What to do in case of nuclear attack in DC

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In Virginia you need to be west of Winchester to not be evaporated or in an unsurvivable amount of radiation band.

South of dc gets the quantico and Norfolk impacts so that would be a bad area too.

Maryland is harder to figure out because ft Meade and nsa could have 10 weapons hit there but there which would make the state uninhabitable.

Doesn’t that depend on wind direction?

Not for DC area. The nukes have to be at ground level to hit the data centers and protected areas. So their radiation zones are smaller but much more intense wind will have minimal impact as Russia has no less than 300-400 for dc, va and other mid Atlantic areas.

3-4 nukes air burst over Manhattan will do the trick, but dc area gets a lot more ground impact and unsurvivable radiation. Intel and DOD are target #1 and they will make sure they do not miss.

Yeah, unfortunately Russia pivoted from the nuclear holocaust blanket approach of the 80’s to focus on communication hubs.

DC region is ground zero for commercial and military comms. US started decentralizing after 9/11 but Russia will pound it just in case.


Are we *sure* that Russian nukes a) work b) would hit with any accuracy? I mean, just based on their invasion of Ukraine, they don't seem to have the logistics working very well....?

The million life question.

There is a very low probability that their nuclear capacity is worst case 100% operational.

Best case missile defense for the US is not 100% against their 100% that actually launch.

Even in a best case “win” for America dc gets pummeled; unless we launch first and take out all command and control and they freeze up.

[Anonymous]

This thread is morbidly hysterical

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Other cities, if bombed, would likely get an air burst detonation to maximize casualties, which means a wider damage radius, but lower fallout. The bombs dropped on DC and the Pentagon will be ground burst, because their job is to disrupt military command and control networks. That means a smaller blast radius but much, much worse fallout. Depending on prevailing winds, you'd be looking at a 10-50 mile plume of fallout deposition where no one would be able to leave their homes for 3-4 weeks or else they'd receive a lethal dose of radiation. That area would not be inhabitable again in our lifetimes. It'd be like the Chernobyl exclusion zone.

Personally, and I say this with all seriousness, if one nuke goes off in Europe, I'm getting on the next flight to Argentina, because the Northern Hemisphere is going to be in for some rough times, and huge swaths of it would become uninhabitable.

Agree with what you said except this. In those 3-4 weeks or maybe less the ground will be fine. Some stuff like metal and iron may be a problem but wood and the ground should be fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:lmao.

why would you WANT to live?

Even if you lived, the rest of the country (and planet) would turn into a radioactive waste land. There would be no potable water anywhere not contaminated with radiation. Even if you did manage somehow to find water, you'd have to fight people to death for any remaining food.

This is of course you can even survive and not magically get radiation poisoning. Trust me, you'd much rather die in the initial blast than from radiation poisoning. If the US ever got nuked, it wouldn't make sense for the attacker to ONLY launch one or two nukes directed at say NYC and DC. You'd have to try to cripple the US so that we couldn't retaliate. That means launching 10, 20, 30, 40+ nukes to cover the entire land area of the US in order to try to decapitate leadership. They'd also set off nukes high up to trigger an EMP that'd wipe out the power grid. There'd be no where to hide from nuclear winter and deadly fall out.

Just die.

Yep agreed. If it happens, I hope to die with the impact because I can’t imagine the chaos after.

\


Yeah this is just not true. The whole nuclear winter thing is wrong. Lost of people dead but some will make it and life goes on. The idea of a waste land is just wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh man either on this thread or another someone mentioned Ready.gov updated in late February. Well folks, they updated again March 3rd, 2022.

https://www.ready.gov/nuclear-explosion

It looks like they updated it to remove the social distancing and masking advice for fallout shelters. So, you know, glad they are up to date on the latest CDC directives!

I dunno, this just doesn’t ring true: “ Nuclear explosions can cause significant damage and casualties from blast, heat, and radiation but you can keep your family safe by knowing what to do and being prepared if it occurs.”

Did the CDC say this? They couldn’t even figure out a viral pandemic and switched tactics 399 times, I am not trusting them in nuclear winter fallout. Take me now, I am not sticking around for that mess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:lmao.

why would you WANT to live?

Even if you lived, the rest of the country (and planet) would turn into a radioactive waste land. There would be no potable water anywhere not contaminated with radiation. Even if you did manage somehow to find water, you'd have to fight people to death for any remaining food.

This is of course you can even survive and not magically get radiation poisoning. Trust me, you'd much rather die in the initial blast than from radiation poisoning. If the US ever got nuked, it wouldn't make sense for the attacker to ONLY launch one or two nukes directed at say NYC and DC. You'd have to try to cripple the US so that we couldn't retaliate. That means launching 10, 20, 30, 40+ nukes to cover the entire land area of the US in order to try to decapitate leadership. They'd also set off nukes high up to trigger an EMP that'd wipe out the power grid. There'd be no where to hide from nuclear winter and deadly fall out.

Just die.

Yep agreed. If it happens, I hope to die with the impact because I can’t imagine the chaos after.

\


Yeah this is just not true. The whole nuclear winter thing is wrong. Lost of people dead but some will make it and life goes on. The idea of a waste land is just wrong.

Based on what?

Scientists still say it is:
https://www.cpr.org/2020/01/09/a-colorado-professor-is-warning-the-world-of-nuclear-winter-again/

[Anonymous]