Forward to the past: Fallout preps are a thing again

[Naperville]

EDITED: Not "plant's" but "planet's."

If it came off that way, I did not intend to paint a rosy picture above.

I'm of the belief that 80% of the [planet's] life will be wiped out within 2 years if a major nuclear war happens. There are dozens of totally FREE papers by Dr Peter Pry on what will happen when a major nuclear war happens. Nobody listens.

https://www.google.com/search?q=dr+pete ... +pry+books

[Ankerson]

If it came off that way, I did not intend to paint a rosy picture above.

I'm of the belief that 80% of the plant's life will be wiped out within 2 years if a major nuclear war happens. There are dozens of totally FREE papers by Dr Peter Pry on what will happen when a major nuclear war happens. Nobody listens.

https://www.google.com/search?q=dr+pete ... +pry+books

I think some life will survive, however all humans will be gone.

[James Y]

I have no dog in this fight.

I'd like to mention that MANY Americans could barely handle the isolation and inconveniences of the Covid lockdown. Unfortunately, some became so emotionally depressed from that short amount of isolation, they chose to "not be here anymore."

Now imagine that multiplied by more than a thousand-fold. Maybe even a million-fold. Even if you survived a series of world-changing nuclear blasts. Even if the entire civilized world wasn't destroyed, the world's entire infrastructure would be down. Manufacturing, shipping, delivery, the entire supply chain. Money. People panicked and complained about the toilet paper supplies during the C era. Now think of WAY worse than that, only for everything. Food, power, transportation, clean water supplies. Including medical care and medications for those who need it now, and for those who WILL be needing it.

Even a single disastrous strike, somewhere hundreds or thousands of miles away, is going to have a global effect.

Jim

[Bolster]

EDITED: Not "plant's" but "planet's."

If it came off that way, I did not intend to paint a rosy picture above.

I'm of the belief that 80% of the [planet's] life will be wiped out within 2 years if a major nuclear war happens. There are dozens of totally FREE papers by Dr Peter Pry on what will happen when a major nuclear war happens. Nobody listens.

https://www.google.com/search?q=dr+pete ... +pry+books

Thanks for the reference. I was able to find many free PDFs by searching "peter vincent pry pdf"

Agree that "nobody listens." People don't want to hear it, so you're a "kook" if you do.

[TkoK83Spy]

All I have to say is if something is going to take me, my family, humanity...please make it quick and painless. Nothing we can do about it, I honestly wouldn't care to live in a world where I only survived because I had prepped and most others are dead because they didn't. No thanks to that kind of remaining quality of life of terrible air quality, loss of food, drinkable water and whatever else.

Bad enough the oceans are engulfing our land and everyone will be moving inward, creating all sorts of chaos. Definitely bound to happen in the years to come.

[Naperville]

I have no dog in this fight.

I'd like to mention that MANY Americans could barely handle the isolation and inconveniences of the Covid lockdown. Unfortunately, some became so emotionally depressed from that short amount of isolation, they chose to "not be here anymore."

Now imagine that multiplied by more than a thousand-fold. Maybe even a million-fold. Even if you survived a series of world-changing nuclear blasts. Even if the entire civilized world wasn't destroyed, the world's entire infrastructure would be down. Manufacturing, shipping, delivery, the entire supply chain. Money. People panicked and complained about the toilet paper supplies during the C era. Now think of WAY worse than that, only for everything. Food, power, transportation, clean water supplies. Including medical care and medications for those who need it now, and for those who WILL be needing it.

Even a single disastrous strike, somewhere hundreds or thousands of miles away, is going to have a global effect.

Jim

You hit the nail on the head.

Dr Peter Vincent Pry worked on the US Government's EMP Commission and he said that almost the entire population of the USA would be wiped out within 1 to 2 years due to lack of utilities (gasoline, natural gas, electricity, ....) and transportation. I keep 1 to 2 years worth of medications here at home, but that isn't enough to keep me alive in something like a nuclear war, I do it in case there is a trade war.

In a global nuclear war it is likely the most likely to survive for a while live around the equatorial zone and do not have modern amenities to lose. Just guessing since this has never happened, but as Ankerson said, the Earth would plunge into a freeze due to the dust stirred up, which blocks photosynthesis (plants and animals die rapidly, then humans).

A good book series on an EMP attack is "One Second After" by Forstchen.

[Ankerson]

I have no dog in this fight.

I'd like to mention that MANY Americans could barely handle the isolation and inconveniences of the Covid lockdown. Unfortunately, some became so emotionally depressed from that short amount of isolation, they chose to "not be here anymore."

