Most houses in the U.K. don’t have basements. However, I do have a tiny storage room I can go into if Putin throws a nuke at us. It is in the middle of the building, away from any windows.
This. How far are you from a strategic target? In the UK, you're looking at mostly radar or command and control facilities, unless you happen to live right next to Faslane. If you're more than 20 miles away from anything important, then good news! You don't have to worry about the explosion, just the fallout.
Now, fallout is mostly alpha and beta radiation, which can be stopped by skin and clothes, respectively. So, seal up your windows, doors, and any other air leaks (industrial-grade plastic and duct tape will suffice), and stay inside for two weeks. As long as you don't get any radioactive particles inside of you, you should be just fine.
Now, gamma radiation is the nasty stuff. It'll go right through your walls and into you. For that, you need 1' of concrete or 3' of packed earth. You don't have to dig a bunker, though; you can build a "pillow fort" right inside your house before the fallout gets to you. Use stout tables or desks or something as a framework, and fill boxes, bins, or even heavy-duty trash bags with earth and pile them over and around your "fort". If fallout *does* land near you, you'll need to stay inside the fort for 2 days, and inside the house for 2 weeks.
And then the hard part begins.
For more information, have a primer on the subject, inspired in large part by a nuclear arms expert who used to post here: https://pastebin.com/cWs6A7rR
>Now, gamma radiation is the nasty stuff. It'll go right through your walls and into you. For that, you need 1' of concrete or 3' of packed earth. You don't have to dig a bunker, though; you can build a "pillow fort" right inside your house before the fallout gets to you. Use stout tables or desks or something as a framework, and fill boxes, bins, or even heavy-duty trash bags with earth and pile them over and around your "fort". If fallout *does* land near you, you'll need to stay inside the fort for 2 days, and inside the house for 2 weeks.
The good news is that the gamma burst radius is pretty much the same as that for heavy blast damage, so chances are if you aren't instantly killed/seriously injured by the explosion the gamma burst isn't a concern anyway
That's pretty much what I thought when I wrote the primer, but since then, I have seen references in official Cold War documents that suggest that some fallout particles *do* produce gamma. Frustratingly, I have not found any source that says how *much* of fallout radiation is gamma. It certainly appears to be the smallest component. Hence, the "pillow fort" recommendation. If you're sealing up your house to protect yourself from alpha/beta emitters anyways, it's not *that* huge a stretch to keep working and construct a shelter (say, within your living room) that would provide some degree of protection against gamma.
For prompt gamma, of course, if you're close enough to receive a lethal dose, you're close enough that the blast wave will make it a moot point a second or two later.
This. How far are you from a strategic target? In the UK, you're looking at mostly radar or command and control facilities, unless you happen to live right next to Faslane. If you're more than 20 miles away from anything important, then good news! You don't have to worry about the explosion, just the fallout.
Now, fallout is mostly alpha and beta radiation, which can be stopped by skin and clothes, respectively. So, seal up your windows, doors, and any other air leaks (industrial-grade plastic and duct tape will suffice), and stay inside for two weeks. As long as you don't get any radioactive particles inside of you, you should be just fine.
Now, gamma radiation is the nasty stuff. It'll go right through your walls and into you. For that, you need 1' of concrete or 3' of packed earth. You don't have to dig a bunker, though; you can build a "pillow fort" right inside your house before the fallout gets to you. Use stout tables or desks or something as a framework, and fill boxes, bins, or even heavy-duty trash bags with earth and pile them over and around your "fort". If fallout *does* land near you, you'll need to stay inside the fort for 2 days, and inside the house for 2 weeks.
And then the hard part begins.
For more information, have a primer on the subject, inspired in large part by a nuclear arms expert who used to post here: https://pastebin.com/cWs6A7rR
I am approximately 7.4 and 7.9 miles away from 2 RAF airbases, which only do training aircraft and does not have any fighter aircraft or bombers from my knowledge (I hope). I am 15.1 miles away from any major RAF airbase, which would very likely get targeted if WWIII started.
No shit sherlock, we're all gonna die during WWIII. That's the whole point.
>7.4 and 7.9 miles away from 2 RAF airbases >15.1 miles away from any major RAF airbase
You're likely to suffer from effects of nuclear blast if russian nuke misses by a large enough margin to reach you, which it very well might.
no, even if it somehow by the hand of god survived the blast your windows will melt and your roof will catch fire, you'll be forced outside by the flames and die of radiation exposure
At Ground Zero? No, it would be entirely atomized, of course.
If the detonation is in the urban center of the city, and the brick house is like on the outskirts, then maybe, depending on the yield and the geography.
If you look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they weren't just evenly flattened out, Nagasaki for instance was mountainous and very unevenly shaped, so you got 'shadow' where geography shielded certain parts from damage, so casualties were not even close to as intense as Hiroshima.
The brick house would protect against the radiation and heat from the initial flash of detonation, even the clothes on your body or a newspaper would protect against most of that at long distance.
This is why, and I really want to emphasize this part because some people are morons, if you're NOT at Ground Zero, and if you're say, right outside the city and an atomic bomb goes off in the center of it, if you throw yourself behind some sort of cover and try to cover up your face and shit, you can mostly prevent the initial damage of the heat flash and the gamma radiation, it can make the difference between living and dying.
Of course, when a nuke touches off, you get the blast itself, and as it wrecks the frick out of shit in the center, it "claymores" so much around the center outwards, so that's one of the effects, but that also doesn't reach infinitely either. Looking again at Hiroshima, part of the docks of the city were outside of the immediate destruction range, and weren't reached by the kaboom or the urban shrapnel.
Of course, the explosion and heat flash causes fires, so even then time is ticking, if you're outside of the immediate destruction radius, fire might come your way, so don't just wait around.
>if you throw yourself behind some sort of cover and try to cover up your face and shit, you can mostly prevent the initial damage of the heat flash and the gamma radiation, it can make the difference between living and dying.
There was this one guy in Hiroshima who was war pretty close to the center. He survived, took the train to Nagasaki, just to arrive in time for the bomb. He recently died from old age.
> be me, invincible Japanese man who is unkillable but simply wants to live in peace > my country is out of their fricking minds > America wants us to surrender so they nuke my home city, Hiroshima > Kinda disappointed but nothing I can't rebuild (besides all of my family and friends) > Take all my things (dust) and move to Nagasaki > After three days I've secured an apartment > On the third day Nagasaki gets nuked > mfw
>There was this one guy in Hiroshima who was war pretty close to the center. He survived, took the train to Nagasaki, just to arrive in time for the bomb. He recently died from old age.
Keep in mind though that those were absolutely minuscule by today's standards. For a comparison to above (sorry to keep picking on Albany) here's Little Boy, at its estimated detonation altitude of 1968 feet. I mean, just look at it.
That man then bought PrepHole from Moot
>That man then bought PrepHole from Moot
This would explain a great deal. Well played nipmoot.
