world burn.
Putin may be cornered. What is the endgame of this invasion? Humiliation is the minimum. A sign of weakness where he is deposed and likely assassinated in the process. A NATO or EU member Ukraine with a well-armed and seasoned populace (probably several million Ukrainians are training to be soldiers, and are very motivated to be good soldiers) that HATES you, and only about 300 miles of distance.
Putin has lost this war already it seems. This nutso strategy seems to only work if he assumed all of Ukraine would lay down for his forces like Crimea. That's not happening, and there will be drones, TOW missles, MANPADS, and more arms flooding in from bordering NATO countries to arm and help the Ukrainians.
Putin is paranoid of NATO/EU encroachment into his sphere. This was supposed to be his grand rebuke / riposte to the gradual incursion into his sphere of influence.
But now it has failed badly, and from Putin's standpoint, strengthens the West's hold on Ukraine, buttresses the regime, motivates the populace.
That leaves Belarus as the only buffer/border state, and they invaded Ukraine, and have a despot that likely can be easily deposed with NATO/EU allies to the north, south, and west. Belarus has invaded Ukraine too, so Ukraine has a casus belli to counterinvade them.
> In winter?
Yes in winter, you don't won't to go through UA wetlands when they melt.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/interactive/2022/ukrain...
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/russia-tiny-window-...
Yes in winter, you don't won't to go through UA wetlands when they melt.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/interactive/2022/ukrain...
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/russia-tiny-window-...
Putin isn't Russia and he isn't his armed forces, and he doesn't press the buttons himself. There's a command and control system in Russia and those generals will need to give the orders to destroy the world, and they'll understand what it means to give those orders. Some of them will be currently in talks to Russian oligarchs about the situation in Russia who will not be pleased by any of this. Russians don't have a problem with military coups taking out their leaders.
Your logic only makes sense if Putin literally is Russia and that's the foreign policy mistake that most Americans always make by characterizing states strictly and only by cults of personality around their rulers and forgetting that there's other people in those countries.
At some point if Putin starts ranting that he's going to nuke NATO then he's going to get overthrown.
There's still a logic around this whole situation, and all the participants in the game, including all of Putin's generals and every powerful Russian, understands that logic.
(Also I strongly doubt anyone here is qualified to diagnose Putin as having dementia and I don't think he is -- he's making massive strategic mistakes, but that just indicates he's been smoking too much of his own information bubble for way too long)
Your logic only makes sense if Putin literally is Russia and that's the foreign policy mistake that most Americans always make by characterizing states strictly and only by cults of personality around their rulers and forgetting that there's other people in those countries.
At some point if Putin starts ranting that he's going to nuke NATO then he's going to get overthrown.
There's still a logic around this whole situation, and all the participants in the game, including all of Putin's generals and every powerful Russian, understands that logic.
(Also I strongly doubt anyone here is qualified to diagnose Putin as having dementia and I don't think he is -- he's making massive strategic mistakes, but that just indicates he's been smoking too much of his own information bubble for way too long)
I have been reading non-US sources that have observed that Putin has superficially declined in health and there are rumors that he is in poor health.
I agree the Putin is "not Russia", but he is a strongman, and Russia has a history of very strong autocrats. I really hope you are right about the Russian military and those officers in charge of the nuclear armament.
We'll see, this will be a fascinating chapter of post-Cold-War history.
I agree the Putin is "not Russia", but he is a strongman, and Russia has a history of very strong autocrats. I really hope you are right about the Russian military and those officers in charge of the nuclear armament.
We'll see, this will be a fascinating chapter of post-Cold-War history.
Ok, here we are. I actually favourited this post and going to share it with others. This is 2022.
[deleted]
very useful, thanks, will definitely need it in the immediate future - getting ready & prepped!
If Putin lobs a small nuke into the North Sea as a warning shot, what does the West do ? Maybe stop shipping war materiel into Ukraine, but then anything else ? Nobody is going to lend the Russian army a helping hand unless it's to accept their surrender.
Anyone else re-playing all the Fallout games as way to prep?
Russia has around 1000 warhead maximum possible first launch capacity in the most optimistic scenario.
If Russia saves submarine second strike, it will be 800.
If Russia will chose to hold off land-based second strike, it goes to 550.
