Nuclear/Catastrophe Planning

Damor · March 14, 2022

So all you engineers help the liberal arts major out here with the EMP topic, please.

Is there any reasonably constructible shielding/Faraday cage apparatus that's even worth attempting? I have one of those 'solar generators' (big-ass battery and panels) which I suppose might keep my kegerator cold long enough for me to polish off my homebrew whilst watching humanity's journey into darkness.

I've resorted to incognito mode to try to look something up online, but it seems to be a mess of unhinged prepper types arguing over the utility of wrapping AM radios in tinfoil and putting them in a galvanized trash can or sketchy shit on Amazon with reviews like, "My family is having lucid dreams again now that I shielded the electric company's 5G smart meter!!!"

Jkwellborn · March 14, 2022

I remember reading up on EMPs a while back and several people seemed to believe the only you’d have an EMP strong enough to actually mess up a lot of stuff is by setting off a nuclear bomb in the atmosphere. The thought after that was you’ve got bigger shit to worry about than your phone not working them.

NorthLoop · March 14, 2022

3 hours ago, Paper_jam said:

If shit were to hit the fan, what are the most likely targets (in Central Texas) for a strike? Warhead counts are not as high now as they were 30-40 years ago, so I don't know if we'd just have one or two bombs coming to our fair city, or a whole slew of them. I'm not a Russian war planner but off the top of my head, the following come to mind:

Downtown Austin & Capitol area

UT area

ABIA

Pickle Research/IBM area

Decker power plant

Fayette power plant

Samsung plant

Fort Hood

Mansfield Dam?

Cedar Park & Round Rock?

and lots of military stuff in/around San Antonio

My guess is

Ft. Hood #1

SA bases #2

DT SA #3

DT ATX #4

Doubt they'd waste 8 nukes on Austin. Yall aren't that important.

BabaYaga · March 14, 2022

38 minutes ago, NorthLoop said:

My guess is

Ft. Hood #1

SA bases #2

DT SA #3

DT ATX #4

Doubt they'd waste 8 nukes on Austin. Yall aren't that important.

I'll be at the ranch, butchering skinny, radioactive cows

CHIEF · March 14, 2022

1 hour ago, NorthLoop said:

My guess is

Ft. Hood #1

SA bases #2

DT SA #3

DT ATX #4

Doubt they'd waste 8 nukes on Austin. Yall aren't that important.

Dyess AFB in Abilene, and Carswell/Lockheed plant in Ft. Worth would probably be 1b. and 1c. to Ft. Hood. Would probably be on the same warhead just different MIRVs.

CHIEF

NorthLoop · March 14, 2022

8 minutes ago, CHIEF said:

Dyess AFB in Abilene, and Carswell/Lockheed plant in Ft. Worth would probably be 1b. and 1c. to Ft. Hood. Would probably be on the same warhead just different MIRVs.

CHIEF

Those aren't in central Texas tho

phdhorn · March 17, 2022

I've been holding onto this article for a week after I found it. Depressing read. Basically, we're fooked if Rooskia pops off their nukes - our defense systems are next to nonexistent to protect us. Nothing new here, but it pretty much lends credence to the fact that a good chunk of us will be wiped out, most likely. I've seen some posts on here in various threads that allege that "it would be difficult" for nukes to cause a lot of damage here or whatnot, but I vehemently disagree - which is why we have to cowtow to that Neanderthal in Moscow. Anyway, you decide for yerself.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/03/12/nation/after-four-decades-200-billion-us-missile-defense-system-is-no-match-russian-nuclear-attack/?outputType=amp&fr=operanews

After four decades and $200 billion, the US missile defense system is no match for a Russian nuclear attack

By Jim Puzzanghera Globe Staff,Updated March 12, 2022, 2:42 p.m.

WASHINGTON — With fears running high about a nuclear attack by the Soviet Union in 1983, President Ronald Reagan pitched an idea that seemed to come straight from his years as a Hollywood actor.

“What if free people could live secure in the knowledge that their security did not rest upon the threat of instant US retaliation to deter a Soviet attack, that we could intercept and destroy strategic ballistic missiles before they reached our own soil or that of our allies?” he asked in a prime-time address that featured aerial photos of Soviet aircraft and military hardware in Cuba and Nicaragua.

Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative was derided by critics as “Star Wars.” But building off technological advances, the US military has spent more than $200 billion in the nearly four decades since working to make that science fiction a reality. Now, after Russian President Vladimir Putin placed his vast nuclear arsenal on high alert following his invasion of Ukraine, Americans might be wondering what kind of missile defense shield all that money and effort has produced.

The answer, experts said, is not a very effective one.

The US only has a limited ability to destroy an incoming nuclear intercontinental ballistic missile, a study released last month by the American Physical Society concluded. It said that “the current capabilities are low and will likely continue to be low for the next 15 years” to protect the US against a strike from North Korea, which has an estimated 20 nuclear warheads and relatively unsophisticated missiles. The Pentagon disputes the findings and says the most recent tests show the system can handle a North Korean attack.

But the ability to defend against an attack by Russia, which is estimated to have nearly 6,000 nuclear warheads and highly sophisticated missile technology, is practically nonexistent. The US system is no match against a large number of incoming missiles — precisely the kind of attack that Russia would launch, experts said.

“This idea of an impenetrable shield against an enormous arsenal of Russian missiles is just a fantasy,” said Laura Grego, a fellow at MIT’s Laboratory for Nuclear Security and Policy who co-chaired the American Physical Society team that wrote the report. “It’s too hard to do.”

It’s so difficult that the US intentionally hasn’t even tried. Official Pentagon policy states that its system is only designed to protect the nation from nuclear missiles fired by a rogue state like North Korea. For a military superpower like Russia, the US depends on its own vast nuclear arsenal of about 5,400 warheads as a deterrent. It’s a doctrine known to those who grew up during the Cold War as mutual assured destruction or MAD — any nuclear attack on the US would result in a counterstrike that would annihilate both countries.