>He returned to Nagasaki the following day and, despite his wounds, he returned to work on 9 August, the day of the second atomic bombing. That morning, while he was being told by his supervisor that he was "crazy" after describing how one bomb had destroyed the city, the Nagasaki bomb detonated
Short answer, your building department does not require us to ensure that your domicile will survive a point-blank 20 kt nuclear blast, nor could you afford a home that large that presumably could (if it can be built above ground at all).
Long answer:
Recent fire updates in our area require a new design that decreases weight and increases longevity (a ///// lattice like joist system at the basement) and these fiberglass panels that sandwich the main treated beams. We have been told these increase the time to collapse in the event of a fire by about 30 minutes or so, which is not an insignificant improvement in survival for responding firefighters and such. A main cause of death in fires, aside from the usual smoke inhalation, is the structure weakening and you falling through the floor into a basement, which at that point usually turns into something resembling the fires of Mt Doom.
The outer brick may provide some heat protection and I'd rate it more highly than vinyl siding in terms of it turning into debris or burning or radiation. The windows are just shrapnel. Your house isn't designed to be explosion proof. Why would it be? In recent years, how many homes have been exploded from the OUTSIDE as opposed to the much higher chance of a gas explosion from INSIDE?
If you want a home fortified for nuclear destruction you'd be better off either building one of those monolithic dome homes (good luck with resale), or going completely underground.
Much more practical would be to invest in home improvements specific to your local extreme weather. I live in the midwest. Tornado season is our main fear, not atomic warfare or stray 155mm. Fortifying basements and ensuring there aren't any cracks unsealed, a generator for a sump pump, a stock of supplies, having even a fortified room without windows are all good ideas, and it is far more practical than trying to defend your home against canned sunshine.
Not him (and not an expert in that field), but I'd guess that it depends on the type of ICF used. A monolithic dome is typically a couple inches of insulation followed by at least 3-4 inches of concrete+rebar, and the shape deflects an awful lot of incoming blast damage. You'd want an ICF to have more concrete than that, because it doesn't have the shape advantage. Also, it would depend upon the style of ICF. If you use the popular interlocking foam blocks, then obviously you don't have a solid concrete wall; there would be soft spots where there is no concrete, and I suspect that would be very vulnerable to a blast wave. You'd need a style that presented a continuous, unbroken shell (walls *and* roof) of reinforced concrete.
>there are parts that dont have concrete
Not true, the blocks are hollow throughout except for pastic stays that hold the rebar and attach the foam peices to eachother.
They arent like cinderblock.
>fiberglass rebar
Anon, I seriously hope you don't do this, esp in anything structural that might fall on your head. I know where you're coming from because that's where I began my journey years ago >it doesn't rust or degrade! My concrete will last forever too because no spalling from rusting rebar.
There are 2 tiny nuances. First is that fiberglass rebar has a 4 times lower modulus of elasticity than steel while having a few times higher tensile strength. This means it's elongation before fully engaging is 10x of steel, or about 2%. What this means is that unless you put many times the amount of rebar as you would with steel, your concrete will crack and droop under full load.
The second nuance is that fiberglass melts in alkaline environment. Let me remind you that ordinary concrete is Ph 11-12 inside once cured.
Yes, responsible manufacturers add a protective coating to fiberglass rebar, but you have no way of knowing when it'll be scratched off inside.
Trust me, the last thing you want is wondering whether the ceiling will fall on your head during sleep, because unlike steel rebar which signals it's degradation via spalling concrete, the fiberglass rebar will silently lose grip and pull out with catastrophic consequences.
I'm the
DIY UHPC/RPC shill here from the home defense thread. >all have earth penetrating warheads
Current gen bunker busters don't work against UHPC. Yes, really.
Hey man im just asking a question.
Tell me about coated steel rebar pls.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Coated steel rebar?
1 year ago
Anonymous
Yeah since you seem to know, is there any reason to spend the cash on coated steel rebar?
1 year ago
Anonymous
Never heard of one. I know classic steel, stainless steel, fiberglass, carbon fiber.
The only "coated steel" I know of is steel covered with zinc alloy, but I've never heard of steel rebar being made that way, only roof or steel truss construction.
>The outer brick may provide some heat protection and I'd rate it more highly than vinyl siding in terms of it turning into debris or burning or radiation. The windows are just shrapnel. Your house isn't designed to be explosion proof. Why would it be? In recent years, how many homes have been exploded from the OUTSIDE as opposed to the much higher chance of a gas explosion from INSIDE?
Interesting question. If you live in an area with hurricanes/tornados and also high crime (or fear of looters after such an event), and did a heavy duty house with smaller but thick bullet resistant glass/laminate windows, capable of withstanding winds of 165-200mph, and nothing significant that's exterior flammable (nor anything nearby that'd cause problems like one of those kinds of pine trees which turns into a flame thrower when it burns), you should be good against a nuke going off somewhat close (though not directly overhead. Overpressure wave falls off fairly quickly. 5-7psi resistance would get you quite a ways.
A natural reason this might work out too is that there aren't a lot of major cities where you could even build your own house and be anywhere vaguely close to the center target points, simply because all of those areas will almost by definition be multi-story multi-tenant if not sky scrapers. So if we're talking about you owning your own largish newish well built house, not bad odds that you're not ground zero. That lowers the bar a fair amount.
Some stuff isn't really compatible with any normal natural disaster one might think of though. Like, hurricanes don't tend to go along with massive sustained fires, because they go along with massive rain and flooding instead. Is a property designed for both a cat 5 AND a huge thermal pulse? Might be luck a bit.
>How much would it cost to build an underground bunker in the UK? >implying the council will let you
Actually, they might force you. My uncle lives in the UK and when he was building his new place they couldn't get planning permission to expand the footprint or add another storey to the building, instead, to get extra space he had to dig down. Excavation cost a fortune but now he's fitted a cinema room, den, gym, hot tub and a ton of storage space to a house that looks pretty small from the outside.
>Unironically counts as a dwelling so you'll need at least one window.
If it's below your own house then it's part of the overall dwelling, so if you have even one story above ground as a normal looking place you're fine. This isn't really much of an impediment, like even if we imagine a 100% massive underground silo bunker structure, you could still put a little eating room and windowed stairwell above ground as the entrance.
In some places though better hope to not run into any artifacts while digging or at least have your digger be someone who will not mention it. If op is a yuro asking this that's not at all an impossible thing.
>overpressure
Go to >https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/
OP, select parameters, pic your spot, then under advanced select overpressure rings. 5psi is equivalent to around 165mph winds, 10psi around 300mph, 20psi around 500mph. A quality well constructed brick house that isn't just facade and has a solid foundation, backing, roof attach (like what you'd use in tornado or hurricane areas) so that it won't act as a wing, etc should be good for 4 psi, though 5 would be pushing it. It's absolutely possible to construct houses without them being massively exotic up to 5-7psi or so, but I wouldn't expect a random one to be built like that at all. Few people design for cat 5 hurricanes or EF4+ tornadoes even in areas that get them.
