It Can't Happen Here

I bought the movie “The Day After” from Target. It is a 1980s movie about the USSR exchanging ICBMs with the US. It seems to be technically accurate. EMP destroys all electronics. Emergency radios do not work. Many are caught out in the radiation and suffer its deadly consequences. The large cities are gone so no help is available. Towns have to make do the best they can. Big paradigm of “It Can’t Happen Here.” Mothers of Invention, 1969.



The situation now is that there are NO government fall-out shelters for the general population. Anyone have thoughts on how to survive a possible nuclear exchange with Russia, China, or terrorists? It got me looking at FM 21-76. Good info on how to cope with all kinds of NBC (nuclear, biological, and chemical) events. It is interesting that FM 21-76 states that no matter how good your survival kit is that you will run out of supplies eventually and have to improvise.

I have that movie. I think it is a pretty accurate portrayal of what a nuclear exchange would have been like between the Soviets and Americans. It was made in the early 80's and as such is colored by the politics of the time.

Fallout shelters ceased to be a viable option sometime during the 1960's, when the American and Soviet arsenals got so large that any nuclear exchange between the two would make large-scale survival impossible. I believe the same would be the case today. The Americans and Russians still maintain large enough stockpiles to obliterate most decent sized population centers. The last I had heard, the Chinese maintain somewhere between 30-50 functioning nukes. Whether or not they are sophisticated enough to be effectively delivered here is another matter. Either way, I think the possibility of any sort of nuclear exchange between the three countries is remote in the extreme, for obvious reasons. And I don't think any of the so-called "rogue states" (Iran, North Korea, etc.) would risk the catastrophic nuclear response that a similar attack upon us would prompt. That leaves us to deal with terrorists and their more limited capabilities.

Unlike many, I don't think terrorists are going to be necessarily limited to a "dirty bomb." That means possibly first having to deal with the initial blast and fireball. As silly as it may sound, I think maybe we need to go back to the '50's and dust off the old "duck and cover" technique. It certaintly makes a lot more sense now when dealing with an isolated nuclear detonation than it did with total nuclear war. After that, it becomes a matter of getting out of the fallout area.

Some will live who are not prepared at all, while some who have the most carefully planned equipment checklists and escape routes will die. That is just the nature of a surprise attack. But I'm thinking that if you are not killed outright, you stand a pretty good chance of making it with some preparation and maybe a little luck.

Haven't watched the movie, but I agree with your assements about the current state of affairs.

You can get an idea of what to expect(!) from the webpage below:
Google Maps Nuke Zone

This is a Google Maps hack which allows you to map out the zones of destruction from a nuclear detonation. You can adjust the yield of the bomb and place the center anywhere you'd like. Using this I was happy to discover our house/school/workplace are all far enough away from the port of Houston to escape everything but the fallout from even a giant bomb. I figured the port of Houston would be the most likely spot for Houston to be hit via a smuggled Iranian/North Korean bomb.

Overall, the zone of destruction from an atomic bomb is suprisingly small. <img src="/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

-Mark

Interesting you mention that movie. I hadn't thought of it for years when I spotted it on ebay. I'm bidding it, along with The Postman and Red Dawn.

The blast radius is small, but don't let that lull you into thinking you're fine if you're not near it; a major component of the damage done by a nuke would be the fact that it ignites all flammable (and much considered not flammable at relatively low temperatures) materials. Even a 5kt nominal yield weapon going off in lower Manhattan would set fires as far away as Brooklyn, Queens and Jersey City.

Reference: http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=jf04eden

JFBat,

Wow, that was a great article! Thank you for posting it and welcome to the group by the way.

The resulting firestorm definately increases the zone of damage. Add all the refineries and chemical plants in the area and it becomes bigger still. As I mentioned before, I would expect an attack on Houston (or any port city) to take place at the port which is about 50 miles away from me. Since the detonation would occur at ground level the overall blast zone is reduced, but I don't know by how much. The article you referenced described a 300 KT bomb exploded 1500 feet off the ground which results in fires ignited to up to about 4.6 miles from the detonation. This is a big area and the fire would undoubtably grow. But compared to the overall size of Houston, a circle nine miles across is puny. Don't get me wrong, this would suck massively! I'm just glad I'm on the opposite side of town and I make my plans accordingly.

-Mark

That is a fascinating website. It takes into account a relatively small yield device (100 KT) and a ground level burst, both of which would be emblematic of a terrorist attack. I played a bit with the numbers, and I would guess the projected casualties in my area would increase at least 100 fold if you increase the yield to 1 MT.

It's a good thing that nations typically do not resort to WMD to resolve differences, particularly thermonuclear devices. Imagine if the Russians and Americans were still eyeballing each other in the current world climate? Both countries were--and are--quite skilled at depositing thousands of MIRV'd warheads 1 mile above each others cities.

Compared to what we faced then, surviving now is a piece of cake. <img src="/images/graemlins/ooo.gif" alt="" />

That estimate fails to take into account the bulk of the structures in the way. However, you might be getting the big, spark plug sized fall out at that distance.

I checked out a similar site awhile back. I live on the north side of Chicago. If a bomb went off near Wrigley Field, I'd be toast. If one went off downtown--which seems much more likely--it would just be fire and chaos. Though evacuating would be ideal, I really don't think Chicago's prepared for anything of that scale. If the prevailing winds were typical, the fallout would end up in Lake Michigan. I'd shelter in place for a few days, defending the evac vehicle then make my way out of the city. I'm getting prepared to do it on foot, but with a wife and child and one on the way, the prospect of doing that is...daunting, to say the least.