“The United States relies on nuclear deterrence to address the large and more sophisticated Russian and Chinese intercontinental ballistic missile capabilities,” according to the Defense Department’s most recent Missile Defense Review.

That’s probably surprising, and frightening, to many people, experts said.

“It’s fundamentally uncomfortable, this idea that we let the other guy have the ability to take us out and we expect the other guy to let us have the ability to do that, and we’re both going to stay rational and neither of us is going to cause the other to act on it,” said Ankit Panda, a senior fellow in the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a Washington, D.C., think tank.

Analysts have raised concerns that Putin has not been acting rational in his attack on Ukraine and in statements like the one he made when launching the invasion.

“Anyone who tries to interfere with us, or even more so, to create threats for our country and our people, must know that Russia’s response will be immediate and will lead you to such consequences as you have never before experienced in your history,” he said in a televised speech. A few days later, he announced Russia’s nuclear forces had been placed in “special combat readiness.” The US downplayed the move and gave no indication it changed its own nuclear readiness level, known by another frightening Cold War-era acronym called DEFCON.

Panda said many Americans don’t realize the US has little protection against a nuclear attack.

“I’ve seen it on my Twitter mentions,” he said. “I’ve been critical of setting up a no-fly zone partially on the basis of escalation risks and people reply, ‘Well, let the Russians try to nuke us. We have a missile shield, we’ll be fine.’ It’s just a very pervasive misunderstanding.”

The US must depend on nuclear deterrence because the arithmetic of our limited missile defense system and Russia’s massive arsenal doesn’t add up, said Robert Soofer, who served as deputy assistant secretary of defense for nuclear and missile defense policy during the Trump administration. Russia can overwhelm the US system by launching many more nuclear missiles than it could possibly knock out with its small squadron of ground-based interceptors.

“There are ways that Russia can strike the United States that really makes the GBI system virtually useless,” said Soofer, a nonresident senior associate with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington, D.C., think tank. “If Russia wants to penetrate US missile defenses, they can.”

The main missile defense system protecting the United States was developed after President George W. Bush pulled the nation out of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty it had signed with the Soviet Union. The move came shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks amid heightened concern about a nuclear attack from a rogue state like North Korea and freed the US from restrictions on deploying a national missile defense system.

In a rushed effort completed by 2004, the Ground-based Midcourse Defense system began with 30 interceptor missiles in underground silos: 26 at Fort Greely in Alaska and four more at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. Guided by radar and satellite sensors, they’re designed to pursue an enemy missile into space. There, they release a “kill vehicle” to intercept and destroy the nuclear warhead above the atmosphere after it separates from the incoming missile.

The Obama administration added 14 more interceptor missiles at Fort Greely in 2017. Two years later the Trump administration started the process of adding 20 more missiles there with upgraded technology and the first are scheduled to be deployed by 2028.

The US has been testing elements of the system over the Pacific Ocean since 1999 with mixed results. Of the 19 attempts to destroy the target, 11 have been successful, including the two most recent ones in 2017 and 2019 that were conducted against realistic intercontinental ballistic missile targets, according to the Pentagon’s Missile Defense Agency.

“The Ground-based Midcourse Defense system is vitally important to the defense of our homeland, and this test demonstrates that we have a capable, credible deterrent against a very real threat,” Air Force Lieutenant General Samuel A. Greaves, then the agency’s director, said in a statement after the test.

That threat is rising. North Korea in recent days has conducted two tests of a new intercontinental ballistic missile, the White House said Thursday.

But Russian nuclear missiles are more sophisticated than those from North Korea, Soofer said. So the US would need to fire multiple interceptors at an incoming Russian missile to destroy its warheads, and the system could quickly get overwhelmed.

“At some point, we’re not going to be able to handle the Russian threat,” he said. “If there’s an unauthorized launch, an accidental launch, and it’s one or two missiles, I hope we can do something against it. But that’s not the way the Russians are going to operate. They’re not going to just launch one nuclear missile against the United States.”

To supplement the ground-based interceptors, the US has other ballistic missile defense systems designed to protect smaller areas. One is the Aegis system, which can fire missiles from Navy ships or land-based launchers to target short- and medium-range ballistic missiles. Two others are the Patriot and the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, or THAAD, mobile ground-based systems.

“If the Russians were to launch a modest attack against regional targets, we have some capacity for intercepting and defeating those attacks,” said Loren Thompson, a longtime defense analyst at the Lexington Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank. “We have some reasonable prospects of intercepting nuclear attacks using shorter range missiles, but when it comes to long-range missiles with which Russia could attack America, we have virtually no defense.”

The US has two Aegis missile defense sites in NATO nations, one in Romania and another in Poland that the Pentagon expects to be operational by the end of this year. The US has said they’re designed to protect Europe against a possible ballistic missile attack from Iran and pose no threat to Russia. But the presence of those US facilities near Russia’s border has angered Putin, who has said they could be used to launch offensive missiles at Russia.

It’s a continuation of his displeasure with the US for its missile defense efforts, starting with his objection to the decision to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. In a 2018 speech, Putin said Russia was developing new nuclear weapons designed to evade US missile defenses.

Arms control advocates said that’s a downside of the US missile defense effort — it leads Russia and China to try to upgrade their nuclear weapons.

“We sort of end up with the worst of both worlds, where the American taxpayer ponies up for tens of billions of spending on a homeland missile defense system that doesn’t really work that well and causes Russia and China to take steps that further deteriorate our own security,” Panda said.

Despite the limited capabilities of the missile defense system to protect the US, Soofer said it’s still an important part of our national defense.