I see no heavy duty shutters there so the windows are done for unless they're exotic, and that means the interior will be badly fricked up and will not provide much fallout protection if it's within even 2psi or so range. If it's far enough away to be completely undamaged it'd be better than nothing, particularly if there is time/means to quickly put up plywood or other coverings and seal everything as best as possible. I'd still retreat to the basement (if it has one) in a plume, assuming you can't leave.
Area looks suburban-ish though so it may be more weakly built than it looks, have no basement, etc.
>I see no heavy duty shutters there so the windows are done for unless they're exotic
You could install a protective film on the inside which can help a good deal with debris.
If we switch to a groundburst, then the pressure and thermal rings shrink significantly. Many more buildings will be left intact or lightly damaged, smaller fire, direct gamma ray hit, and burns too. However, fallout skyrockets, and total area affected. In the case of a single weapon the answer would probably be to just leave and get out of the plume. Remember that it's not instant, this is final dimensions (in this case I went with a sustained 15mph wind, which is on the higher end of what is typical in NE), the fallout is being wind driven and that means there is time before it reaches any given location. But in the more likely case of a general war it may be hard/impossible to go somewhere with zero fallout depending on where you are, and in turn sheltering in place may make sense including spending 30 minutes or whatever before it arrives trying to organize and button things up as best as possible. A week or two is plenty to have radiation levels plummet, so if you're outside of the very worst you can start venturing out at that point with what protection you can muster, then return to your shelter to eat/sleep. Cancer rates will rise but not the end of the world. Time of year will matter a huge amount as well of course, winter is going to be different considerations than summer. Winter would be harder for some people but might be better for others and definitely for wildlife bounce back, farming etc, all crops are done, most trees and lots of animals are in shutdown mode or have migrated (conveniently CA/SA are unlikely to be targets so by the time birds come back radiation will have died down big time), etc.
[...]
Sure, better than nothing in preventing a lot of shards at least, but heavy driven debris will still punch it so the air integrity will still be compromised. But at the margins sure, it's also not expensive and it can have some other uses too (bit of extra time vs someone trying to break in). Don't mean to downplay it.
Buy tempered+laminated glass, my dudes. >inb4 lamination polymer "yellows" after 10-15 years if it's PVB and is opaque if EVA.
Then get just tempered glass. It literally has no downsides besides a marginally higher bill.
>Buy tempered+laminated glass, my dudes.
Me? Sure, absolutely. All I was saying anon is that the vast majority of people have no such thing, or even think about it. It's not the standard outside of certain disaster areas. In much of the world nobody ever faces winds higher than a strong gusting. >besides a marginally higher bill
It's going to be a lot to a bunch of people but more to the point the issue is that it's not a marginal cost unless it's a greenfield house. It's one of the many ways a bit of upfront thinking and money can save you enormous money and give you tons of benefits down the road, but it'd be quite painful to retrofit after the fact. Replacement of all windows at present day prices is a big chunk of change.
That's also assuming the frames are good enough for it to matter much too. Same as doors, a nice solid door and lock is a good idea, but if it's some horrible shitty frame a lot of the security is wasted. Unfortunately lots of houses weren't constructed that way, which stinks.
So for example OP, here is an 800kt (Russian ICBM) hit on Albany optimized for overpressure with 8psi, 4psi, 2psi, and wood ignition thermal radius. You can assume everything within the 8psi ring is completely destroyed, even heavy duty civilian stuff, and most stuff within the 4psi ring as well. You can see the 4psi ring is larger than the thermal ignition ring, so there is significant chance of a firestorm. The 2psi ring is going to cause significant damage to typical wood/sheetrock buildings and blast out windows, and carry enough debris to be dangerous. Your brick building however WILL give you solid protection vs burns, which is important.
You'll notice there is zero fallout here, that's not really a feature of airbursts that are designed to maximize physical damage.
If we switch to a groundburst, then the pressure and thermal rings shrink significantly. Many more buildings will be left intact or lightly damaged, smaller fire, direct gamma ray hit, and burns too. However, fallout skyrockets, and total area affected. In the case of a single weapon the answer would probably be to just leave and get out of the plume. Remember that it's not instant, this is final dimensions (in this case I went with a sustained 15mph wind, which is on the higher end of what is typical in NE), the fallout is being wind driven and that means there is time before it reaches any given location. But in the more likely case of a general war it may be hard/impossible to go somewhere with zero fallout depending on where you are, and in turn sheltering in place may make sense including spending 30 minutes or whatever before it arrives trying to organize and button things up as best as possible. A week or two is plenty to have radiation levels plummet, so if you're outside of the very worst you can start venturing out at that point with what protection you can muster, then return to your shelter to eat/sleep. Cancer rates will rise but not the end of the world. Time of year will matter a huge amount as well of course, winter is going to be different considerations than summer. Winter would be harder for some people but might be better for others and definitely for wildlife bounce back, farming etc, all crops are done, most trees and lots of animals are in shutdown mode or have migrated (conveniently CA/SA are unlikely to be targets so by the time birds come back radiation will have died down big time), etc.
>I see no heavy duty shutters there so the windows are done for unless they're exotic
You could install a protective film on the inside which can help a good deal with debris.
Sure, better than nothing in preventing a lot of shards at least, but heavy driven debris will still punch it so the air integrity will still be compromised. But at the margins sure, it's also not expensive and it can have some other uses too (bit of extra time vs someone trying to break in). Don't mean to downplay it.
If we switch to a groundburst, then the pressure and thermal rings shrink significantly. Many more buildings will be left intact or lightly damaged, smaller fire, direct gamma ray hit, and burns too. However, fallout skyrockets, and total area affected. In the case of a single weapon the answer would probably be to just leave and get out of the plume. Remember that it's not instant, this is final dimensions (in this case I went with a sustained 15mph wind, which is on the higher end of what is typical in NE), the fallout is being wind driven and that means there is time before it reaches any given location. But in the more likely case of a general war it may be hard/impossible to go somewhere with zero fallout depending on where you are, and in turn sheltering in place may make sense including spending 30 minutes or whatever before it arrives trying to organize and button things up as best as possible. A week or two is plenty to have radiation levels plummet, so if you're outside of the very worst you can start venturing out at that point with what protection you can muster, then return to your shelter to eat/sleep. Cancer rates will rise but not the end of the world. Time of year will matter a huge amount as well of course, winter is going to be different considerations than summer. Winter would be harder for some people but might be better for others and definitely for wildlife bounce back, farming etc, all crops are done, most trees and lots of animals are in shutdown mode or have migrated (conveniently CA/SA are unlikely to be targets so by the time birds come back radiation will have died down big time), etc.
[...]
Sure, better than nothing in preventing a lot of shards at least, but heavy driven debris will still punch it so the air integrity will still be compromised. But at the margins sure, it's also not expensive and it can have some other uses too (bit of extra time vs someone trying to break in). Don't mean to downplay it.
It should be even worse because you will be hit by MIRVs. Multiple warheads will explode around.
>It should be even worse because you will be hit by MIRVs. Multiple warheads will explode around.