Now imagine that multiplied by more than a thousand-fold. Maybe even a million-fold. Even if you survived a series of world-changing nuclear blasts. Even if the entire civilized world wasn't destroyed, the world's entire infrastructure would be down. Manufacturing, shipping, delivery, the entire supply chain. Money. People panicked and complained about the toilet paper supplies during the C era. Now think of WAY worse than that, only for everything. Food, power, transportation, clean water supplies. Including medical care and medications for those who need it now, and for those who WILL be needing it.

Even a single disastrous strike, somewhere hundreds or thousands of miles away, is going to have a global effect.

Jim

You hit the nail on the head.

Dr Peter Vincent Pry worked on the US Government's EMP Commission and he said that almost the entire population of the USA would be wiped out within 1 to 2 years due to lack of utilities (gasoline, natural gas, electricity, ....) and transportation. I keep 1 to 2 years worth of medications here at home, but that isn't enough to keep me alive in something like a nuclear war, I do it in case there is a trade war.

In a global nuclear war it is likely the most likely to survive for a while live around the equatorial zone and do not have modern amenities to lose. Just guessing since this has never happened, but as Ankerson said, the Earth would plunge into a freeze due to the dust stirred up, which blocks photosynthesis (plants and animals die rapidly, then humans).

A good book series on an EMP attack is "One Second After" by Forstchen.

While there would be a mass extinction I do believe there might be a VERY SMALL percentage of humans that just might make it. Kinda like there were some animals that made it through the Comet strike that wiped out the Dinosaurs.

What good that would do for humans is anyone's guess and if their DNA has been damaged then well you get the picture.

It's coming eventually, Nuclear War, Super Volcano, Comet Strike, or something else if humans make it that far into the future. It's all a matter of time really.

[The Mastiff]

According to many experts the nuclear winter issue was exaggerated much like "climate change' is now for political purposes. That was at a time when the one side had 37 thousand and the other 35 thousand warheads. We are at the 3 thousand warhead total number of warheads here in the USA and Russia is somewhere close to that. Not enough to threaten the world with anything. China is around 500 warheads last I read.

Say we ( the USA ) attacked with 500 mostly airburst detonations and then had the after fires to deal with I suggest the effects would be similar to the Iceland eruption that grounded the transatlantic flights and much of the inter European traffic a few years ago and maybe a bit worse. That would be a major war ( especially after the other country responded with a similar attack) which would be pretty catastrophic but nothing near humanity ending much less a threat to all life on earth.

Russia would likely keep a huge reserve back to deal with PRC, the true threat. In fact if it felt it couldn't survive intact it would let fly against the PRC and some European cities . The USA wasn't above thinking like that either in the bad old days and targets in the Southern hemisphere and Asia would have gone to effect the future balance of power.

If today the worst happened it would not affect the climate any where close to as badly as the Yellowstone Super eruption would.

If an EMP attack ( only) came today we would be back close to full production in a year. There would be no return to the 1800's on a permanent basis. Maybe longer in some areas than a bad hurricane does now but nothing like it has been exaggerated into. We have known about EMP since the 1950's and most government and virtually all military communication is EMP proof . EMP wouldn't come by itself though. Why would anyone send one nuke to attack a country that would respond with a nuclear attack? Terrorists? No way. That is beyond the reach of them tech wise.

[Bolster]

According to many experts the nuclear winter issue was exaggerated much like "climate change' is now for political purposes...

From what I've read, your analysis aligns with informed sources I've encountered. However there appears to be a great desire among people (or at least Americans) to believe that nuclear war is "unsurvivable" and "the end." I can't help but think of Frank Kermode's book, "Sense of an Ending," where he notes that people have a psychological desire for big, dramatic "end of time" narratives because an ending makes life in the middle, more meaningful. There's a very long list of generations throughout history who were convinced they were the last generation--apocalyptic thought is nothing new. Of course it's possible that the end of time for humanity is near; certainly nuclear bombs make it more possible...but it's not very likely. So that puts me in the contradictory category of: "prepare for it, even though the probabilities are low."

[ChrisinHove]

I’ve always been more worried about the mindset that a nuclear war is winnable than by the mindset that one could be survivable, tbh.

I think most of the variables to surviving are largely outside of one’s control, except perhaps migration.

Did anyone else read /see Nevil Shute’s “On The Beach”?

[Bolster]

I think most of the variables to surviving are largely outside of one’s control, except perhaps migration.

Depending on one's location, that's a valid point, but it's pretty much the opposite conclusion you would get from reading Kearny, whose book has been linked several times in this thread. He remarks that the Russian people are (or were) well prepared with sturdy underground bunkers aplenty. Two weeks of sheltering and life starts up again.

In the West, we have been told endlessly by entertainment sources and activists that preparation is futile, perhaps suspect, probably crazy. If you move away from the popular narratives, however, nuclear war looks more survivable for many people, with preparation ...still bad of course ...but survivable.