“The only rational reason for Russia or China to attack us with nuclear weapons is if they thought they could disarm us and keep us from retaliating,” he said. “If we have missile defenses, even if they’re not 100 percent effective, they still don’t know how many of their missiles are going to get through. You complicate their attack and then you enhance deterrence.”

Despite Putin’s threats, Soofer said there is little appetite in Washington for a costly expansion of the US missile defense system to be able to repel a Russian attack. Such a system probably would require space-based interceptors — Reagan’s original idea that proved infeasible in the 1980s and a concept that Soofer described as “the third rail of missile defense politics on Capitol Hill because nobody wants to supposedly militarize the heavens.”

But Grego said a spaced-based system remains infeasible today, potentially requiring thousands of interceptors because of the complications of orbits and the Earth’s rotation.

“Even if you had a Death Star, you need lots of Death Stars,” she said, harkening back to “Star Wars.” “For strategic missile defense, which is defending the US homeland from Russian missiles, it isn’t really a political decision. Physics has done that for you. It’s just too hard. You’re not going to do it.”

Edited March 17, 2022 by phdhorn

Gatorubet · March 17, 2022

If we have a nuke war, I want the damn thing to land on my head. No desire to live like Mad Max.

NorthLoop · March 17, 2022

19 minutes ago, phdhorn said:

I've been holding onto this article for a week after I found it. Depressing read. Basically, we're fooked if Rooskia pops off their nukes - our defense systems are next to nonexistent to protect us. Nothing new here, but it pretty much lends credence to the fact that a good chunk of us will be wiped out, most likely. I've seen some posts on here in various threads that allege that "it would be difficult" for nukes to cause a lot of damage here or whatnot, but I vehemently disagree - which is why we have to cowtow to that Neanderthal in Moscow. Anyway, you decide for yerself.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/03/12/nation/after-four-decades-200-billion-us-missile-defense-system-is-no-match-russian-nuclear-attack/?outputType=amp&fr=operanews

After four decades and $200 billion, the US missile defense system is no match for a Russian nuclear attack

By Jim Puzzanghera Globe Staff,Updated March 12, 2022, 2:42 p.m.

WASHINGTON — With fears running high about a nuclear attack by the Soviet Union in 1983, President Ronald Reagan pitched an idea that seemed to come straight from his years as a Hollywood actor.

“What if free people could live secure in the knowledge that their security did not rest upon the threat of instant US retaliation to deter a Soviet attack, that we could intercept and destroy strategic ballistic missiles before they reached our own soil or that of our allies?” he asked in a prime-time address that featured aerial photos of Soviet aircraft and military hardware in Cuba and Nicaragua.

Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative was derided by critics as “Star Wars.” But building off technological advances, the US military has spent more than $200 billion in the nearly four decades since working to make that science fiction a reality. Now, after Russian President Vladimir Putin placed his vast nuclear arsenal on high alert following his invasion of Ukraine, Americans might be wondering what kind of missile defense shield all that money and effort has produced.

The answer, experts said, is not a very effective one.

The US only has a limited ability to destroy an incoming nuclear intercontinental ballistic missile, a study released last month by the American Physical Society concluded. It said that “the current capabilities are low and will likely continue to be low for the next 15 years” to protect the US against a strike from North Korea, which has an estimated 20 nuclear warheads and relatively unsophisticated missiles. The Pentagon disputes the findings and says the most recent tests show the system can handle a North Korean attack.

But the ability to defend against an attack by Russia, which is estimated to have nearly 6,000 nuclear warheads and highly sophisticated missile technology, is practically nonexistent. The US system is no match against a large number of incoming missiles — precisely the kind of attack that Russia would launch, experts said.

“This idea of an impenetrable shield against an enormous arsenal of Russian missiles is just a fantasy,” said Laura Grego, a fellow at MIT’s Laboratory for Nuclear Security and Policy who co-chaired the American Physical Society team that wrote the report. “It’s too hard to do.”

It’s so difficult that the US intentionally hasn’t even tried. Official Pentagon policy states that its system is only designed to protect the nation from nuclear missiles fired by a rogue state like North Korea. For a military superpower like Russia, the US depends on its own vast nuclear arsenal of about 5,400 warheads as a deterrent. It’s a doctrine known to those who grew up during the Cold War as mutual assured destruction or MAD — any nuclear attack on the US would result in a counterstrike that would annihilate both countries.

“The United States relies on nuclear deterrence to address the large and more sophisticated Russian and Chinese intercontinental ballistic missile capabilities,” according to the Defense Department’s most recent Missile Defense Review.

That’s probably surprising, and frightening, to many people, experts said.

“It’s fundamentally uncomfortable, this idea that we let the other guy have the ability to take us out and we expect the other guy to let us have the ability to do that, and we’re both going to stay rational and neither of us is going to cause the other to act on it,” said Ankit Panda, a senior fellow in the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a Washington, D.C., think tank.

Analysts have raised concerns that Putin has not been acting rational in his attack on Ukraine and in statements like the one he made when launching the invasion.

“Anyone who tries to interfere with us, or even more so, to create threats for our country and our people, must know that Russia’s response will be immediate and will lead you to such consequences as you have never before experienced in your history,” he said in a televised speech. A few days later, he announced Russia’s nuclear forces had been placed in “special combat readiness.” The US downplayed the move and gave no indication it changed its own nuclear readiness level, known by another frightening Cold War-era acronym called DEFCON.

Panda said many Americans don’t realize the US has little protection against a nuclear attack.

“I’ve seen it on my Twitter mentions,” he said. “I’ve been critical of setting up a no-fly zone partially on the basis of escalation risks and people reply, ‘Well, let the Russians try to nuke us. We have a missile shield, we’ll be fine.’ It’s just a very pervasive misunderstanding.”

