How to Survive Nuclear Fall Out

[The Liturgist]

By the way, I think the best thing we can do to prep for this scenario is through fervent prayer for peace, and the protection and deliverance of all humanity from this existential threat. And I think this is a prayer all Christians everywhere can join in.

 

[Aldebaran]

Honestly.
Why would you want to survive the armageddon?

If you survived the initial blasts, or weren't in the area of where the bombs went off, you'd have to deal with economic collapse, food shortages, possibly no power or heat, huge crime waves of desperate people, and a general collapse of civilization.

With that in mind after surviving the initial bombings, surviving the rest of it is for the same reason people do what they can to survive now. It's human instinct.

 

[RDKirk]

It may start in Europe, but it won't end there. Biden keeps saying that there will be "catastrophic consequences" if Putin uses even 1 nuke. What do you think that means? I'm sure he's been asked, and then was contradicted by his handlers, but I think it's obvious what would happen:

Russia sets off a tactical nuke over a city in Ukraine--maybe one now claimed by Russia.

A NATO country then sets one off over Moscow to show Putin that "we mean business"!

Russia then begins strikes against NATO countries (now that WW3 has begun), beginning with the one that Putin believes hit Moscow.

And the rest of the dominoes begin to fall.....

Don't forget that Russia and the USA aren't the only players. North Korea seems to be revving up their nuclear capability. Under Trump, they could barely get a missile off the ground. Under biden, they're able to reach the USA. Then there's Iran who biden wants to make nuclear deals with.

There would not be a retaliatory strike by NATO in response to Russian use of tactical nukes in Ukraine.

That's not going to happen,

 

[Aldebaran]

There would not be a retaliatory strike by NATO in response to Russian use of tactical nukes in Ukraine.

That's not going to happen,

Then what would be a "catastrophic consequence" (as biden put it)? Calling him a terrorist or war criminal? Seizing more of his yachts? Giving another billion dollars to Ukraine?
The only catastrophic thing biden can do anymore is make a speech. It'll have the WH staff scrambling to walk back anything he says.

 

[RDKirk]

Then what would be a "catastrophic consequence" (as biden put it)? Calling him a terrorist or war criminal? Seizing more of his yachts? Giving another billion dollars to Ukraine?
The only catastrophic thing biden can do anymore is make a speech. It'll have the WH staff scrambling to walk back anything he says.

Russia would surely lose a significant amount of moral and trading partner support that it's currently getting. The country would become a pariah that could only be cleansed by removing Putin.

 

[FreeinChrist]

Advisor Hat

Folks, this is Christian Preppers and not the place to debate politics.

Stick to prepping. ​

 

[Samsun]

Here's an article with some ideas: Herbs for Radiation Protection, Repair and Remediation (Lew Rockwell article).

 

[The Liturgist]

Here's an article with some ideas: Herbs for Radiation Protection, Repair and Remediation (Lew Rockwell article).

In a localized incident those might be of some benefit, perhaps by facilitating cell apoptosis, wherein cells with damaged DNA will die rather than replicate (causing cancer).

Unfortunately in the event of global thermonuclear war those are unlikely to make a difference, because acute radiation poisoning is something altogether deadlier.

 

[RDKirk]

There are a lot of stages between throwing a few nukes (which has been done before) and an all-out-everybody-who-has-nukes free-for-all global nuclear war. If two or three tactical nukes are detonated without any nation totally panicking, but taking a moment to wait and see, the war is likely to stop. That will happen if nothing is ever seen coming over an ocean in any direction. Nobody is completely crazy, and a lot of people in those chains of command want to live.

Remember the world went through a couple of decades of hundreds (maybe thousands) of nuclear tests in the ocean, on land, and even in space. So, nuclear detonations 'way over thataway, even a number of them, don't spell the end of the world over here.

Whatever exchanges occur, moreover, will be in the Northern Hemisphere, and the deadliest radiation decays quite rapidly.

When we were working out the plans for national "enduring deterrence" and putting those plans into place, we figured that a distance of 250 miles from the nearest detonation and 60 days of food and water (which actually requires quite a surprising lot of water when you include necessary washing and sewage...not so much food) with some very careful sanitation makes survival very, very probably.

Then the best long-term bet is getting down to South America as quickly as possible.