That's what I said anon, in an actual nuclear war vs a terrorist nuke say (although worth noting that would almost 100% certainly be a ground strike since it'd be on a truck or something) odds are nukes and potentially fallout will be all over, so can't simply leave. Nukemap will let you simulate multiple burst though too, I was only giving those as examples.
Also, you can mix in factors like "what percent of incoming nukes actually work" when it comes to Russia, how many the US take out (either via an SLBM based counter force first strike or SMD), and a lot of guessing games about how they'd allocate them. The uncertainty factor is pretty big here, so best you can do is play with variables a bit. Even people in "the middle of nowhere" might be surprised to find themselves still in a fallout plume because a lot of ICBM silos and military bases are in the middle of nowhere too, precisely for that reason, and counterforce is basically always ground strike.
>either via an SLBM based counter force first strike or SMD
US also built a massive conventional counterforce arsenal, JASSM, JSOW, Tomahawks all have earth penetrating warheads that can damage underground bunkers and silos, in addition to free falling bombs from stealth aircraft like the F-35 and B-2.
DIY UHPC/RPC shill here from the home defense thread. >all have earth penetrating warheads
Current gen bunker busters don't work against UHPC. Yes, really.
>US also built a massive conventional counterforce arsenal, JASSM, JSOW, Tomahawks all have earth penetrating warheads that can damage underground bunkers and silos, in addition to free falling bombs from stealth aircraft like the F-35 and B-2.
I don't really count any of that stuff anon in this equation myself, or at least not at all dependable, except MAYBE the B2s (and they'd be armed with nukes in this scenario). The fact is all of that is just too slow/short range to deal with ICBMs in most scenarios I can think of. The US would need a LOT of warning of plans, and simultaneously be convince that it was so serious it deserved a massive strike that'd surely kick off war itself. The desire would be to try to avoid anything as much as possible. SLBMs can be on target in Russia from coastal waters in like 5 minutes, and Russian has shitty EWS at this point same as the rest. That's why the US developing those clever superfuses for them provoked major Russian whining at the time. SLMBs could eliminate a major amount of ground based nukes with very, very little notice. President could wait to give the order until nearly the last minute.
Tomahawks can work in terms of range, but they're too slow, and the assets to launch them in a surprise way (subs) are better tasked with SLBMs here. F-35 doesn't have the range even if it was ready, basically useless here, though good for fighting after the exchange. B-2s (with some but reasonable warning) could play a role maybe, but not enough of them to do more than light contributions. US ICBMs would probably be the tool tasked with dealing with the IRBM/SRBM/tactical warhead depots and other forces.
If we switch to a groundburst, then the pressure and thermal rings shrink significantly. Many more buildings will be left intact or lightly damaged, smaller fire, direct gamma ray hit, and burns too. However, fallout skyrockets, and total area affected. In the case of a single weapon the answer would probably be to just leave and get out of the plume. Remember that it's not instant, this is final dimensions (in this case I went with a sustained 15mph wind, which is on the higher end of what is typical in NE), the fallout is being wind driven and that means there is time before it reaches any given location. But in the more likely case of a general war it may be hard/impossible to go somewhere with zero fallout depending on where you are, and in turn sheltering in place may make sense including spending 30 minutes or whatever before it arrives trying to organize and button things up as best as possible. A week or two is plenty to have radiation levels plummet, so if you're outside of the very worst you can start venturing out at that point with what protection you can muster, then return to your shelter to eat/sleep. Cancer rates will rise but not the end of the world. Time of year will matter a huge amount as well of course, winter is going to be different considerations than summer. Winter would be harder for some people but might be better for others and definitely for wildlife bounce back, farming etc, all crops are done, most trees and lots of animals are in shutdown mode or have migrated (conveniently CA/SA are unlikely to be targets so by the time birds come back radiation will have died down big time), etc.
[...]
Sure, better than nothing in preventing a lot of shards at least, but heavy driven debris will still punch it so the air integrity will still be compromised. But at the margins sure, it's also not expensive and it can have some other uses too (bit of extra time vs someone trying to break in). Don't mean to downplay it.
Better question: who the frick is gonna nuke Albany?
>Better question: who the frick is gonna nuke Albany?
It's a major state capital, has a population >500k, in an all out war I'd assume by default that some number of nukes would be used for them, same as Sacramento CA or Austin TX etc. Plenty of big powerful states have capitals that aren't remotely their biggest richest city, but out 1000+ warheads I think it's a safe assumption that a few dozen would be aimed the major ones, though probably not nowherevilles like South Dekota (capital population: 14k), Maine (18k) or Vermont (8k lol).
That would be a pretty stupid use of warheads. Now, one cannot assume that they *aren't* that stupid, so it's entirely possible. One's first priority should always be to protect whatever's left of one's country, however, and wasting warheads on state capitols instead of command and control facilities whose destruction could delay or even prevent the launch of some missiles back at you... would seem like a poor decision.
Now, quite a few command and control nodes are in and around cities, so several would suffer severe collateral damage anyways. And, it's probably not too big of a stretch to drop a nuke or two apiece on NYC/LA in order to incite panic and confusion. But nuking cities just for the sake of nuking cities doesn't really help your nation survive the war.
>That would be a pretty stupid use of warheads.
No, you're just a moron. >and wasting warheads on state capitols instead of command and control facilities whose destruction could delay or even prevent the launch of some missiles back at you... would seem like a poor decision.
Because you're a moron. Russia has nothing that can reach and strike at the US and prevent a massive second strike lol. Travel time on land based ICBMs is like 15-30 minutes, and the US has massive, actually working, launch and in-flight detection systems. We'd know instantly. It doesn't take that long for the POTUS to give orders, precisely because all this was considered during the CW very closely.
The best Russia can do in terms of counter force is try to hit sustainment stuff, bomber bases, sub pens, naval, and as much government as possible so that hopefully America dissolves into chaos for awhile vs mopping them all up both unconventionally and conventionally. Any major place that would become an obvious new hub is a decent target. Mostly though if it happened it'd be pure spite. The time in history, if there ever was one, that they could even vaguely come out ahead in a nuclear exchange is long, long passed. >one cannot assume that they *aren't* that stupid
Anon, the whole scenario here 100% assumes Russian stupid. Because it presumes general nuclear war at all. The only rational outcome is for them to sit tight, they can only lose, or they're already dead anyway, in which case see above. If they don't it's because we're into irrational scenarios.
Could pic related survive a nuclear explosion? And protect someone against radioactive fallout? I would be spending my 3-14 days in one of these with my neighbors, most of whom are alcoholics, Black folk and other scum. I bet none of them know that they need to bring their own food and leave their pets outside. I'm gonna enjoy this...
>mfw crancking the air filter after power went out >people in the dark shelter are panicking and screaming >owombo bombo from the next block started making a campfire on the shelter floor >tweaker from downstairs started seeing skinwalkers and stabbed couple people1 >that one family with two kids saw that i had a few cans of food and hard tack in my bag and came to scream at me that their kids need it more than me and the father would frick me up if i didn't give them up
If it would be a proper shelter that could be buttoned up, it could survive about 2 hours with the oxygen inside (0,75m2 per person shelter space), before you need to use the filter. That is if the city above you isn't in a firestorm and burning all of the oxygen away. I don't know if those 50's shelters even had any filters.
