I honestly think that if I was faced with certainty of nuclear annihilation I would just get a bunch of tennis balls and dog treats and bacon and make my dog absurdly happy until the end. My life doesn’t count for that much in that scenario, and I am pretty sure I’d die happy if my dog thought the last day on earth was THE BEST DAY ON EARTH EVER GIMME ALL THE BACON OMG!
12 Likes
Any chance they don’t nuke LA due to all the Russians living here?
My plan would definitely be to load the family into the car and try to GTFO. I live on the northern-ish edge of LA county, so probably head North toward Sequoia or Yosemite.
If I’ve gotta die I’d prefer to do it in Big Sur, so that would be the ultimate destination.
1 Like
Can you lay out the scenario where a single warhead hits Philadelphia without it being it being part of a larger exchange?
I think he means not so much the getting away part, but more the surviving on the outskirts of a city with a million other people and no food, water, power, or legal protection part.
Yeah, if nukes are hitting US soil from this conflict these ideas aren’t really gonna work unless maybe you are fleeing to an already constructed fallout shelter with years of supplies. Great work surviving the blast zone, slight problem there’s no more consumable food.
No, it would be more likely that warheads would hit like Boston, NYC, Philly, Baltimore, DC, and military/intel locations so Annapolis, Langley, etc, plus some west coast cities and military targets. Getting to a point > 70 miles from any military bases or major population cities within a few hours of impact would give me a good chance of surviving the first wave of strikes unharmed.
Then my chances of survival = the chances that either the US neutralizes Russia’s further capabilities with a retaliatory strike, or that someone in the Kremlin takes out Putin.
Another variable in my favor is that the US may be able to intercept a significant non-zero percentage of incoming ICBMs.
If I’m in an area with no fallout and relatively low population density, in the immediate days there will probably be at least some food, water, and perhaps power - and I’ll have some portable batteries to recharge some stuff. My plan involves a few days of food/water supplies. The legal protection is an issue. Hopefully I would be able to accumulate fuel in the first few hours after getting to a safe area, maybe a weapon as well.
Then it’s a question of how much of the country was unharmed and whether I am able to drive to it without getting a big dose of radiation.
Let’s say the scenario is that a first wave of nukes hits the US, but nothing else. Major cities on both coasts get wiped out, but flyover country is mostly unharmed. There should be abundant food in the Midwest, no?
1 Like
How well do you think Midwest crops grow next year with global temps 13 degrees below current levels?
At the very least your plan is missing firearms and ammunition. Those will be needed to get access to basic necessities. If you are serious about planning you should be spending the day scouring for a prepper community that will take you in.
1 Like
lol, GL surviving a Midwest winter after the power grid breaks down.
My understanding is that a nuclear winter would be regional, so if only 15-20 cities in the US got hit and they were only on the coasts, the Midwest would probably not have a nuclear winter. I could be wrong, that’s based on very quick research.
The goal is to get them as soon as we get to safety, although I may try to do that in the next day or two if it’s possible around me.
When I was a kid, the city library had a fallout shelter sign at the entrance and one floor was below ground. I spent a lot of time there and it felt safe and comforting. Then that bastard Carl Sagan came along and told me all fallout shelters would be good for was keeping the streets clear of bodies.
Edit: the actual quote was
Fallout shelters would be little more than convenient crematoria for those who do not wish to litter the streets.
Yeah, pretty sure that’s not how nuclear winter works.
You’d need the real thing, a stocked for years shelter in an armed/fortified remote location far away from any blast sites. If you have that and can spend the next 3-5 years underground without going insane then you’d have a decent chance of surviving all out out nuclear war.
Russians would likely target the missile silos in the midwest though. It’s not really feasible they just bomb cities unless they are already dead trying to kill as many people as possible and in that case they are anyway triggering nuclear winter
Yeah additional research is not promising. But surviving would not be impossible, just extremely difficult. I’ll take 1% or 5% over 0%.
My plan is dependent on there only being an initial wave of strikes in the US, essentially. It’s how to get my survival odds up the most without going full prepper and without spending shit loads of money for something that I feel is now a big enough risk to mitigate against, but not a big enough risk to change my entire life over.
I guess for me, hiding out in the basement for as long as possible is probably the best plan for the Russians sending a single nuke at NYC and any other scenario is death. Its hard to envision a scenario with more than 3 but less than 1000 nukes hitting USA
If there is a nuclear war we are all going to die, the end, just make peace with that.
12 Likes
Not CW - he’s got a plan!
8 Likes
This, but also you need to be really sure that you’re going to beat the rush, otherwise you’re dead. If you can make it, it probably is better to be out in the far exurbs, but it’s super risky.
If you’re on the eastern seaboard you are giga-fucked, no analysis needed
1 Like