If Russia chose to reserve some of its most powerful ICBMs as a reserve for the "dire friend" China, I would give it to be 300 warheads.
If the nuclear command & control centre is destroyed by a pre-emptive strike, there will be no coordinated first strike, but uncoordinated launches by individual units, highly conditional on officers resolve to fight an now unwinnable war.
If Russia saves submarine second strike, it will be 800.
If Russia will chose to hold off land-based second strike, it goes to 550.
If Russia chose to reserve some of its most powerful ICBMs as a reserve for the "dire friend" China, I would give it to be 300 warheads.
If the nuclear command & control centre is destroyed by a pre-emptive strike, there will be no coordinated first strike, but uncoordinated launches by individual units, highly conditional on officers resolve to fight an now unwinnable war.
> If the nuclear command & control centre is destroyed by a pre-emptive strike, there will be no coordinated first strike, but uncoordinated launches by individual units, highly conditional on officers resolve to fight an now unwinnable war.
Except Russia maintains a separate, fully automated system on a dead man’s trigger, specifically for this case scenario. This system reinforces the mutually assured destruction approach.
Except Russia maintains a separate, fully automated system on a dead man’s trigger, specifically for this case scenario. This system reinforces the mutually assured destruction approach.
Do you know how such officers are chosen? I was speculating that these are relatively quiet, cushy postings. Or perhaps such postings are boring, and reserved for punishment? In any event, what are the odds that either a) a verified order from Putin is ignored, or b) that a field officer would launch based on loss of contact with C&C?
I get into such detail because it is my guess that Putin won't back down, and will escalate until he gives a launch order, and it will be up to these field officers to reject a first launch order (or question the veracity of a retaliatory launch order).
I get into such detail because it is my guess that Putin won't back down, and will escalate until he gives a launch order, and it will be up to these field officers to reject a first launch order (or question the veracity of a retaliatory launch order).
I have no idea, except that money is not spared on missile troops, and they are kept well fed at all times to ensure their loyalty. If you seen videos of Soviet missile submarines with Jacuzzi, this is about that.
So far one thing is universally confirmed, launch officers get autonomy when "Contact is lost, and Moscow is confirmed destroyed." How much destroyed is counted as destroyed? Nobody knows, probably because officers themselves don't know, and don't delve into such scenario.
So far one thing is universally confirmed, launch officers get autonomy when "Contact is lost, and Moscow is confirmed destroyed." How much destroyed is counted as destroyed? Nobody knows, probably because officers themselves don't know, and don't delve into such scenario.
> Soviet missile submarines with Jacuzzi
I find hard to believe that. Submarines are very cramped and would not have space for non-essentials. Also Russia is not know for caring for it's soldiers (or citizens).
I find hard to believe that. Submarines are very cramped and would not have space for non-essentials. Also Russia is not know for caring for it's soldiers (or citizens).
https://www.reddit.com/r/submarines/comments/4qvi9l/hottub_s...
Remember, such luxuries are for missileers only. An average Russian barrack may not have constant electricity, heating, and Running water even today.
Remember, such luxuries are for missileers only. An average Russian barrack may not have constant electricity, heating, and Running water even today.
That's crazy.
We will all need this soon.
But this is not the kind of book you're going to be able to use in a crisis. The appendixes contain how-tos for:
1. building a fallout shelter
2. building a ventilation device for the shelter
3. building a dosimeter
The problem is that these instructions are mixed with commentary. Lots of it. There are half a dozen or so types of shelter you can build. Which one do you build? Go figure. What should be simple recipes are ordeals in concentration. I can only imagine the kinds of heated conversations that would take place should this guide be pulled out and used in anger as the hand crank radio crackles with terrifying reports of unthinkable events.
What the book has going for it is field testing. The methods described were tried out on regular folk who were paid to participate and paid bonuses for certain milestones. The author claims good results.
Apparently this was all done as part of a federally-sponsored program that no politician wanted to see become public policy.
One of the most useful parts of the book is a prediction of fallout zones across the US. The author notes that even at the time of publication, this was 10 years old. Imagine a map of the US with greyscale clouds running left/right. Darker means more potential for fallout. Really hard to do given uncertainties, but maybe valuable for big-picture planning. I'm not aware of a more modern map.