Anon, every hard structure can "survive a nuclear explosion" to varying degrees. An ICBM silo can survive a 10MT blast from a mile away, and a trailer house can survive that same explosion 30 miles away. It can even survive a blast less than a mile from ground zero if it was a minimum yield W54.
In other words, you are asking a very general question for an answer that requires very specific parameters.
[...]
I am approximately 7.4 and 7.9 miles away from 2 RAF airbases, which only do training aircraft and does not have any fighter aircraft or bombers from my knowledge (I hope). I am 15.1 miles away from any major RAF airbase, which would very likely get targeted if WWIII started.
[...]
I don’t want to die, m8.
>I have already given those parameters, though.
Then get on fricking nukemap like earlier anons linked and run it you fricking sperg. What do you want from us?
I think I live in the worst state for a nuclear exchange. >biggest city has a joint army-airbase, harbor, an international airport, and exceeds 300k people - boink >second biggest city has a military base with runway, an international airport capable of taking strategic bombers, a refinery, and has an oil pipeline running through it >third biggest city is state capital and has a port >one major highway has an airbase and a missile defense base on it >the other has a radar array for tracking ICBM's >all runways would be priority targets because we're so close to Russia itself >summer exchange would result in a state-wide wild fire
Alaskabro? But you'd only get like, a handful of nukes and most of the rest of the state would be fine. Although I have no idea what the farming is like up there, are you food self-sufficient? That could be a real problem eventually.
Yeah, but the handful of nukes cover 90% of the .1% of the state that's developed. It's a sad state of affairs. The wind patterns mean the small amount of agricultural land would receive any fallout too. RIP.
no
Oh… Not even against the fallout?
No
Well, I’m going to die during WWIII.
That was always a given.
No shit sherlock, we're all gonna die during WWIII. That's the whole point.
Not unless we get the ball rolling on WWV
The fallout, depending on how far you are, isn't that big of a deal. Just need to take proper precaution when dealing with shit
>Just need to take proper precaution when dealing with shit
And what are those ‘proper precautions’?
Just hold your breath and don't breathe in the dust bruh
Depends on how close they drop the bomb bro.
It'll fallout from settling on your body but unless its got a basement the protection will be minimal.
Most houses in the U.K. don’t have basements. However, I do have a tiny storage room I can go into if Putin throws a nuke at us. It is in the middle of the building, away from any windows.
>uk
You are screwed. It's too small to be far enough from the targets.
Anything can survive a nuke if it's a sufficient distance away.
This. How far are you from a strategic target? In the UK, you're looking at mostly radar or command and control facilities, unless you happen to live right next to Faslane. If you're more than 20 miles away from anything important, then good news! You don't have to worry about the explosion, just the fallout.
Now, fallout is mostly alpha and beta radiation, which can be stopped by skin and clothes, respectively. So, seal up your windows, doors, and any other air leaks (industrial-grade plastic and duct tape will suffice), and stay inside for two weeks. As long as you don't get any radioactive particles inside of you, you should be just fine.
Now, gamma radiation is the nasty stuff. It'll go right through your walls and into you. For that, you need 1' of concrete or 3' of packed earth. You don't have to dig a bunker, though; you can build a "pillow fort" right inside your house before the fallout gets to you. Use stout tables or desks or something as a framework, and fill boxes, bins, or even heavy-duty trash bags with earth and pile them over and around your "fort". If fallout *does* land near you, you'll need to stay inside the fort for 2 days, and inside the house for 2 weeks.
And then the hard part begins.
For more information, have a primer on the subject, inspired in large part by a nuclear arms expert who used to post here: https://pastebin.com/cWs6A7rR
>Now, gamma radiation is the nasty stuff. It'll go right through your walls and into you. For that, you need 1' of concrete or 3' of packed earth. You don't have to dig a bunker, though; you can build a "pillow fort" right inside your house before the fallout gets to you. Use stout tables or desks or something as a framework, and fill boxes, bins, or even heavy-duty trash bags with earth and pile them over and around your "fort". If fallout *does* land near you, you'll need to stay inside the fort for 2 days, and inside the house for 2 weeks.
The good news is that the gamma burst radius is pretty much the same as that for heavy blast damage, so chances are if you aren't instantly killed/seriously injured by the explosion the gamma burst isn't a concern anyway
That's pretty much what I thought when I wrote the primer, but since then, I have seen references in official Cold War documents that suggest that some fallout particles *do* produce gamma. Frustratingly, I have not found any source that says how *much* of fallout radiation is gamma. It certainly appears to be the smallest component. Hence, the "pillow fort" recommendation. If you're sealing up your house to protect yourself from alpha/beta emitters anyways, it's not *that* huge a stretch to keep working and construct a shelter (say, within your living room) that would provide some degree of protection against gamma.
For prompt gamma, of course, if you're close enough to receive a lethal dose, you're close enough that the blast wave will make it a moot point a second or two later.
I am approximately 7.4 and 7.9 miles away from 2 RAF airbases, which only do training aircraft and does not have any fighter aircraft or bombers from my knowledge (I hope). I am 15.1 miles away from any major RAF airbase, which would very likely get targeted if WWIII started.
I don’t want to die, m8.
>7.4 and 7.9 miles away from 2 RAF airbases
>15.1 miles away from any major RAF airbase
You're likely to suffer from effects of nuclear blast if russian nuke misses by a large enough margin to reach you, which it very well might.
Otherwise, deal with the fallout.
Kek not RAF Dishforth, Linton and Leeming by any chance? If so welcome to the fire bro I'll see you in hell
No. Thanks for the offer, though.
What type of nuclear weapon yield would the Russians use on a small airbase?
no, even if it somehow by the hand of god survived the blast your windows will melt and your roof will catch fire, you'll be forced outside by the flames and die of radiation exposure
GG
🙁
At Ground Zero? No, it would be entirely atomized, of course.
If the detonation is in the urban center of the city, and the brick house is like on the outskirts, then maybe, depending on the yield and the geography.
If you look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they weren't just evenly flattened out, Nagasaki for instance was mountainous and very unevenly shaped, so you got 'shadow' where geography shielded certain parts from damage, so casualties were not even close to as intense as Hiroshima.
The brick house would protect against the radiation and heat from the initial flash of detonation, even the clothes on your body or a newspaper would protect against most of that at long distance.
This is why, and I really want to emphasize this part because some people are morons, if you're NOT at Ground Zero, and if you're say, right outside the city and an atomic bomb goes off in the center of it, if you throw yourself behind some sort of cover and try to cover up your face and shit, you can mostly prevent the initial damage of the heat flash and the gamma radiation, it can make the difference between living and dying.
Of course, when a nuke touches off, you get the blast itself, and as it wrecks the frick out of shit in the center, it "claymores" so much around the center outwards, so that's one of the effects, but that also doesn't reach infinitely either. Looking again at Hiroshima, part of the docks of the city were outside of the immediate destruction range, and weren't reached by the kaboom or the urban shrapnel.