The US must depend on nuclear deterrence because the arithmetic of our limited missile defense system and Russia’s massive arsenal doesn’t add up, said Robert Soofer, who served as deputy assistant secretary of defense for nuclear and missile defense policy during the Trump administration. Russia can overwhelm the US system by launching many more nuclear missiles than it could possibly knock out with its small squadron of ground-based interceptors.

“There are ways that Russia can strike the United States that really makes the GBI system virtually useless,” said Soofer, a nonresident senior associate with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington, D.C., think tank. “If Russia wants to penetrate US missile defenses, they can.”

The main missile defense system protecting the United States was developed after President George W. Bush pulled the nation out of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty it had signed with the Soviet Union. The move came shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks amid heightened concern about a nuclear attack from a rogue state like North Korea and freed the US from restrictions on deploying a national missile defense system.

In a rushed effort completed by 2004, the Ground-based Midcourse Defense system began with 30 interceptor missiles in underground silos: 26 at Fort Greely in Alaska and four more at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. Guided by radar and satellite sensors, they’re designed to pursue an enemy missile into space. There, they release a “kill vehicle” to intercept and destroy the nuclear warhead above the atmosphere after it separates from the incoming missile.

The Obama administration added 14 more interceptor missiles at Fort Greely in 2017. Two years later the Trump administration started the process of adding 20 more missiles there with upgraded technology and the first are scheduled to be deployed by 2028.

The US has been testing elements of the system over the Pacific Ocean since 1999 with mixed results. Of the 19 attempts to destroy the target, 11 have been successful, including the two most recent ones in 2017 and 2019 that were conducted against realistic intercontinental ballistic missile targets, according to the Pentagon’s Missile Defense Agency.

“The Ground-based Midcourse Defense system is vitally important to the defense of our homeland, and this test demonstrates that we have a capable, credible deterrent against a very real threat,” Air Force Lieutenant General Samuel A. Greaves, then the agency’s director, said in a statement after the test.

That threat is rising. North Korea in recent days has conducted two tests of a new intercontinental ballistic missile, the White House said Thursday.

But Russian nuclear missiles are more sophisticated than those from North Korea, Soofer said. So the US would need to fire multiple interceptors at an incoming Russian missile to destroy its warheads, and the system could quickly get overwhelmed.

“At some point, we’re not going to be able to handle the Russian threat,” he said. “If there’s an unauthorized launch, an accidental launch, and it’s one or two missiles, I hope we can do something against it. But that’s not the way the Russians are going to operate. They’re not going to just launch one nuclear missile against the United States.”

To supplement the ground-based interceptors, the US has other ballistic missile defense systems designed to protect smaller areas. One is the Aegis system, which can fire missiles from Navy ships or land-based launchers to target short- and medium-range ballistic missiles. Two others are the Patriot and the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, or THAAD, mobile ground-based systems.

“If the Russians were to launch a modest attack against regional targets, we have some capacity for intercepting and defeating those attacks,” said Loren Thompson, a longtime defense analyst at the Lexington Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank. “We have some reasonable prospects of intercepting nuclear attacks using shorter range missiles, but when it comes to long-range missiles with which Russia could attack America, we have virtually no defense.”

The US has two Aegis missile defense sites in NATO nations, one in Romania and another in Poland that the Pentagon expects to be operational by the end of this year. The US has said they’re designed to protect Europe against a possible ballistic missile attack from Iran and pose no threat to Russia. But the presence of those US facilities near Russia’s border has angered Putin, who has said they could be used to launch offensive missiles at Russia.

It’s a continuation of his displeasure with the US for its missile defense efforts, starting with his objection to the decision to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. In a 2018 speech, Putin said Russia was developing new nuclear weapons designed to evade US missile defenses.

Arms control advocates said that’s a downside of the US missile defense effort — it leads Russia and China to try to upgrade their nuclear weapons.

“We sort of end up with the worst of both worlds, where the American taxpayer ponies up for tens of billions of spending on a homeland missile defense system that doesn’t really work that well and causes Russia and China to take steps that further deteriorate our own security,” Panda said.

Despite the limited capabilities of the missile defense system to protect the US, Soofer said it’s still an important part of our national defense.

“The only rational reason for Russia or China to attack us with nuclear weapons is if they thought they could disarm us and keep us from retaliating,” he said. “If we have missile defenses, even if they’re not 100 percent effective, they still don’t know how many of their missiles are going to get through. You complicate their attack and then you enhance deterrence.”

Despite Putin’s threats, Soofer said there is little appetite in Washington for a costly expansion of the US missile defense system to be able to repel a Russian attack. Such a system probably would require space-based interceptors — Reagan’s original idea that proved infeasible in the 1980s and a concept that Soofer described as “the third rail of missile defense politics on Capitol Hill because nobody wants to supposedly militarize the heavens.”

But Grego said a spaced-based system remains infeasible today, potentially requiring thousands of interceptors because of the complications of orbits and the Earth’s rotation.

“Even if you had a Death Star, you need lots of Death Stars,” she said, harkening back to “Star Wars.” “For strategic missile defense, which is defending the US homeland from Russian missiles, it isn’t really a political decision. Physics has done that for you. It’s just too hard. You’re not going to do it.”

Well that's a bummer

immamac · March 17, 2022

17 minutes ago, NorthLoop said:

Well that's a bummer

This is why I don't think it happens. There's no reason to do anything to the US like this because it means death for them too. Nuclear weapons in these quantities don't make any sense at all. I do think the one thing they keep saying is we don't have a missile defense system. You can still sink/disable a sub that's trying to launch them.

There is no way strategically to recover from nuclear war. You will be wiped out, pushing the button means meeting immediate and unrecoverable defeat.

The best defense against a nuclear attack is a recovery strategy and it seems like instead of spending money on that we spend it on deterrence.

