I don't think it is possible. If you think there is a real chance of nuclear war, do some of your "bucket list" items now. Visit family members or friends you have not seen in a while.
You would need to go somewhere outside the fighting factions' sphere of influence and setup for long term survival without help with supplies for Year of survival. In other words not likely to be done by anyone.
The best way to prepare is to fight against it even happening. Once it starts it's too late.
Some simple ones might be just having a good communication plan with your family, or keeping some extra food and water on hand.
If you are near an incident, your desired course of action is to evac as soon as possible outside the fallout area. That likely means conveyance and go bags. You don't need to "bug out" to the woods, but you need some food, documents, medications and other essentials in case you need to be in a shelter for a while.
If you do have to hunker down and are in a fallout zone, you need to limit fallout exposure by sealing your home, and have enough supplies for 14 days or so. Iodide tablets to protect your thyroid would be good.
You probably don't want to go full bunker. It's a lot of cost and probably not the right thing unless you are likely to be a direct target - but even then your chances aren't great. High cost low reward basically.
Note that if you end up on the cusp of fallout, you are probably going to have a reduced life expectancy even with gear. Not much you can do. Maybe pack basic NBC suits and gas masks but those are prone to not being fitted and need semi-regular replacement.
My personal contingency is this: once the bombs start falling I’ll be running towards the blasts not away. When it comes to an “all out” nuclear war there are no outcomes that leave behind a world worth living in imo. Assuming the initial blasts spare me and I don’t live somewhere that gets peppered with fallout, I’ll have starvation and societal collapse to look forward to.
I never understood this attitude, not when it was professed in the 80's, nor now. If I can find a way for me and my family to survive I will do my damnedest to try. Moving out of a densely populated country to the countryside in another, sparsely populated country was a good decision not just because I like to live in the woods, it also puts some distance between us and potential targets. This was not really why I made this decision but it doesn't hurt, either. Being self-sufficient to a relatively high degree - especially when it comes to energy the which actually does seem to grow on the trees here - also helps.
Yes, fantastic book. Wrong premise though, fallout does not live as long as Nevil Shute makes it out to do, nor do the shifting wind patterns lead to the movement of large amounts of northern-hemisphere dust to the southern hemisphere.
>I never understood this attitude, not when it was professed in the 80's, nor now
For me, it's pretty simple. You're going to have a fallout cloud world wide. That will cut food production by at least half. Infrastructure will be down, so the masses will flee the city like a plague of locusts. 90% of the population will starve in the first year or two.
We'd be lucky to emerge from this with with 1900s level technology. No new chips, tool steel, lubricants, steel, or any other of the products now produced in the millions of tons per year will be available.
It's a choice between a death in seconds, verses watching society completely collapse into small tribes of hunter gatherers.
According to MAD game theory, if a true doomsday style nuclear war were to happen, the initiator would need to deliver a crushing first strike to have any hope of surviving (by preventing a significant counterstrike).
The hypersonics that Russia and China have publicly tested recently do seem capable of doing that. So, the goal would be to live in a place unlikely to be in the top ~1000 target locations list. The difference between being 999 most likely to be hit vs. 1001 might be the enough.
If that logic is correct, maybe live somewhere with very low density of humans, away from the coasts, no critical infrastructure nearby, no remarkable geographic landmarks, and large amounts of undeveloped natural resources (which a future occupier may want to have).
Which sounds a bit like saying "live on a Native American reservation." Maybe destiny is for this content to be returned to its original owners...
The point with hypersonic missiles is that they can manoeuvrer until the terminal part of their trajectory, this in contrast to ballistic missiles which are on a set course past the boost phase. This makes it harder to shield against hypersonic missiles which is useful both for first-strike - more of your missiles will hit their targets - as well as when executing a counterstrike.
Wouldn’t the targets mostly be military (sites housing nukes or otherwise militarily important) and perhaps a few cities to largely neutralize them from doing anything other than kick their wounds (NY, DC, LA)? I don’t see why they should want to destroy more minor cities as well (Baltimore, Miami, Charleston, etc) for no reason; seems like it doesn’t meaningful add protection when doing a first strike
Directly targeting cities is hardly necessary to destroy them. Can you imagine Baltimore surviving weapons targeting the Washington DC area? Many cities of any size are near important military/industrial/infrastructure targets, probably targeted by multiple warheads. Even if they're not on the first-strike list, nukes will be targeting dams, factories, energy hubs, transportation hubs, airports, seaports, communications and commercial centers, as well as military targets (for example, in the Puget Sound region, we are royally screwed, even if they just hit a subset of Naval Base Bremerton, Naval Base Everett, Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Naval Base Bangor, the Indian Island weapons depot, Whidbey Island Naval Air Station, Boeing's plants in Renton and Everett, the Port of Seattle, the Port of Tacoma, Seatac airport...the list goes on). The "minor" cities you mention are all seaports, and all have international airports capable of hosting military aircraft.