Of course, the explosion and heat flash causes fires, so even then time is ticking, if you're outside of the immediate destruction radius, fire might come your way, so don't just wait around.
>if you throw yourself behind some sort of cover and try to cover up your face and shit, you can mostly prevent the initial damage of the heat flash and the gamma radiation, it can make the difference between living and dying.
There was this one guy in Hiroshima who was war pretty close to the center. He survived, took the train to Nagasaki, just to arrive in time for the bomb. He recently died from old age.
> be me, invincible Japanese man who is unkillable but simply wants to live in peace
> my country is out of their fricking minds
> America wants us to surrender so they nuke my home city, Hiroshima
> Kinda disappointed but nothing I can't rebuild (besides all of my family and friends)
> Take all my things (dust) and move to Nagasaki
> After three days I've secured an apartment
> On the third day Nagasaki gets nuked
> mfw
That man then bought PrepHole from Moot
>There was this one guy in Hiroshima who was war pretty close to the center. He survived, took the train to Nagasaki, just to arrive in time for the bomb. He recently died from old age.
Keep in mind though that those were absolutely minuscule by today's standards. For a comparison to above (sorry to keep picking on Albany) here's Little Boy, at its estimated detonation altitude of 1968 feet. I mean, just look at it.
>That man then bought PrepHole from Moot
This would explain a great deal. Well played nipmoot.
>He returned to Nagasaki the following day and, despite his wounds, he returned to work on 9 August, the day of the second atomic bombing. That morning, while he was being told by his supervisor that he was "crazy" after describing how one bomb had destroyed the city, the Nagasaki bomb detonated
fricking KEK
your homosexual-ass will be lucky to be vaporized by the nuclear hellfire, its what you deserve
Contractor here with 20 years of experience
Short answer, your building department does not require us to ensure that your domicile will survive a point-blank 20 kt nuclear blast, nor could you afford a home that large that presumably could (if it can be built above ground at all).
Long answer:
Recent fire updates in our area require a new design that decreases weight and increases longevity (a ///// lattice like joist system at the basement) and these fiberglass panels that sandwich the main treated beams. We have been told these increase the time to collapse in the event of a fire by about 30 minutes or so, which is not an insignificant improvement in survival for responding firefighters and such. A main cause of death in fires, aside from the usual smoke inhalation, is the structure weakening and you falling through the floor into a basement, which at that point usually turns into something resembling the fires of Mt Doom.
The outer brick may provide some heat protection and I'd rate it more highly than vinyl siding in terms of it turning into debris or burning or radiation. The windows are just shrapnel. Your house isn't designed to be explosion proof. Why would it be? In recent years, how many homes have been exploded from the OUTSIDE as opposed to the much higher chance of a gas explosion from INSIDE?
If you want a home fortified for nuclear destruction you'd be better off either building one of those monolithic dome homes (good luck with resale), or going completely underground.
Much more practical would be to invest in home improvements specific to your local extreme weather. I live in the midwest. Tornado season is our main fear, not atomic warfare or stray 155mm. Fortifying basements and ensuring there aren't any cracks unsealed, a generator for a sump pump, a stock of supplies, having even a fortified room without windows are all good ideas, and it is far more practical than trying to defend your home against canned sunshine.
What country and what is your opinion on ICF and tangentially fiberglass rebar.
Not him (and not an expert in that field), but I'd guess that it depends on the type of ICF used. A monolithic dome is typically a couple inches of insulation followed by at least 3-4 inches of concrete+rebar, and the shape deflects an awful lot of incoming blast damage. You'd want an ICF to have more concrete than that, because it doesn't have the shape advantage. Also, it would depend upon the style of ICF. If you use the popular interlocking foam blocks, then obviously you don't have a solid concrete wall; there would be soft spots where there is no concrete, and I suspect that would be very vulnerable to a blast wave. You'd need a style that presented a continuous, unbroken shell (walls *and* roof) of reinforced concrete.
>there are parts that dont have concrete
Not true, the blocks are hollow throughout except for pastic stays that hold the rebar and attach the foam peices to eachother.
They arent like cinderblock.
>fiberglass rebar
Anon, I seriously hope you don't do this, esp in anything structural that might fall on your head. I know where you're coming from because that's where I began my journey years ago
>it doesn't rust or degrade! My concrete will last forever too because no spalling from rusting rebar.
There are 2 tiny nuances. First is that fiberglass rebar has a 4 times lower modulus of elasticity than steel while having a few times higher tensile strength. This means it's elongation before fully engaging is 10x of steel, or about 2%. What this means is that unless you put many times the amount of rebar as you would with steel, your concrete will crack and droop under full load.
The second nuance is that fiberglass melts in alkaline environment. Let me remind you that ordinary concrete is Ph 11-12 inside once cured.
Yes, responsible manufacturers add a protective coating to fiberglass rebar, but you have no way of knowing when it'll be scratched off inside.
Trust me, the last thing you want is wondering whether the ceiling will fall on your head during sleep, because unlike steel rebar which signals it's degradation via spalling concrete, the fiberglass rebar will silently lose grip and pull out with catastrophic consequences.
I'm the
anon.
I mean it is the idea that it would be used in ICF, so no it wouldnt be overhead.
It's your life, bro, not mine.
Hey man im just asking a question.
Tell me about coated steel rebar pls.
Coated steel rebar?
Yeah since you seem to know, is there any reason to spend the cash on coated steel rebar?
Never heard of one. I know classic steel, stainless steel, fiberglass, carbon fiber.
The only "coated steel" I know of is steel covered with zinc alloy, but I've never heard of steel rebar being made that way, only roof or steel truss construction.
https://shop.kuhlman-corp.com/construction-supplies/reinforcements/concrete-mesh-rebar/c834_890_893/?sort_by=product&page=2&desktop_view=1
If you're talking about epoxy coating rebar, I've never dealt with or researched the stuff.
Don't have an opinion.
Bro, can you give me a qrd on crystalline waterproofing additives?
>The outer brick may provide some heat protection and I'd rate it more highly than vinyl siding in terms of it turning into debris or burning or radiation. The windows are just shrapnel. Your house isn't designed to be explosion proof. Why would it be? In recent years, how many homes have been exploded from the OUTSIDE as opposed to the much higher chance of a gas explosion from INSIDE?
Interesting question. If you live in an area with hurricanes/tornados and also high crime (or fear of looters after such an event), and did a heavy duty house with smaller but thick bullet resistant glass/laminate windows, capable of withstanding winds of 165-200mph, and nothing significant that's exterior flammable (nor anything nearby that'd cause problems like one of those kinds of pine trees which turns into a flame thrower when it burns), you should be good against a nuke going off somewhat close (though not directly overhead. Overpressure wave falls off fairly quickly. 5-7psi resistance would get you quite a ways.
A natural reason this might work out too is that there aren't a lot of major cities where you could even build your own house and be anywhere vaguely close to the center target points, simply because all of those areas will almost by definition be multi-story multi-tenant if not sky scrapers. So if we're talking about you owning your own largish newish well built house, not bad odds that you're not ground zero. That lowers the bar a fair amount.