 

[Aldebaran]

There are a lot of stages between throwing a few nukes (which has been done before) and an all-out-everybody-who-has-nukes free-for-all global nuclear war. If two or three tactical nukes are detonated without any nation totally panicking, but taking a moment to wait and see, the war is likely to stop. That will happen if nothing is ever seen coming over an ocean in any direction. Nobody is completely crazy, and a lot of people in those chains of command want to live.

Most of them will live since those in chains of command would be the ones who know what's going on and would be in military underground bunkers when the detonations happen.

Remember the world went through a couple of decades of hundreds (maybe thousands) of nuclear tests in the ocean, on land, and even in space. So, nuclear detonations 'way over thataway, even a number of them, don't spell the end of the world over here.

No, not when they're done in a carefully controlled way to minimize damage. Compare that to the one detonated over Hiroshima, which was only a 15 kt bomb. That's on the lower side of what's called "tactical" now, and it flattened the city and killed between 70,000 - 135,000. Tactical is now defined up to 50 kt.

Whatever exchanges occur, moreover, will be in the Northern Hemisphere, and the deadliest radiation decays quite rapidly.

That's little comfort to me since that's where I am.

When we were working out the plans for national "enduring deterrence" and putting those plans into place, we figured that a distance of 250 miles from the nearest detonation and 60 days of food and water (which actually requires quite a surprising lot of water when you include necessary washing and sewage...not so much food) with some very careful sanitation makes survival very, very probably.

Then the best long-term bet is getting down to South America as quickly as possible.

I doubt travel will be easy once the bombs start going off.

 

[The Liturgist]

There are a lot of stages between throwing a few nukes (which has been done before) and an all-out-everybody-who-has-nukes free-for-all global nuclear war. If two or three tactical nukes are detonated without any nation totally panicking, but taking a moment to wait and see, the war is likely to stop. That will happen if nothing is ever seen coming over an ocean in any direction. Nobody is completely crazy, and a lot of people in those chains of command want to live.

Remember the world went through a couple of decades of hundreds (maybe thousands) of nuclear tests in the ocean, on land, and even in space. So, nuclear detonations 'way over thataway, even a number of them, don't spell the end of the world over here.

Whatever exchanges occur, moreover, will be in the Northern Hemisphere, and the deadliest radiation decays quite rapidly.

When we were working out the plans for national "enduring deterrence" and putting those plans into place, we figured that a distance of 250 miles from the nearest detonation and 60 days of food and water (which actually requires quite a surprising lot of water when you include necessary washing and sewage...not so much food) with some very careful sanitation makes survival very, very probably.

Then the best long-term bet is getting down to South America as quickly as possible.

Indeed. By the way your post reminds me, in a good way, of Hermann Kahn’s classic texts on nuclear strategy such as Thinking About the Unthinkable. Kahn proposed a 16-step, later increased to 44-step, Ladder of Nuclear Escalation, which outlines the probable phases of a nuclear war, which I think it is helpful to reflect on. Distressingly in the past year we have moved from the first rung to at least the seventh rung on this ladder.

1. Ostensible Crisis
2. Political, Economic and Diplomatic Gestures
3. Solemn and Formal Declarations
4. Hardening of Positions – Confrontation of Wills
5. Show of Force
6. Significant Mobilization
7. "Legal" Harassment – Retortions
8. Harassing Acts of Violence
9. Dramatic Military Confrontations
10. Provocative Breaking off of Diplomatic Relations
11. Super-Ready Status
12. Large Conventional War (or Actions)
13. Large Compound Escalation
14. Declaration of Limited Conventional War
15. Barely Nuclear War
16. Nuclear "Ultimatums"
17. Limited Evacuations (20%)
18. Spectacular Show or Demonstration of Force
19. "Justifiable" Counterforce Attack
20. "Peaceful" World-Wide Embargo or Blockade
21. Local Nuclear War – Exemplary
22. Declaration of Limited Nuclear War
23. Local Nuclear War – Military
24. Unusual, Provocative and Significant Countermeasures
25. Evacuation (70%)
26. Demonstration Attack on Zone of Interior
27. Exemplary Attack on Military
28. Exemplary Attacks Against Property
29. Exemplary Attacks on Population
30. Complete Evacuation (95%)
31. Reciprocal Reprisals
32. Formal Declaration of "General" War
33. Slow-Motion Counter-"Property" War
34. Slow-Motion Counterforce War
35. Constrained Force-Reduction Salvo
36. Constrained Disarming Attack
37. Counterforce-with-Avoidance Attack
38. Unmodified Counterforce Attack
39. Slow-Motion Countercity war
40. Countervalue Salvo
41. Augmented Disarming Attack
42. Civilian Devastation Attack
43. Controlled General War
44. Spasm/Insensate War

 

[RDKirk]

Most of them will live since those in chains of command would be the ones who know what's going on and would be in military underground bunkers when the detonations happen.

