Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are the smartest next steps if you survive the initial detonation? Shelter in your basement or try to get out of town?

Shelter in your house with as little air exchange as possible. I think you want to be on the second floor if you still have one as the fallout settles. The longer you can avoid contact with outside the better, hopefully the wind is blowing the other way that day.

Anonymous wrote:Is anyone else considering packing a ‘go bag?’

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the event of a nuclear conflict, DC is probably not high on the list of first strike cities. If DC is hit, there is no more command and control and the conflict goes from limited to full-scale global annihilation. That wouldn't be could for anyone.

A foreign power would more likely attack Colorado Springs or Omaha. Both strategic nuclear command centers. Or some place of military significance, like Bahrain and the fifth fleet combined with Hawaii to take out the Pacific fleet.

Terrorist attack? Who knows.

Yeah, they would skip right over the pencil pushers in the Pentagon.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was in DC driving during 911 and it took me all day to leave. Traffic had to be the worst I've ever seen. Everyone was leaving.

The government dismissed workers all at the same time so that they wouldn't be stationary targets in a building. Only the best and brightest leading us forward.

Anonymous wrote:I was in DC driving during 911 and it took me all day to leave. Traffic had to be the worst I've ever seen. Everyone was leaving.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Read Nuclear War: A Scenario by Annie Jacobsen

This is the exact scenario of this book

I read it. Great book, well worth the read. Two things that stood out to me: How the decision to use a nuclear weapon is the President’s decision. Not Congress. Not the Secretary of Defense, although that person will probably be asked to weigh in. It is up to one person, whether it’s the middle of the night or any unexpected random time. And he has maybe ten minutes to decide whether to retaliate.

The other thing that stood out to me was how short a period of time you can track where the missile is headed. Parts of it drop off after the first 20 or so minutes. You can’t KNOW which country it is headed toward. And you can’t even be sure it’s not a technical error, causing you to think this is a nuclear missile streaking across the sky, but it wasn’t. So you try to contact the Russians or the NK or the Iranians, to confirm or to explain you think, say, Germany is firing a missile toward the US, so if YOU see one headed your way, it’s actually targeting Germany, not to worry Russia, we’re not aiming at you….

It’s a book that has stayed with me for many insights.

Oh god- we’re so fkd with who we have in office now

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I actually looked into this at one point. I think our idea of the huge bomb from WW2 is what is stuck in our head. But nuclear weapons have changed. A dirty bomb is much more likely, that only instantly effects a small area. But the lasting radiation will do WAY MORE DAMAGE, especially because we are all stupid. If you stay inside for 48 hours (hard to do if you are sheltering in your workplace) you have a much higher change of survival. But if you go outside, deadly radiation will ensure a painful death over the course of some time. Then the radiation lingers of course, and will cause many more slower deaths afterwards as people wander outside.

So it does depend on the half life of whatever is used.

I remember reading some DC preparedness document and being kind of upset I might not be killed in the initial blast.

The WWII bombs were anything BUT “huge”. They were incredibly small in terms of yield.

Most strategic nuclear warheads today are in the 300-500 kiloton range - making them 20 to 50 times more powerful than the WWII bombs.

And this level of power is actually far smaller than previous generations of early/mid Cold War weapons, which had yields in the megatons, instead of kilotons. But as missiles and other delivery systems became more accurate, the size of the warheads was down-sized for better efficiency. No need for a 30 megaton aircraft-deployed bomb when a 300 kiloton missile-delivered weapon is more accurate.

Why are you contradicting experts?

Because I’m an expert on nuclear weapons. Ours mostly, obviously. Specifically, I used to work for a government contractor that dismantled our older weapons and recovered various materials for refurbishment and re-use. That’s really about all I can say about it.

I have relatives who live near that place! Hotter than hell in summer, colder than a well diggers.... in the winter. They love it.

Yep, that’s the place. And the wind.. never. stops. blowing.

I wasn’t a fan of living there, and wasn’t sad to leave.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I actually looked into this at one point. I think our idea of the huge bomb from WW2 is what is stuck in our head. But nuclear weapons have changed. A dirty bomb is much more likely, that only instantly effects a small area. But the lasting radiation will do WAY MORE DAMAGE, especially because we are all stupid. If you stay inside for 48 hours (hard to do if you are sheltering in your workplace) you have a much higher change of survival. But if you go outside, deadly radiation will ensure a painful death over the course of some time. Then the radiation lingers of course, and will cause many more slower deaths afterwards as people wander outside.

So it does depend on the half life of whatever is used.

I remember reading some DC preparedness document and being kind of upset I might not be killed in the initial blast.

The WWII bombs were anything BUT “huge”. They were incredibly small in terms of yield.

Most strategic nuclear warheads today are in the 300-500 kiloton range - making them 20 to 50 times more powerful than the WWII bombs.

And this level of power is actually far smaller than previous generations of early/mid Cold War weapons, which had yields in the megatons, instead of kilotons. But as missiles and other delivery systems became more accurate, the size of the warheads was down-sized for better efficiency. No need for a 30 megaton aircraft-deployed bomb when a 300 kiloton missile-delivered weapon is more accurate.

Why are you contradicting experts?

Because I’m an expert on nuclear weapons. Ours mostly, obviously. Specifically, I used to work for a government contractor that dismantled our older weapons and recovered various materials for refurbishment and re-use. That’s really about all I can say about it.

I have relatives who live near that place! Hotter than hell in summer, colder than a well diggers.... in the winter. They love it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The head of NATO warns that a 'massive' buildup of China military raises the risk of an invasion of Taiwan. He added that if China moved on Taiwan, there’s a possibility that Beijing would draw in Putin as well. What will Dump do if that happens? 😬

Not only are sleeper cells going to be here so will Russi boots on ground. Trumps handler in the WH says so maga cult of stupidity

LMAO! Boomers and their Red Dawn fantasies.

I think there is a distinct possibility that Trump would call in Putin to send “peacekeeping” forces into American territory to put down protests that he doesn’t like.