FartingMonk · March 19, 2022

On 3/17/2022 at 7:17 AM, immamac said:

This is why I don't think it happens. There's no reason to do anything to the US like this because it means death for them too. Nuclear weapons in these quantities don't make any sense at all. I do think the one thing they keep saying is we don't have a missile defense system. You can still sink/disable a sub that's trying to launch them.

There is no way strategically to recover from nuclear war. You will be wiped out, pushing the button means meeting immediate and unrecoverable defeat.

The best defense against a nuclear attack is a recovery strategy and it seems like instead of spending money on that we spend it on deterrence.

The scariest thing is the US govt will ditch us. They will leave and wait until they have a plan to recover. So until they.come.back we will be on our own.

InkaUtexas · March 19, 2022

Should Vladicito make the call, lets hope some of his generals say nah.

Hugo Stiglitz · March 19, 2022

He’s not suicidal and no one is invading Russia. The hysteria over the nukes is weird. This board must be all gen x and boomers. We went 50 years in a Mexican standoff that involved numerous proxy wars, assassinations, and toppling of governments. No nukes were used because duh, everyone dies.

NeverMarryAStripper · March 19, 2022

The fact that no nukes were used during that period is pretty much due only to one Ruskie Colonel

Superhero · March 19, 2022

On 3/10/2022 at 11:38 AM, InkaUtexas said:

For those needing to build a kit, this is not a bad start. I have two. One for my car and one for foot movement. Of course, I would stay home should shit happen and watch what goes down.

https://tacticalgear.com/experts/how-to-build-a-survival-kit

If shit really hits the fan, I’m with most of you and would rather die an instantaneous death than dying slowly from radiation poisoning or an everyone for themselves scenario.

That said, if it’s some other event (i.e. earthquake), then i should be prepped to last a few months before the cavalry arrive.

Regarding the list in the article, i think having a multi-tool AND a large knife is redundant. I have 2 bags, one with an axe and another with an 8” pruning saw. I think those 2 together would be more useful than 2 extra blades.

immamac · March 19, 2022

I want to buy 200KWh of batteries and a 5KW solar system and a 5KW generator anyone know a guy?

NorthLoop · March 19, 2022

3 minutes ago, immamac said:

I want to buy 200KWh of batteries and a 5KW solar system and a 5KW generator anyone know a guy?

That'll be a heavy backpack

InkaUtexas · March 19, 2022

10 minutes ago, Superhero said:

If shit really hits the fan, I’m with most of you and would rather die an instantaneous death than dying slowly from radiation poisoning or an everyone for themselves scenario.

That said, if it’s some other event (i.e. earthquake), then i should be prepped to last a few months before the cavalry arrive.

Regarding the list in the article, i think having a multi-tool AND a large knife is redundant. I have 2 bags, one with an axe and another with an 8” pruning saw. I think those 2 together would be more useful than 2 extra blades.

Nope, you can never have enough knives. Keep in mind you are probably staying put so weight is not an issue. Organization is. Multi-tools are quite handy for lots of little things. I keep one in my car and in my kit. They are cheap and well worth it. just my opinion.

JesusSweatDuck · March 19, 2022

6 hours ago, immamac said:

I want to buy 200KWh of batteries and a 5KW solar system and a 5KW generator anyone know a guy?

Anyone done any research on non-Tesla solar shingles and a back up battery? Tesla's version was insanely priced

Eskimohorn · March 19, 2022

What are your plans in case of a nuclear strike or massive catastrophe.

We have a couple weeks worth of food and about 400 acres outside of San Saba with a well and generator. What are your plans?

I’m watching March Madness right now during the current massive catastrophe.

staboner · March 20, 2022

17 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

He’s not suicidal and no one is invading Russia. The hysteria over the nukes is weird. This board must be all gen x and boomers. We went 50 years in a Mexican standoff that involved numerous proxy wars, assassinations, and toppling of governments. No nukes were used because duh, everyone dies.

hmm don't agree. putin is at the end of his narcissistic rope. dangerous place to consider some element of morality to be shared between us and him.

staboner · March 20, 2022

17 hours ago, InkaUtexas said:

Should Vladicito make the call, lets hope some of his generals say nah.

nah with a gun and an end to this madness

go fuck yourself vlad

Superhero · March 20, 2022

7 hours ago, InkaUtexas said:

Nope, you can never have enough knives. Keep in mind you are probably staying put so weight is not an issue. Organization is. Multi-tools are quite handy for lots of little things. I keep one in my car and in my kit. They are cheap and well worth it. just my opinion.

I think you’re ex military so I’ll defer to you.

For electricity, I have a solar battery bank, hand crank radio / USB charger, and a few solar camping lanterns. Also have a few solar garden lights still in the box.

I want to get some larger but portable solar panels and batteries. Anyone have any recommendation?

jettrink · March 20, 2022

18 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

He’s not suicidal and no one is invading Russia. The hysteria over the nukes is weird. This board must be all gen x and boomers. We went 50 years in a Mexican standoff that involved numerous proxy wars, assassinations, and toppling of governments. No nukes were used because duh, everyone dies.

Why don't you cut your micro penis off and shove up up your loose asshole. Then get the fuck outta a Longhorn message board! Better yet, go join your communist buddies in Ukraine comrade!!!!!!!!!!!!!

JesusSweatDuck · March 20, 2022

16 minutes ago, Superhero said:

I think you’re ex military so I’ll defer to you.

For electricity, I have a solar battery bank, hand crank radio / USB charger, and a few solar camping lanterns. Also have a few solar garden lights still in the box.

I want to get some larger but portable solar panels and batteries. Anyone have any recommendation?

@immamac what did you use at the tailgate?

Newdoc · March 20, 2022

On 3/17/2022 at 8:33 AM, phdhorn said:

Basically, we're fooked if Rooskia pops off their nukes - our defense systems are next to nonexistent to protect us.