That's an interesting movie, BTW. Probably not as likely a scenario as the smaller yield, personally delivered nuke, but who knows what the world will look like in 10, 20 years.

I belive this is absolutely correct and also something almost entirely overlooked by most people who attempt to prepare for survival situation. Whether youre trying to survive 30 days on a 9 day kit or 9 days on a 72 hour kit, knowledge is key. Learning to imporvise is paramount IMHO.

Well said.

Craig,
As a retired member of the U.S. military dealing with WOMD, there are major targets in the U.S. there are alost targeting predictions for those targets. The thing is you need to know the direction of the Normal prevailing winds. They will create a plume of contamination. In AZ they generally come from the west. If you move North or South you can remove yourself from the danger area. You still have to consider other large metropolitan areas to the west (LA or San Diego) who's plume will travel your way.

Yes you will run out out of supplies. Be sure of where you evacuate to. Is there water?, we live in the desert, is there game? and are you able to get that game?

My opinion is iodine tabs are great to prevent radiation sickness provided you don't linger in the contaminated area, and gas masks are useless. They give people a false sense of security.

Keep a decent supply of powerful antibiotics, i.e. cipro or keflex, iodine tabs, and have a plan to bug out to a safer area.

I used to live in Georgia. Sam Nunn was our senator. He has hooked up with a group that is working to secure all bomb grade nuclear material. This group has a web site and will send you a free video. This group thinks that a terrorist could smuggle a nuclear warhead into the US through Canada and transport it in an SUV to any major city they like. You might send for the free video. It is in no way an EOTWAWKI video. It is a “yell at your representatives to get them off the dime on securing nuclear material” video. It does show how easy it would be for a terrorist to nuke us. I do not think we are only in danger from a nuke in a cargo container. I now think one could be transported anywhere in the US.

Last Best Chance

I was under the false assumption that any nuclear device could be detected by a radiation meter. When I was in the US Army in Germany (early 1980s) we went in the bunker that had the nukes for the 155mm howitzers. There was no warning of any radiation danger except the usual radiation symbol on the door. In the video it shows a border guard using a radiation meter to check an SUV with a nuke and not detecting anything. He lets the SUV pass.

Hi Blast,

Your point is well-taken and understood. The main point I was making is that these toys are a bigger deal than perhaps most people like to think about. Even the smallest 5k or 10k nukes--which are described by the U.S. military as "demolition charges" that are used to take out airports or hardened command centers, not cities--will make a horrendous mess out of your day, and the day of everyone within several miles. If a 10kt nuke went off in lower Manhattan, if I were in the Bronx and facing north, I'd probably be okay (facing south, I'd likely be flash blinded for days).

Having said that , I don't make many plans for what to do if something like that goes off in NYC. Well . . . I don't make any *special* plans for it.

Just ordered the movie. Thanks for the info and link.

Actually, it is most likely that an independent nuke would be a gound burst, just becuase most people will leave it in the car with a long timer, and take a plane. The bulk of the buildings might save your eyes.

That being said, if they really wanted, with a mini nuke, put it on a hand truck and wheel it into an elevator. Not much of an airburst, but it would improve the effects of the weapon. Of course, they could be nice and leave it in a subway tunnel, but if they really wanted to be nice, why would they have a nuke?

Alright - which one of you danged jokers outbid me?!! <img src="/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

Not me !

First of all, I don't visit Ebay ;
Second, the movie I got yesterday is "Le jour d'après", but it has nothing to do with the film discussed in this thread.
The english title of "Le jour d'après" is " The day after tomorrow", about a dramatic weather change : the Ice Age in two weeks !

Back to the subject on hand : a few days ago, I heard on french radio, an interview with the author of a book (just released) about all the reasons why war between USA and China will take place in a (very) near future (real war, not economical war, already happening)
And that guy is NOT an Sci-Fi author ....
scarring ....

I will try to find an english web source on this book, to share it with you.

Here's a copy for $9.42 with free shipping. I use these guys all the time: The Day After

I only have the french book references, AFAIK there is no english translation up to now :

Author : Jean-François Susbielle
Title : Chine-USA la guerre programmée
Editing Co : Editions Générales First
ISBN : 2754001492


_______________
And this post should be in the Camp fire section... sorry.
Can you move it, Martin ? If not, just delete it.
Thanks.

frenchy,

Maybe I'm just paranoid, but I keep thinking China is taking the money it is earning from the U.S. to buy weapons to destroy us. I suspect they are thinking long term and we are thinking short term. <img src="/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" />

That's possible . . . I keep thinking China is taking the money it is earning from the U.S. to buy bigger portions of the U.S. economy. That's still long-term thinking, which lets them trounce our standard of living while keeping their new weapons trained on Taiwan, Japan etc.

oooops... my fault.
let's not start a discussion on that subject in this forum...
Let's move it to Camp Fire section.
Thanks.

I disagree from you staement about it .

"it is most likely that an independent nuke would be a gound burst".

Only because of 9/11. We already know that they are learning to fly crop dusters to spread what they want. It wouldn't take much to load one on a plane fly over NYC, DC, Miami, LA, or where ever and blow it. Just my 2 cents.

OK, my two cents. unless they got ahold of a warhead from the china or the former soviet union, it would most likely be a clunky device with highly unpredictable performance. Either way the point is terror, so they will target areas that most represent the U.S. Like they did with the world trade center. That being said, look for cities like New York, Chicago, and LA. If you live in the larger metropolitan areas you may have an immediate concern, however if not you should have time to move out. If it's your town you probably won't have time to react. If not you have to assess the situation and make your decisions accordingly.