I feel sorry for the folks whose preparation is "I will die quickly and it will be over." If you live in the middle of a large city, that might work. But outside the fireball, no, radiation poisoning is neither quick nor painless. In that case, 24" of earth is your friend.

I think people may exaggerate the consequences of nuke blasts in part to justify not engaging in any preparation at all. Admittedly it's a tough call. Why prep for something that may never happen. Digging a bunker would cost dollars that could be spent on Taylor Swift tickets instead!

[The Mastiff]

From what I've read, your analysis aligns with informed sources I've encountered. However there appears to be a great desire among people (or at least Americans) to believe that nuclear war is "unsurvivable" and "the end." I can't help but think of Frank Kermode's book, "Sense of an Ending," where he notes that people have a psychological desire for big, dramatic "end of time" narratives because an ending makes life in the middle, more meaningful. There's a very long list of generations throughout history who were convinced they were the last generation--apocalyptic thought is nothing new. Of course it's possible that the end of time for humanity is near; certainly nuclear bombs make it more possible...but it's not very likely. So that puts me in the contradictory category of: "prepare for it, even though the probabilities are low."

I've studied threats to the world for around 45 years beginning with Civil defense stuff from the 60's. My Father was a volunteer and had all the literature from the government including "Effects of nuclear war " with the plastic wheel in an envelope in back. I still have all those books. I ended up being the NBC instructor in my unit in Germany where we took all NBC stuff seriously.

I had a friend for years that was a retired Dr Strangelove type "targateer" for the US Government and he showed us how and what things were targeted and what size and altitude etc. He had some anecdotes that could only come from someone who was used to contemplating effects in Megadeaths. :) All he discussed was legal and not classified naturally . I recall him talking about the governments plans on allocating resources after that kind of disaster. It was very grim and I'm not getting into the details of that. It's best to not wait for the government to save and feed you is the best way to think about it yet it wouldn't be in your best interests to be a known hoarder either because you become a high priority target and not only to bandits. That's all for now. There are libraries worth of reading materials on this as well as most any other possible threats. So much so that a lot of it is repetitive and not worth the time. Stuff from the A.E.C. is always good and they give a lot of it free.

:)

[ChrisinHove]

I’m fascinated by everyone’s perspective, and wouldn’t dissuade anyone from doing what they think appropriate.

Kearney’s book is interesting, for sure, but too often it refers to orthodox views being discredited without references, for me to be entirely convinced.

On the other hand, google “the effects of nuclear war” and many grim articles are by disarmament organisations. I’ve been quite happy living my entire life protected by our own deterrent, thank you.

I wouldn’t take much note of the Soviets civilian shelter programme, as I would imagine this was essentially to remind the population that they were at constant risk from the USA and reassure them that such a war was survivable, reducing the risk of dissent.

In the U.K./ Europe the high concentration of targets and population might be responsible for a different mindset than your Prepper, whose efforts are also in tune with a very strong self-reliance cultural ethos.

For me it is most telling, however, to compare the elaborate and complicated shelters (including air filtration and many months worth of supplies) prepared for our government here in the Cold War, with the trite advice given to the civilian population at the same time of what do in the event of nuclear conflict.

Finally, I really don’t believe the PRC is interested in a war with the West, not least because they are dependent upon our cash to buy their manufactured goods. Religious terrorists and rogue states, I’m not so sure, but their capability is currently very suspect and will always be relatively small.

Interesting topic.

[Ankerson]

I’m fascinated by everyone’s perspective, and wouldn’t dissuade anyone from doing what they think appropriate.

Kearney’s book is interesting, for sure, but too often it refers to orthodox views being discredited without references, for me to be entirely convinced.

On the other hand, google “the effects of nuclear war” and many grim articles are by disarmament organisations. I’ve been quite happy living my entire life protected by our own deterrent, thank you.

I wouldn’t take much note of the Soviets civilian shelter programme, as I would imagine this was essentially to remind the population that they were at constant risk from the USA and reassure them that such a war was survivable, reducing the risk of dissent.

In the U.K./ Europe the high concentration of targets and population might be responsible for a different mindset than your Prepper, whose efforts are also in tune with a very strong self-reliance cultural ethos.

For me it is most telling, however, to compare the elaborate and complicated shelters (including air filtration and many months worth of supplies) prepared for our government here in the Cold War, with the trite advice given to the civilian population at the same time of what do in the event of nuclear conflict.

Finally, I really don’t believe the PRC is interested in a war with the West, not least because they are dependent upon our cash to buy their manufactured goods. Religious terrorists and rogue states, I’m not so sure, but their capability is currently very suspect and will always be relatively small.