Nobody has talked to me because I can still roll that ball and protect most of our cities. I was a badass in the 80's. Just ask anyone at Malibu Golf and Games.

I can also go 8 bit with a joystick because the Atari 2600 was my jam as well. There is probably quite a few of us that could be called up.

JesusSweatDuck · March 20, 2022

7 minutes ago, Newdoc said:

Nobody has talked to me because I can still roll that ball and protect most of our cities. I was a badass in the 80's. Just ask anyone at Malibu Golf and Games.

I can also go 8 bit with a joystick because the Atari 2600 was my jam as well. There is probably quite a few of us that could be called up.

Such a great and simple game

tomahawk dunk · March 20, 2022

2 hours ago, JesusSweatDuck said:

@immamac what did you use at the tailgate?

Jackery and Goal Zero make portable solar. Don't if either are any good or not.

tx 3 putt · March 20, 2022

On 3/4/2022 at 2:00 PM, 'stache said:

If they hit downtown Tulsa for some reason I'm pretty sure I'd be in the vaporization zone. That's definitely my preference. I'd rather just get it over with already.

that refinery would be a target

tx 3 putt · March 20, 2022

On 3/5/2022 at 6:47 PM, immamac said:

https://www.mapdevelopers.com/draw-circle-tool.php?circles=[[24140.1%2C30.2711286%2C-97.7436995%2C"%23AAAAAA"%2C"%23000000"%2C0.4]]

So uh you were saying?

would austin be a strategic target ?

Bateshorn · March 20, 2022

23 hours ago, FartingMonk said:

The scariest thing is the US govt will ditch us. They will leave and wait until they have a plan to recover. So until they.come.back we will be on our own.

Ditch you?!! Do you think there’s some special fucking DC bunker that we all get to go to where we wait this out with lobster and champagne then return as your overlord?

We are going to be dead, motherfucker. Sure the president might fly around in Air Force one and land some where and try to reform a government, but in a full blown nuclear exchange, the government burns up in the nuclear fire with everyone else on the upper Eastern seaboard.

Edited March 20, 2022 by Bateshorn

Fudge Nuggets · March 20, 2022

What’s this “we” shit? I thought you were a lobbyist.

InkaUtexas · March 20, 2022

16 hours ago, Superhero said:

I think you’re ex military so I’ll defer to you.

For electricity, I have a solar battery bank, hand crank radio / USB charger, and a few solar camping lanterns. Also have a few solar garden lights still in the box.

I want to get some larger but portable solar panels and batteries. Anyone have any recommendation?

Not ex Mil, but been around that world most of my life.

Good equipment list. Don't over look first aid shit. You don't need a lot, but always have rapid sets around. DM me if you want some suggestions. I am not talking crazy stuff, just good kits to quickly deal with wounds.

Water, water, water.... Purification pills, filters, and keep some bleach around.

For solar I run two sets Nomads. Did some FEMA work and they never let me down. Don't overlook candles. https://www.goalzero.com/?gclid=CjwKCAjwoduRBhA4EiwACL5RP2ETFFmmGGyTylCcxjyjOoNgwpLj2C-u6KDCRjLQ1m1sS8T__df9VxoC0JQQAvD_BwE

UT_OB1 · March 20, 2022

On 3/19/2022 at 11:58 AM, InkaUtexas said:

Nope, you can never have enough knives. Keep in mind you are probably staying put so weight is not an issue. Organization is. Multi-tools are quite handy for lots of little things. I keep one in my car and in my kit. They are cheap and well worth it. just my opinion.

This isn’t survival related exactly, but i love those screwdrivers that have the shaft that pulls out so that you have 8 different size screw drivers, and the empty socket drives 3/8 or 1/4 I believe. I keep one in every car and a few around the house and tool bag. Very convenient way to organize the screwdriver bits.

Edited March 20, 2022 by UT_OB1

atomheartbevo · April 23, 2022

On 3/14/2022 at 1:51 PM, Jkwellborn said:

I remember reading up on EMPs a while back and several people seemed to believe the only you’d have an EMP strong enough to actually mess up a lot of stuff is by setting off a nuclear bomb in the atmosphere. The thought after that was you’ve got bigger shit to worry about than your phone not working them.

On 3/17/2022 at 8:39 AM, Gatorubet said:

If we have a nuke war, I want the damn thing to land on my head. No desire to live like Mad Max.

It’s all statistics

luke duke · April 24, 2022

I used the 800kt model shown to be in the Russian arsenal. Using that, I am just far away from Lockhead in West Ft. Worth to not have any damage. If, for some reason, they hit Comanche Peak nuclear plant, It might blow my windows out. I guess putting in tempered glass on the side of the house that faces the golf course has other benefits.
What was the least depressing thing I saw was the casualty counts. Only 3100 in West Ft. Worth and only 656 at Comanche Peak. I have a cousin that is a big wig at Comanche Peak, might go sit with him in the reactor building. I worked over there the summer after I graduated high school. The walls are 40 ft. thick and more rebar than concrete. If the plant was hit, it won't do anything to it. Being built in the 70's, having it hit with a nuke was a real possibility, so it was designed to withstand being hit.
CHIEF

I probably know your cousin. The walls are 4’ thick, not 40’.

DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt · April 24, 2022

On 3/17/2022 at 8:39 AM, Gatorubet said:

If we have a nuke war, I want the damn thing to land on my head. No desire to live like Mad Max.

An entire thread full of people actively planning on how to survive a nuclear winter is the craziest damn thing I've ever seen. Buncha broken brained assholes.