One practical thing you can do is to buy a significant quantity of iodine. If there's a nuclear exchange and fallout one of the big killers will be radioactive iodine that lodges in your thyroid and then kills it. Having a lot of potassium iodide so you can absolutely saturate your thyroid and at least stave off that disaster is fairly easy and fairly cheap.
If you live through the first second then you want to have the ability very soon. If you then live through the first month it'll help you make it through the next few years. https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/emergencies/ki.htm
Here in Belgium you can get it free from pharmacies cause they were scared one of our old reactors might malfunction one day.
You don't need lots, it's just a small box of pills.
It does say that if you're over 40 there's the risk of it messing up your thyroid and you should maybe reconsider.
It's especially useful among children. One studied showed that people in parts Belarus that were children when Chernobyl blew up had something like a 30-40% chance to develop cancer.
* Canned food for two or four weeks. It's handy in case of other disasters, and you can use it as part of your normal food to keep it fresh.
* Iodide pills. They are small, and Iodide has 1 week half life, the other elements decay too fast or too slow to do anything.
* Bottled water. It takes too much room and is much more expensive than tap water, so it's an investment. I have like 100 liters (25galons) for my family. Not enough for a nuclear war, but good enough for small problems.
If you are a well-off resident of a high-income country, are open to moving far from your current place of residence and preparing appropriate shelter and stockpiles, you can certainly prolong your life as a biological organism.
But can you meaningfully prolong your life as a human being, the inheritor of a specific culture and history? No. You could have no meaningful future after every human being's past had been rendered meaningless by the war.
If you want to understand what the world would look like after a global nuclear exchange, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists is a good starting point. The movie Threads does a good job focusing attention not on the "day after", but the abject misery of the decades that follow, about which nothing could be done.
Water filter, dry rice, dry beans, spam, firearm, ammo, cabin in the woods, leave military target areas. Too much to do if you really think its going to happen.
Live a good life every day, such that if it were your last, then that would be OK. There are many ways for a perfectly healthy person to die unexpectedly.
There are good individual / household tips here, but the best long-term success strategy, imho, is to have a community of relatively self-sufficient people with you. You can find such folk everywhere: Farmers, mechanics, handymen, ... any non-white collar person to speak very stereotypically (sorry).
First thing I'm doing if things get hairy is moving to the country with my in-laws and helping them.
If it's a true concern, the answer is probably iodine tablets and a respirator. Increases your chances of survival (if you would survive the first wave).
But, what more can we do? It's an interesting question to think about. Nuclear war would probably be the result of a significant escalation, and in all likelihood will involve many nukes back-and-forth, rather than a single nuke hitting a single city. With that in mind, I'll give it a go. I'm assuming your goal is to survive the war, and be able to continue living afterwards.
Step 1: A location likely to survive the war. You need to pick a location that allows you to survive the initial wave of nukes, then provides sufficient shelter for the resulting radioactive fall-out, and then finally allows to you rebuild some resemblance of living, once you're able to go outside again. This probably eliminates all countries that have nukes, or are part of alliances that have nukes. You'll either get a direct hit, or will likely be close to the fall-out.
Maybe French Polynesia is a good place. It is in the southern hemisphere (vs US, Russia, EU in the north), very remote, has limited military value.
Step 2: Shelter. Although you've picked a location unlikely to get nuked, it's still good to be in a sturdy shelter, underground (maybe even under water), that also holds your supplies. Assuming no direct hits, I'd go for a concrete basement with an extra thick roof.
Step 3: Stocking up to survive the aftermath of the war. You'll need various supplies: (a) water (for days, assuming you have a way to get new fresh water, e.g. a well or small-scale desalination), (b) food (months, maybe years, assuming global supply chains no longer exist), (c) basic defensive weapons (when others find out you have supplies), (d) materials to survive the increased radiation outside (iodine tablets, respirators), (e) medicine (antibiotics, painkillers, etc.)
Step 4: Building a new life: seeds, fertiliser, building materials that are hard to get in the post-war world, fishing equipment, a boat, etc
Bonus items: Communication (FM/AM antenna on a weather balloon?), Transport (Sailing yachts with solar panels and desalination equipment can go a long way, might even be a good shelter if you find the right place to sail), pooling up with a group of people so that you can maintain a small 'society'.
