<turns red> Er, thanks, Robb - but re-reading it, I could have been a bit more "polite". I think something caught a couple of my buttons in the wringer - no excuse; I should know better.<br><br>The threat of nuclear terrorism is and has been quite real. There's more than enough factual information readily available in "open sources" for anyone to figure that much out. Therefore I suggest that discussing survival of that sort of incident is about as appropriate as major earthquakes, hurricanes, industrial disasters, and other catastrophes that may occur - generically "urban survival".<br><br>If one is very near a "potential target", knowledge, planning, a bit of precaution, and luck may be really important. "Bugging out" or "bugging in" decisions must be made extremely rapidly and there are inevitable consequences attendant to making the "wrong" decision. (Bugging in would almost for certain be a temporary action and the risk management of when to execute "bug out" and how is extremely important - but not difficult; there is some science to that decision.)<br><br>The farther away (downwind) one is, the more time (still short) there is for making the first crucial decision - stay or flee.<br><br>One (of several) critical difference between nuclear terrorism and nuclear war is that terrorist events are not going to engulf an entire nation or continent, so the survivors can expect massive and continuing aid. This does not mean that simply sitting in a cellar for 4 weeks slowly absorbing rem after rem while waiting for "rescue" is a good idea! A little science learned beforehand and used in such an event could be a life-or-death investment.<br><br>But it's a potential catastrophe that has known dimensions, so save for a bit of bad luck (wrong place at the wrong time), surviving it is in some ways less difficult to plan for than other events. In other ways... inaction of one sort or another would surely lend death swift invisible wings.<br><br>Those of us who do not live in the USA should not be complacent. The USA may be a big target, but it's hardly the only one - more than a dozen countries leap to mind immediately for varying reasons, and no, they are not all in Europe by a long shot. Quite global. I am fairly capable of understanding non-USA points of view and make reasonable attempts to do so. <br><br>Regardless, somewhere, sometime, someone is going to detonate a nuke or nukes on someone else for some reason, real or perceived. I've been quite convinced of that for many years. The odds of many of us being caught in that are probably low. The odds of some of us being caught in that are probably great enough to at least merit discussion and consideration, in my opinion. Not great enough at the moment to lose any sleep over <smile>.<br><br>Regards to all,<br><br>Tom<br><br><br><br>