Some stuff isn't really compatible with any normal natural disaster one might think of though. Like, hurricanes don't tend to go along with massive sustained fires, because they go along with massive rain and flooding instead. Is a property designed for both a cat 5 AND a huge thermal pulse? Might be luck a bit.
How much would it cost to build an underground bunker in the UK?
>implying the council will let you
plenty of them still around.
>How much would it cost to build an underground bunker in the UK?
>implying the council will let you
Actually, they might force you. My uncle lives in the UK and when he was building his new place they couldn't get planning permission to expand the footprint or add another storey to the building, instead, to get extra space he had to dig down. Excavation cost a fortune but now he's fitted a cinema room, den, gym, hot tub and a ton of storage space to a house that looks pretty small from the outside.
Unironically counts as a dwelling so you'll need at least one window.
>Unironically counts as a dwelling so you'll need at least one window.
If it's below your own house then it's part of the overall dwelling, so if you have even one story above ground as a normal looking place you're fine. This isn't really much of an impediment, like even if we imagine a 100% massive underground silo bunker structure, you could still put a little eating room and windowed stairwell above ground as the entrance.
In some places though better hope to not run into any artifacts while digging or at least have your digger be someone who will not mention it. If op is a yuro asking this that's not at all an impossible thing.
How far away from the blast are you?
No, Deano would die an instant death
>overpressure
Go to
>https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/
OP, select parameters, pic your spot, then under advanced select overpressure rings. 5psi is equivalent to around 165mph winds, 10psi around 300mph, 20psi around 500mph. A quality well constructed brick house that isn't just facade and has a solid foundation, backing, roof attach (like what you'd use in tornado or hurricane areas) so that it won't act as a wing, etc should be good for 4 psi, though 5 would be pushing it. It's absolutely possible to construct houses without them being massively exotic up to 5-7psi or so, but I wouldn't expect a random one to be built like that at all. Few people design for cat 5 hurricanes or EF4+ tornadoes even in areas that get them.
I see no heavy duty shutters there so the windows are done for unless they're exotic, and that means the interior will be badly fricked up and will not provide much fallout protection if it's within even 2psi or so range. If it's far enough away to be completely undamaged it'd be better than nothing, particularly if there is time/means to quickly put up plywood or other coverings and seal everything as best as possible. I'd still retreat to the basement (if it has one) in a plume, assuming you can't leave.
Area looks suburban-ish though so it may be more weakly built than it looks, have no basement, etc.
>I see no heavy duty shutters there so the windows are done for unless they're exotic
You could install a protective film on the inside which can help a good deal with debris.
Buy tempered+laminated glass, my dudes.
>inb4 lamination polymer "yellows" after 10-15 years if it's PVB and is opaque if EVA.
Then get just tempered glass. It literally has no downsides besides a marginally higher bill.
>Buy tempered+laminated glass, my dudes.
Me? Sure, absolutely. All I was saying anon is that the vast majority of people have no such thing, or even think about it. It's not the standard outside of certain disaster areas. In much of the world nobody ever faces winds higher than a strong gusting.
>besides a marginally higher bill
It's going to be a lot to a bunch of people but more to the point the issue is that it's not a marginal cost unless it's a greenfield house. It's one of the many ways a bit of upfront thinking and money can save you enormous money and give you tons of benefits down the road, but it'd be quite painful to retrofit after the fact. Replacement of all windows at present day prices is a big chunk of change.
That's also assuming the frames are good enough for it to matter much too. Same as doors, a nice solid door and lock is a good idea, but if it's some horrible shitty frame a lot of the security is wasted. Unfortunately lots of houses weren't constructed that way, which stinks.
So for example OP, here is an 800kt (Russian ICBM) hit on Albany optimized for overpressure with 8psi, 4psi, 2psi, and wood ignition thermal radius. You can assume everything within the 8psi ring is completely destroyed, even heavy duty civilian stuff, and most stuff within the 4psi ring as well. You can see the 4psi ring is larger than the thermal ignition ring, so there is significant chance of a firestorm. The 2psi ring is going to cause significant damage to typical wood/sheetrock buildings and blast out windows, and carry enough debris to be dangerous. Your brick building however WILL give you solid protection vs burns, which is important.
You'll notice there is zero fallout here, that's not really a feature of airbursts that are designed to maximize physical damage.
If we switch to a groundburst, then the pressure and thermal rings shrink significantly. Many more buildings will be left intact or lightly damaged, smaller fire, direct gamma ray hit, and burns too. However, fallout skyrockets, and total area affected. In the case of a single weapon the answer would probably be to just leave and get out of the plume. Remember that it's not instant, this is final dimensions (in this case I went with a sustained 15mph wind, which is on the higher end of what is typical in NE), the fallout is being wind driven and that means there is time before it reaches any given location. But in the more likely case of a general war it may be hard/impossible to go somewhere with zero fallout depending on where you are, and in turn sheltering in place may make sense including spending 30 minutes or whatever before it arrives trying to organize and button things up as best as possible. A week or two is plenty to have radiation levels plummet, so if you're outside of the very worst you can start venturing out at that point with what protection you can muster, then return to your shelter to eat/sleep. Cancer rates will rise but not the end of the world. Time of year will matter a huge amount as well of course, winter is going to be different considerations than summer. Winter would be harder for some people but might be better for others and definitely for wildlife bounce back, farming etc, all crops are done, most trees and lots of animals are in shutdown mode or have migrated (conveniently CA/SA are unlikely to be targets so by the time birds come back radiation will have died down big time), etc.
Sure, better than nothing in preventing a lot of shards at least, but heavy driven debris will still punch it so the air integrity will still be compromised. But at the margins sure, it's also not expensive and it can have some other uses too (bit of extra time vs someone trying to break in). Don't mean to downplay it.
It should be even worse because you will be hit by MIRVs. Multiple warheads will explode around.
>It should be even worse because you will be hit by MIRVs. Multiple warheads will explode around.
That's what I said anon, in an actual nuclear war vs a terrorist nuke say (although worth noting that would almost 100% certainly be a ground strike since it'd be on a truck or something) odds are nukes and potentially fallout will be all over, so can't simply leave. Nukemap will let you simulate multiple burst though too, I was only giving those as examples.
Also, you can mix in factors like "what percent of incoming nukes actually work" when it comes to Russia, how many the US take out (either via an SLBM based counter force first strike or SMD), and a lot of guessing games about how they'd allocate them. The uncertainty factor is pretty big here, so best you can do is play with variables a bit. Even people in "the middle of nowhere" might be surprised to find themselves still in a fallout plume because a lot of ICBM silos and military bases are in the middle of nowhere too, precisely for that reason, and counterforce is basically always ground strike.
>either via an SLBM based counter force first strike or SMD
US also built a massive conventional counterforce arsenal, JASSM, JSOW, Tomahawks all have earth penetrating warheads that can damage underground bunkers and silos, in addition to free falling bombs from stealth aircraft like the F-35 and B-2.