Nobody in uniform is counting on surviving in a bunker. No bunker is rated to survive a direct nuclear strike, and all the command and control bunkers are amply targeted on both sides. Moreover, our loved ones are also at those same targets...the people who, in our hearts, we are committed to protect.

Basically, those in the nuclear forces are more aware than anyone that a total nuclear exchange is a "lose" for what we hope to protect. Why do you think in the past that even Soviet nuclear troops more than once did a "Wait, is this real?" double-take back in the Cold War?

A total nuclear exchange is far, far less likely now that it was in the 80s, even if the likelihood of one or two tactical uses is more likely.

 

[Aldebaran]

Nobody in uniform is counting on surviving in a bunker. No bunker is rated to survive a direct nuclear strike, and all the command and control bunkers are amply targeted on both sides. Moreover, our loved ones are also at those same targets...the people who, in our hearts, we are committed to protect.

Basically, those in the nuclear forces are more aware than anyone that a total nuclear exchange is a "lose" for what we hope to protect. Why do you think in the past that even Soviet nuclear troops more than once did a "Wait, is this real?" double-take back in the Cold War?

A total nuclear exchange is far, far less likely now that it was in the 80s, even if the likelihood of one or two tactical uses is more likely.

I hope you're right, but once those one or two tacticals are used, I hope it doesn't become easier to use more. After all, if a couple tacticals prove to not end the world, why not do a third, and a fourth? There's nothing like real-world use to learn the actual effects of their use. Until now, it's all been computer simulations and theories.

You mentioned those in the nuclear forces, but you left out those at the very top who seem to think that they are somehow immune to the effects of war since they aren't the actual "troops on the ground", and are used to getting what they want, and being relatively immune to consequences. Those at the top in NK, China, Russia, and yes, even the USA.

 

[RDKirk]

I hope you're right, but once those one or two tacticals are used, I hope it doesn't become easier to use more. After all, if a couple tacticals prove to not end the world, why not do a third, and a fourth? There's nothing like real-world use to learn the actual effects of their use. Until now, it's all been computer simulations and theories.

You mentioned those in the nuclear forces, but you left out those at the very top who seem to think that they are somehow immune to the effects of war since they aren't the actual "troops on the ground", and are used to getting what they want, and being relatively immune to consequences. Those at the top in NK, China, Russia, and yes, even the USA.

You seem to think that after the first explosion they're going to think, "Gee, whiz, that was keen! Let's do it again!"

Nope.

I've always been amazed at how giddy some civilians get about war.

 

[The Liturgist]

You seem to think that after the first explosion they're going to think, "Gee, whiz, that was keen! Let's do it again!"

To be fair, someone not fully informed about the important reasons and careful (if not always successful) safety calculations for each of the nuclear test shots in the 40s-60s might think the weapons researchers had such a Dr. Strangelove mentality.

 

[RDKirk]

To be fair, someone not fully informed about the important reasons and careful (if not always successful) safety calculations for each of the nuclear test shots in the 40s-60s might think the weapons researchers had such a Dr. Strangelove mentality.

To be equally fair, nuclear targeting is also done for important reasons with careful application--and safety--calculations.

This is particularly true for tactical use of nuclear weapons, because the point of existence of tactical nuclear weapons is the ability to use them in a way to prevent a larger nuclear conflagration.

There would be no point to tactical nukes if the expectation were that the use of them would immediately lead to a general worldwide nuclear exchange. A tactical nuke would be used only if the surrounding political situation provided a reasonable expectation is that it would stay at the tactical level.

 

[Aldebaran]

You seem to think that after the first explosion they're going to think, "Gee, whiz, that was keen! Let's do it again!"

Nope.

I've always been amazed at how giddy some civilians get about war.