Interesting topic.

A lot of it is going to be what they are actually targeting, that would make a huge difference.

Sticking with major cities and major military bases would increase the causalities considerably.

There is a rather large difference in the outdated information from the cold war days and what may actually happen now.

Plus I wouldn't put a lot of stock in Nuclear inventories that are currently floating around, just saying.

There are also Chemical and Bio weapons to think about too. (And don't believe for one second they don't still exist.)

One possible situation:

Massive Nuclear Strike wiping out the major cities and major military bases. Crippling the whole infrastructure and almost all of the land based Military.

More strikes with Chemical weapons, more broad areas here to inflict even more mass causalities. (Nerve and Blood Agents)

Then Hit with BIO weapons to maximize casualties so there would be little to no resistance once they were ready to occupy.

[Naperville]

I’m fascinated by everyone’s perspective, and wouldn’t dissuade anyone from doing what they think appropriate.

Kearney’s book is interesting, for sure, but too often it refers to orthodox views being discredited without references, for me to be entirely convinced.

On the other hand, google “the effects of nuclear war” and many grim articles are by disarmament organisations. I’ve been quite happy living my entire life protected by our own deterrent, thank you.

I wouldn’t take much note of the Soviets civilian shelter programme, as I would imagine this was essentially to remind the population that they were at constant risk from the USA and reassure them that such a war was survivable, reducing the risk of dissent.

In the U.K./ Europe the high concentration of targets and population might be responsible for a different mindset than your Prepper, whose efforts are also in tune with a very strong self-reliance cultural ethos.

For me it is most telling, however, to compare the elaborate and complicated shelters (including air filtration and many months worth of supplies) prepared for our government here in the Cold War, with the trite advice given to the civilian population at the same time of what do in the event of nuclear conflict.

Finally, I really don’t believe the PRC is interested in a war with the West, not least because they are dependent upon our cash to buy their manufactured goods. Religious terrorists and rogue states, I’m not so sure, but their capability is currently very suspect and will always be relatively small.

Interesting topic.

I think Kearney worked at Oak Ridge National NUCLEAR Lab, so much of what he knows he may not give supporting documents.

[Ankerson]

I’m fascinated by everyone’s perspective, and wouldn’t dissuade anyone from doing what they think appropriate.

Kearney’s book is interesting, for sure, but too often it refers to orthodox views being discredited without references, for me to be entirely convinced.

On the other hand, google “the effects of nuclear war” and many grim articles are by disarmament organisations. I’ve been quite happy living my entire life protected by our own deterrent, thank you.

I wouldn’t take much note of the Soviets civilian shelter programme, as I would imagine this was essentially to remind the population that they were at constant risk from the USA and reassure them that such a war was survivable, reducing the risk of dissent.

In the U.K./ Europe the high concentration of targets and population might be responsible for a different mindset than your Prepper, whose efforts are also in tune with a very strong self-reliance cultural ethos.

For me it is most telling, however, to compare the elaborate and complicated shelters (including air filtration and many months worth of supplies) prepared for our government here in the Cold War, with the trite advice given to the civilian population at the same time of what do in the event of nuclear conflict.

Finally, I really don’t believe the PRC is interested in a war with the West, not least because they are dependent upon our cash to buy their manufactured goods. Religious terrorists and rogue states, I’m not so sure, but their capability is currently very suspect and will always be relatively small.

Interesting topic.

I think Kearney worked at Oak Ridge National NUCLEAR Lab, so much of what he knows he may not give supporting documents.

There are a lot of things that are not available to the common civilians, as in Highly Classified.

[Naperville]

Nuclear Attack Worst-Case Scenario Would See 90% of Americans Wiped Out
Nov 14, 2023 at 9:00 AM EST

https://www.newsweek.com/nuclear-attack ... hs-1842677

[The Mastiff]

Newsweek has long stopped being journalists and gone to clickbait garbage. I remember when they at least tried.

[Ankerson]

Newsweek has long stopped being journalists and gone to clickbait garbage. I remember when they at least tried.

The article was about the Princeton University’s Program on Science and Global Security team and their findings.

Pretty standard stuff for a magazine to do. And they have links to the source so all the boxes are checked.

They do some research and testing etc for the Government under various Contracts.

[Naperville]

The Newsweek link is to a story that quotes people, articles and discusses Scientific American articles on the U.S. Air Force, a Department of Defense (DOD) spokesperson and the 2022 Nuclear Posture Review.

There are a lot of Scientific American stories that are readable on their website regarding nukes.

I do not agree with everything said in Newsweek or Scientific American, it's just another look at what is being done by the US Govt regarding nukes.

Read voraciously. Don't be lied too. Read what everyone says.