Nothing. Accept your fate as it is. Living after such an event would be a hell anyways. So let the big random number generator in the sky decide for you.
The likelihood of nuclear war is pretty much 0. But if you want to prepare, I can only think of off-grid homesteading or farming with known community ( aka it has some friends or family that you know ). People will need help from others/community to survive. In a nuclear war, you want to be as far away from population centers ( cities, suburbs, etc ). And you want to be able to supply your own food in some capacity. This is assuming human civilization has collapsed and won't return within our lifetimes.
My take is slightly different, but if you manage to survive a first (and a second) strike, would you really want to live in that world anymore?
I would try to make sure I have a way to die as peaceful as is possible.
I'm not saying you shouldn't do all the other stuff (stock up on supplies, find a place that's safe from fallout and nuclear contamination).
What I am saying is that today if the reality is that Russia holds 6,000 nukes, and many of them are cobalt bombs, depending upon the weather and where you live and how many cobalt bombs were dropped and the efficiency of conversion of CO-59 to CO-60, etc... I'm not sure there's much you can do other than die peacefully.
I think some people will say, "But Nuclear War is Survivable. People dying of fallout won't happen. Nuclear winter is a false hypothesis. Russia doesn't have cobalt bombs."
I just don't want to test the hypothesis and find out they were wrong.
I'm with you, but first I would want to take my chances before deciding to euthanize myself and my family. The amount and diversity of knowledge in your neighborhood would surprise you, not everyone sits in front of computers. Rebuilding small communities will be feasible in many parts of the world.
well I'm not exactly an expert on surviving mass extinction events, I gave it a bit of thought, given sufficient amount of funds I think it goes as following:
1. move to New Zealand
2. find a nice plot of arable land,
3. build a radiation proof bunker, does not need to be nuke impact safe as I dont expect NZ to be a designated target for direct strike, but hey, if you have the money go nuts with the reinforced concrete
4. stockpile on canned food and seeds
5. probably need some kind of radiation level detection systems or poll some official sites as an early warning system
I assume that MAD isn't real, there are no nukes, everybody is bluffing, it's just that nobody has called each other's bluff, so everyone thinks it's real
46 comments
[ 0.24 ms ] story [ 117 ms ] threadThe best way to prepare is to fight against it even happening. Once it starts it's too late.
1. Determine threat model
2. Model personal risk
3. Rank interventions
Some simple ones might be just having a good communication plan with your family, or keeping some extra food and water on hand.
If you are near an incident, your desired course of action is to evac as soon as possible outside the fallout area. That likely means conveyance and go bags. You don't need to "bug out" to the woods, but you need some food, documents, medications and other essentials in case you need to be in a shelter for a while.
If you do have to hunker down and are in a fallout zone, you need to limit fallout exposure by sealing your home, and have enough supplies for 14 days or so. Iodide tablets to protect your thyroid would be good.
You probably don't want to go full bunker. It's a lot of cost and probably not the right thing unless you are likely to be a direct target - but even then your chances aren't great. High cost low reward basically.
Note that if you end up on the cusp of fallout, you are probably going to have a reduced life expectancy even with gear. Not much you can do. Maybe pack basic NBC suits and gas masks but those are prone to not being fitted and need semi-regular replacement.
That’s the basic background to running blastward: die faster in less pain, than agonizingly.
For me, it's pretty simple. You're going to have a fallout cloud world wide. That will cut food production by at least half. Infrastructure will be down, so the masses will flee the city like a plague of locusts. 90% of the population will starve in the first year or two.
We'd be lucky to emerge from this with with 1900s level technology. No new chips, tool steel, lubricants, steel, or any other of the products now produced in the millions of tons per year will be available.
It's a choice between a death in seconds, verses watching society completely collapse into small tribes of hunter gatherers.
The hypersonics that Russia and China have publicly tested recently do seem capable of doing that. So, the goal would be to live in a place unlikely to be in the top ~1000 target locations list. The difference between being 999 most likely to be hit vs. 1001 might be the enough.
If that logic is correct, maybe live somewhere with very low density of humans, away from the coasts, no critical infrastructure nearby, no remarkable geographic landmarks, and large amounts of undeveloped natural resources (which a future occupier may want to have).
Which sounds a bit like saying "live on a Native American reservation." Maybe destiny is for this content to be returned to its original owners...
If you live through the first second then you want to have the ability very soon. If you then live through the first month it'll help you make it through the next few years. https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/emergencies/ki.htm
You don't need lots, it's just a small box of pills.