First, you should look up what "giddy" means, as it doesn't fit with anything I said.
Do you not believe that if a NATO country is hit with a military strike of any kind by Russia, we would not respond in kind? Then why not if it was a nuclear strike?

 

[Aldebaran]

To be equally fair, nuclear targeting is also done for important reasons with careful application--and safety--calculations.

This is particularly true for tactical use of nuclear weapons, because the point of existence of tactical nuclear weapons is the ability to use them in a way to prevent a larger nuclear conflagration.

There would be no point to tactical nukes if the expectation were that the use of them would immediately lead to a general worldwide nuclear exchange. A tactical nuke would be used only if the surrounding political situation provided a reasonable expectation is that it would stay at the tactical level.

You talk as though you think it would be no big deal if countries start launching tactical nuclear weapons at each other. Don't you remember what happened when a tactical grade nuke was used against Hiroshima? Around 100,000 people were killed, and the entire city was incinerated. That was with a nuke that would be on the low end of the tactical scale.
Imagine one like that going off in New York. I think it would be a big deal.

 

[RDKirk]

First, you should look up what "giddy" means, as it doesn't fit with anything I said.

You do seem giddy over the idea of a nuclear exchange.

Do you not believe that if a NATO country is hit with a military strike of any kind by Russia, we would not respond in kind? Then why not if it was a nuclear strike?

I don't think the chance of a Russian nuclear strike of a NATO nation is very likely. But even then, the response might not be a nuclear retaliation. This is not a game.

The response, if military, could be the conventional destruction of Russia's Black Sea fleet...which NATO can accomplish with conventional weapons in just a few hours.

But it need not even be military...there is a lot that can be done through economic retaliation against nations that continue to work with Russia...if they're still willing after Russia's first use of nuclear weapons. Every nation would suddenly have a stake in squelching that salient.

What does this have to do with prepping? Nobody can prepare for the "worst-case scenario." We can prepare for the "most-likely bad scenario," and that's what the prep discussion should be about. A general nuclear exchange will be resisted at all levels by all governments, including the first one to use tactical nukes.

 

[Greengardener]

Indeed. By the way your post reminds me, in a good way, of Hermann Kahn’s classic texts on nuclear strategy such as Thinking About the Unthinkable. Kahn proposed a 16-step, later increased to 44-step, Ladder of Nuclear Escalation, which outlines the probable phases of a nuclear war, which I think it is helpful to reflect on. Distressingly in the past year we have moved from the first rung to at least the seventh rung on this ladder.

1. Ostensible Crisis
2. Political, Economic and Diplomatic Gestures
3. Solemn and Formal Declarations
4. Hardening of Positions – Confrontation of Wills
5. Show of Force
6. Significant Mobilization
7. "Legal" Harassment – Retortions
8. Harassing Acts of Violence
9. Dramatic Military Confrontations
10. Provocative Breaking off of Diplomatic Relations
11. Super-Ready Status
12. Large Conventional War (or Actions)
13. Large Compound Escalation
14. Declaration of Limited Conventional War
15. Barely Nuclear War
16. Nuclear "Ultimatums"
17. Limited Evacuations (20%)
18. Spectacular Show or Demonstration of Force
19. "Justifiable" Counterforce Attack
20. "Peaceful" World-Wide Embargo or Blockade
21. Local Nuclear War – Exemplary
22. Declaration of Limited Nuclear War
23. Local Nuclear War – Military
24. Unusual, Provocative and Significant Countermeasures
25. Evacuation (70%)
26. Demonstration Attack on Zone of Interior
27. Exemplary Attack on Military
28. Exemplary Attacks Against Property
29. Exemplary Attacks on Population
30. Complete Evacuation (95%)
31. Reciprocal Reprisals
32. Formal Declaration of "General" War
33. Slow-Motion Counter-"Property" War
34. Slow-Motion Counterforce War
35. Constrained Force-Reduction Salvo
36. Constrained Disarming Attack
37. Counterforce-with-Avoidance Attack
38. Unmodified Counterforce Attack
39. Slow-Motion Countercity war
40. Countervalue Salvo
41. Augmented Disarming Attack
42. Civilian Devastation Attack
43. Controlled General War
44. Spasm/Insensate War

That's a complicated dance, you reckon? I'd rather just two-step it. Wouldn't that be better? (Don't I wish...)