DaggerHorns · April 24, 2022

On 3/17/2022 at 8:33 AM, phdhorn said:

I've been holding onto this article for a week after I found it. Depressing read. Basically, we're fooked if Rooskia pops off their nukes - our defense systems are next to nonexistent to protect us. Nothing new here, but it pretty much lends credence to the fact that a good chunk of us will be wiped out, most likely. I've seen some posts on here in various threads that allege that "it would be difficult" for nukes to cause a lot of damage here or whatnot, but I vehemently disagree - which is why we have to cowtow to that Neanderthal in Moscow. Anyway, you decide for yerself.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/03/12/nation/after-four-decades-200-billion-us-missile-defense-system-is-no-match-russian-nuclear-attack/?outputType=amp&fr=operanews

After four decades and $200 billion, the US missile defense system is no match for a Russian nuclear attack

By Jim Puzzanghera Globe Staff,Updated March 12, 2022, 2:42 p.m.

WASHINGTON — With fears running high about a nuclear attack by the Soviet Union in 1983, President Ronald Reagan pitched an idea that seemed to come straight from his years as a Hollywood actor.

“What if free people could live secure in the knowledge that their security did not rest upon the threat of instant US retaliation to deter a Soviet attack, that we could intercept and destroy strategic ballistic missiles before they reached our own soil or that of our allies?” he asked in a prime-time address that featured aerial photos of Soviet aircraft and military hardware in Cuba and Nicaragua.

Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative was derided by critics as “Star Wars.” But building off technological advances, the US military has spent more than $200 billion in the nearly four decades since working to make that science fiction a reality. Now, after Russian President Vladimir Putin placed his vast nuclear arsenal on high alert following his invasion of Ukraine, Americans might be wondering what kind of missile defense shield all that money and effort has produced.

The answer, experts said, is not a very effective one.

The US only has a limited ability to destroy an incoming nuclear intercontinental ballistic missile, a study released last month by the American Physical Society concluded. It said that “the current capabilities are low and will likely continue to be low for the next 15 years” to protect the US against a strike from North Korea, which has an estimated 20 nuclear warheads and relatively unsophisticated missiles. The Pentagon disputes the findings and says the most recent tests show the system can handle a North Korean attack.

But the ability to defend against an attack by Russia, which is estimated to have nearly 6,000 nuclear warheads and highly sophisticated missile technology, is practically nonexistent. The US system is no match against a large number of incoming missiles — precisely the kind of attack that Russia would launch, experts said.

“This idea of an impenetrable shield against an enormous arsenal of Russian missiles is just a fantasy,” said Laura Grego, a fellow at MIT’s Laboratory for Nuclear Security and Policy who co-chaired the American Physical Society team that wrote the report. “It’s too hard to do.”

It’s so difficult that the US intentionally hasn’t even tried. Official Pentagon policy states that its system is only designed to protect the nation from nuclear missiles fired by a rogue state like North Korea. For a military superpower like Russia, the US depends on its own vast nuclear arsenal of about 5,400 warheads as a deterrent. It’s a doctrine known to those who grew up during the Cold War as mutual assured destruction or MAD — any nuclear attack on the US would result in a counterstrike that would annihilate both countries.

“The United States relies on nuclear deterrence to address the large and more sophisticated Russian and Chinese intercontinental ballistic missile capabilities,” according to the Defense Department’s most recent Missile Defense Review.

That’s probably surprising, and frightening, to many people, experts said.

“It’s fundamentally uncomfortable, this idea that we let the other guy have the ability to take us out and we expect the other guy to let us have the ability to do that, and we’re both going to stay rational and neither of us is going to cause the other to act on it,” said Ankit Panda, a senior fellow in the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a Washington, D.C., think tank.

Analysts have raised concerns that Putin has not been acting rational in his attack on Ukraine and in statements like the one he made when launching the invasion.

“Anyone who tries to interfere with us, or even more so, to create threats for our country and our people, must know that Russia’s response will be immediate and will lead you to such consequences as you have never before experienced in your history,” he said in a televised speech. A few days later, he announced Russia’s nuclear forces had been placed in “special combat readiness.” The US downplayed the move and gave no indication it changed its own nuclear readiness level, known by another frightening Cold War-era acronym called DEFCON.

Panda said many Americans don’t realize the US has little protection against a nuclear attack.

“I’ve seen it on my Twitter mentions,” he said. “I’ve been critical of setting up a no-fly zone partially on the basis of escalation risks and people reply, ‘Well, let the Russians try to nuke us. We have a missile shield, we’ll be fine.’ It’s just a very pervasive misunderstanding.”

The US must depend on nuclear deterrence because the arithmetic of our limited missile defense system and Russia’s massive arsenal doesn’t add up, said Robert Soofer, who served as deputy assistant secretary of defense for nuclear and missile defense policy during the Trump administration. Russia can overwhelm the US system by launching many more nuclear missiles than it could possibly knock out with its small squadron of ground-based interceptors.

“There are ways that Russia can strike the United States that really makes the GBI system virtually useless,” said Soofer, a nonresident senior associate with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington, D.C., think tank. “If Russia wants to penetrate US missile defenses, they can.”

The main missile defense system protecting the United States was developed after President George W. Bush pulled the nation out of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty it had signed with the Soviet Union. The move came shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks amid heightened concern about a nuclear attack from a rogue state like North Korea and freed the US from restrictions on deploying a national missile defense system.

In a rushed effort completed by 2004, the Ground-based Midcourse Defense system began with 30 interceptor missiles in underground silos: 26 at Fort Greely in Alaska and four more at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. Guided by radar and satellite sensors, they’re designed to pursue an enemy missile into space. There, they release a “kill vehicle” to intercept and destroy the nuclear warhead above the atmosphere after it separates from the incoming missile.

The Obama administration added 14 more interceptor missiles at Fort Greely in 2017. Two years later the Trump administration started the process of adding 20 more missiles there with upgraded technology and the first are scheduled to be deployed by 2028.