DIY UHPC/RPC shill here from the home defense thread.
>all have earth penetrating warheads
Current gen bunker busters don't work against UHPC. Yes, really.
>US also built a massive conventional counterforce arsenal, JASSM, JSOW, Tomahawks all have earth penetrating warheads that can damage underground bunkers and silos, in addition to free falling bombs from stealth aircraft like the F-35 and B-2.
I don't really count any of that stuff anon in this equation myself, or at least not at all dependable, except MAYBE the B2s (and they'd be armed with nukes in this scenario). The fact is all of that is just too slow/short range to deal with ICBMs in most scenarios I can think of. The US would need a LOT of warning of plans, and simultaneously be convince that it was so serious it deserved a massive strike that'd surely kick off war itself. The desire would be to try to avoid anything as much as possible. SLBMs can be on target in Russia from coastal waters in like 5 minutes, and Russian has shitty EWS at this point same as the rest. That's why the US developing those clever superfuses for them provoked major Russian whining at the time. SLMBs could eliminate a major amount of ground based nukes with very, very little notice. President could wait to give the order until nearly the last minute.
Tomahawks can work in terms of range, but they're too slow, and the assets to launch them in a surprise way (subs) are better tasked with SLBMs here. F-35 doesn't have the range even if it was ready, basically useless here, though good for fighting after the exchange. B-2s (with some but reasonable warning) could play a role maybe, but not enough of them to do more than light contributions. US ICBMs would probably be the tool tasked with dealing with the IRBM/SRBM/tactical warhead depots and other forces.
Better question: who the frick is gonna nuke Albany?
Have you been to downtown albany? Would be an improvement.
>Better question: who the frick is gonna nuke Albany?
It's a major state capital, has a population >500k, in an all out war I'd assume by default that some number of nukes would be used for them, same as Sacramento CA or Austin TX etc. Plenty of big powerful states have capitals that aren't remotely their biggest richest city, but out 1000+ warheads I think it's a safe assumption that a few dozen would be aimed the major ones, though probably not nowherevilles like South Dekota (capital population: 14k), Maine (18k) or Vermont (8k lol).
That would be a pretty stupid use of warheads. Now, one cannot assume that they *aren't* that stupid, so it's entirely possible. One's first priority should always be to protect whatever's left of one's country, however, and wasting warheads on state capitols instead of command and control facilities whose destruction could delay or even prevent the launch of some missiles back at you... would seem like a poor decision.
Now, quite a few command and control nodes are in and around cities, so several would suffer severe collateral damage anyways. And, it's probably not too big of a stretch to drop a nuke or two apiece on NYC/LA in order to incite panic and confusion. But nuking cities just for the sake of nuking cities doesn't really help your nation survive the war.
>That would be a pretty stupid use of warheads.
No, you're just a moron.
>and wasting warheads on state capitols instead of command and control facilities whose destruction could delay or even prevent the launch of some missiles back at you... would seem like a poor decision.
Because you're a moron. Russia has nothing that can reach and strike at the US and prevent a massive second strike lol. Travel time on land based ICBMs is like 15-30 minutes, and the US has massive, actually working, launch and in-flight detection systems. We'd know instantly. It doesn't take that long for the POTUS to give orders, precisely because all this was considered during the CW very closely.
The best Russia can do in terms of counter force is try to hit sustainment stuff, bomber bases, sub pens, naval, and as much government as possible so that hopefully America dissolves into chaos for awhile vs mopping them all up both unconventionally and conventionally. Any major place that would become an obvious new hub is a decent target. Mostly though if it happened it'd be pure spite. The time in history, if there ever was one, that they could even vaguely come out ahead in a nuclear exchange is long, long passed.
>one cannot assume that they *aren't* that stupid
Anon, the whole scenario here 100% assumes Russian stupid. Because it presumes general nuclear war at all. The only rational outcome is for them to sit tight, they can only lose, or they're already dead anyway, in which case see above. If they don't it's because we're into irrational scenarios.
Nuclear weapons and shit don't actually exist you cumsock gourmands
>be me
>live near major RAF and RN bases
>get nuked
>die
look on the bright side, if you live it'll be exactly like threads
Yes. Such a nice house could be only targeted by a Rußian nuke, and these are bound to explode in their silos.
Is this the Deano house?
Mr Deano and his missus will most definitely survive the nuclear holocaust.
only if you have 20 layers of lead based paint like the simpsons
>United Kingdom.
You’re doomed regardless if you survive the blast or not.
Could pic related survive a nuclear explosion? And protect someone against radioactive fallout? I would be spending my 3-14 days in one of these with my neighbors, most of whom are alcoholics, Black folk and other scum. I bet none of them know that they need to bring their own food and leave their pets outside. I'm gonna enjoy this...
>mfw crancking the air filter after power went out
>people in the dark shelter are panicking and screaming
>owombo bombo from the next block started making a campfire on the shelter floor
>tweaker from downstairs started seeing skinwalkers and stabbed couple people1
>that one family with two kids saw that i had a few cans of food and hard tack in my bag and came to scream at me that their kids need it more than me and the father would frick me up if i didn't give them up
How much cranking would you need to do for a 1950's style basement fallout shelter? Assuming a Nuclear family
If it would be a proper shelter that could be buttoned up, it could survive about 2 hours with the oxygen inside (0,75m2 per person shelter space), before you need to use the filter. That is if the city above you isn't in a firestorm and burning all of the oxygen away. I don't know if those 50's shelters even had any filters.
Anon, every hard structure can "survive a nuclear explosion" to varying degrees. An ICBM silo can survive a 10MT blast from a mile away, and a trailer house can survive that same explosion 30 miles away. It can even survive a blast less than a mile from ground zero if it was a minimum yield W54.
In other words, you are asking a very general question for an answer that requires very specific parameters.
I have already given those parameters, though.
>I have already given those parameters, though.
Then get on fricking nukemap like earlier anons linked and run it you fricking sperg. What do you want from us?
What nuclear yield would Russia use on small airbases with only training aircraft? I need to know this because its important for nukemap.
The brick is just the facade. It's a 2x4 beam house like every other American house.
it's not american
oi oi deano waheyyyyyyy
I think I live in the worst state for a nuclear exchange.
>biggest city has a joint army-airbase, harbor, an international airport, and exceeds 300k people - boink
>second biggest city has a military base with runway, an international airport capable of taking strategic bombers, a refinery, and has an oil pipeline running through it
>third biggest city is state capital and has a port
>one major highway has an airbase and a missile defense base on it
>the other has a radar array for tracking ICBM's
>all runways would be priority targets because we're so close to Russia itself
>summer exchange would result in a state-wide wild fire
feels bad man
Alaskabro? But you'd only get like, a handful of nukes and most of the rest of the state would be fine. Although I have no idea what the farming is like up there, are you food self-sufficient? That could be a real problem eventually.
Yeah, but the handful of nukes cover 90% of the .1% of the state that's developed. It's a sad state of affairs. The wind patterns mean the small amount of agricultural land would receive any fallout too. RIP.