It does say that if you're over 40 there's the risk of it messing up your thyroid and you should maybe reconsider.
It's especially useful among children. One studied showed that people in parts Belarus that were children when Chernobyl blew up had something like a 30-40% chance to develop cancer.
* Iodide pills. They are small, and Iodide has 1 week half life, the other elements decay too fast or too slow to do anything.
* Bottled water. It takes too much room and is much more expensive than tap water, so it's an investment. I have like 100 liters (25galons) for my family. Not enough for a nuclear war, but good enough for small problems.
Aquatainers are good for small amounts (and good for camping), but you are likely looking at food grade 55 gallon drums for this kind of scenario.
But can you meaningfully prolong your life as a human being, the inheritor of a specific culture and history? No. You could have no meaningful future after every human being's past had been rendered meaningless by the war.
If you want to understand what the world would look like after a global nuclear exchange, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists is a good starting point. The movie Threads does a good job focusing attention not on the "day after", but the abject misery of the decades that follow, about which nothing could be done.
https://thebulletin.org/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Srqyd8B9gE
Sounds similar to me like going on an extended space mission with a small group of people, in terms of isolation.
Point is odds are its not going to be pretty, If you are planning and relying on what-ifs it's moot.
-acquire/produce gieger counter, dosimeter, PPEs; Iodine, sealed food and water.
-acquire and reinforce hygiene, dust and cross over restrictions.
-survive the initial blast[s]; then latent effects and hazards; and the following environmental disruption.
"That's planning for failure, Morty. Even dumber than regular planning."
--Rick
First thing I'm doing if things get hairy is moving to the country with my in-laws and helping them.
But, what more can we do? It's an interesting question to think about. Nuclear war would probably be the result of a significant escalation, and in all likelihood will involve many nukes back-and-forth, rather than a single nuke hitting a single city. With that in mind, I'll give it a go. I'm assuming your goal is to survive the war, and be able to continue living afterwards.
Step 1: A location likely to survive the war. You need to pick a location that allows you to survive the initial wave of nukes, then provides sufficient shelter for the resulting radioactive fall-out, and then finally allows to you rebuild some resemblance of living, once you're able to go outside again. This probably eliminates all countries that have nukes, or are part of alliances that have nukes. You'll either get a direct hit, or will likely be close to the fall-out.
Maybe French Polynesia is a good place. It is in the southern hemisphere (vs US, Russia, EU in the north), very remote, has limited military value.
Step 2: Shelter. Although you've picked a location unlikely to get nuked, it's still good to be in a sturdy shelter, underground (maybe even under water), that also holds your supplies. Assuming no direct hits, I'd go for a concrete basement with an extra thick roof.
Step 3: Stocking up to survive the aftermath of the war. You'll need various supplies: (a) water (for days, assuming you have a way to get new fresh water, e.g. a well or small-scale desalination), (b) food (months, maybe years, assuming global supply chains no longer exist), (c) basic defensive weapons (when others find out you have supplies), (d) materials to survive the increased radiation outside (iodine tablets, respirators), (e) medicine (antibiotics, painkillers, etc.)
Step 4: Building a new life: seeds, fertiliser, building materials that are hard to get in the post-war world, fishing equipment, a boat, etc
Bonus items: Communication (FM/AM antenna on a weather balloon?), Transport (Sailing yachts with solar panels and desalination equipment can go a long way, might even be a good shelter if you find the right place to sail), pooling up with a group of people so that you can maintain a small 'society'.
I would try to make sure I have a way to die as peaceful as is possible.
I'm not saying you shouldn't do all the other stuff (stock up on supplies, find a place that's safe from fallout and nuclear contamination).
What I am saying is that today if the reality is that Russia holds 6,000 nukes, and many of them are cobalt bombs, depending upon the weather and where you live and how many cobalt bombs were dropped and the efficiency of conversion of CO-59 to CO-60, etc... I'm not sure there's much you can do other than die peacefully.
I think some people will say, "But Nuclear War is Survivable. People dying of fallout won't happen. Nuclear winter is a false hypothesis. Russia doesn't have cobalt bombs."
I just don't want to test the hypothesis and find out they were wrong.
1. move to New Zealand 2. find a nice plot of arable land, 3. build a radiation proof bunker, does not need to be nuke impact safe as I dont expect NZ to be a designated target for direct strike, but hey, if you have the money go nuts with the reinforced concrete 4. stockpile on canned food and seeds 5. probably need some kind of radiation level detection systems or poll some official sites as an early warning system