The US has been testing elements of the system over the Pacific Ocean since 1999 with mixed results. Of the 19 attempts to destroy the target, 11 have been successful, including the two most recent ones in 2017 and 2019 that were conducted against realistic intercontinental ballistic missile targets, according to the Pentagon’s Missile Defense Agency.

“The Ground-based Midcourse Defense system is vitally important to the defense of our homeland, and this test demonstrates that we have a capable, credible deterrent against a very real threat,” Air Force Lieutenant General Samuel A. Greaves, then the agency’s director, said in a statement after the test.

That threat is rising. North Korea in recent days has conducted two tests of a new intercontinental ballistic missile, the White House said Thursday.

But Russian nuclear missiles are more sophisticated than those from North Korea, Soofer said. So the US would need to fire multiple interceptors at an incoming Russian missile to destroy its warheads, and the system could quickly get overwhelmed.

“At some point, we’re not going to be able to handle the Russian threat,” he said. “If there’s an unauthorized launch, an accidental launch, and it’s one or two missiles, I hope we can do something against it. But that’s not the way the Russians are going to operate. They’re not going to just launch one nuclear missile against the United States.”

To supplement the ground-based interceptors, the US has other ballistic missile defense systems designed to protect smaller areas. One is the Aegis system, which can fire missiles from Navy ships or land-based launchers to target short- and medium-range ballistic missiles. Two others are the Patriot and the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, or THAAD, mobile ground-based systems.

“If the Russians were to launch a modest attack against regional targets, we have some capacity for intercepting and defeating those attacks,” said Loren Thompson, a longtime defense analyst at the Lexington Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank. “We have some reasonable prospects of intercepting nuclear attacks using shorter range missiles, but when it comes to long-range missiles with which Russia could attack America, we have virtually no defense.”

The US has two Aegis missile defense sites in NATO nations, one in Romania and another in Poland that the Pentagon expects to be operational by the end of this year. The US has said they’re designed to protect Europe against a possible ballistic missile attack from Iran and pose no threat to Russia. But the presence of those US facilities near Russia’s border has angered Putin, who has said they could be used to launch offensive missiles at Russia.

It’s a continuation of his displeasure with the US for its missile defense efforts, starting with his objection to the decision to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. In a 2018 speech, Putin said Russia was developing new nuclear weapons designed to evade US missile defenses.

Arms control advocates said that’s a downside of the US missile defense effort — it leads Russia and China to try to upgrade their nuclear weapons.

“We sort of end up with the worst of both worlds, where the American taxpayer ponies up for tens of billions of spending on a homeland missile defense system that doesn’t really work that well and causes Russia and China to take steps that further deteriorate our own security,” Panda said.

Despite the limited capabilities of the missile defense system to protect the US, Soofer said it’s still an important part of our national defense.

“The only rational reason for Russia or China to attack us with nuclear weapons is if they thought they could disarm us and keep us from retaliating,” he said. “If we have missile defenses, even if they’re not 100 percent effective, they still don’t know how many of their missiles are going to get through. You complicate their attack and then you enhance deterrence.”

Despite Putin’s threats, Soofer said there is little appetite in Washington for a costly expansion of the US missile defense system to be able to repel a Russian attack. Such a system probably would require space-based interceptors — Reagan’s original idea that proved infeasible in the 1980s and a concept that Soofer described as “the third rail of missile defense politics on Capitol Hill because nobody wants to supposedly militarize the heavens.”

But Grego said a spaced-based system remains infeasible today, potentially requiring thousands of interceptors because of the complications of orbits and the Earth’s rotation.

“Even if you had a Death Star, you need lots of Death Stars,” she said, harkening back to “Star Wars.” “For strategic missile defense, which is defending the US homeland from Russian missiles, it isn’t really a political decision. Physics has done that for you. It’s just too hard. You’re not going to do it.”

I disagree.

freyguy · April 24, 2022

I believe we already have assets nearby and plenty of eyes (both US & NATO) on every potential launch site. Rooskies are fooked. We will not bomb civilians, yet we will Fook each of those sites up with the snap of a finger.

The most accurate description of a Rooskie thus far has been in the movie Stripes.

DaggerHorns · April 24, 2022

4 minutes ago, freyguy said:

I believe we already have assets nearby and plenty of eyes (both US & NATO) on every potential launch site. Rooskies are fooked. We will not bomb civilians, yet we will Fook each of those sites up with the snap of a finger.

The most accurate description of a Rooskie thus far has been in the movie Stripes.

I agree.

Macanudo · April 25, 2022

20 hours ago, DaggerHorns said:

I disagree.

20 hours ago, DaggerHorns said:

I agree.

You've said a whole lot without saying much at all. Care to expound?

Bernard · April 25, 2022

On 3/3/2022 at 9:47 PM, dhornf said:

Question for you experts. If shit were to hit the fan, how much time do we have to bug out of Houston, Austin, etc. before nukes land? Will I be vaporized on 610 or 35 trying to leave? I'll hang up and listen.

Hurricane Rita put all my childhood Red Dawn fantasies to bed. No one is getting out quickly. There might be time to loot your local grocery or convenience store, but that’s about it. Your best bet plan is to just keep enough supplies on hand to enjoy your end-of-the-world party whoever you see fit.

Bernard

Not that Bob · April 25, 2022

I have half dozen cases of whiskey stashed away. I'm going to drink my way through the holocaust.

crash_davis · May 4, 2022

didn't know where to put this. i mean could fit in any number of threads and forums. i wonder how much money he made on this bullshit.

from the comments: "We all know, if there’s an apocalyptic event the most important thing to have is 40 gallons of cheesy broccoli rice..."

Brisketexan · May 4, 2022

I will never miss a chance to posrep a Jim Bakker survival bucket post.

Schulz2.0 · May 4, 2022

2 hours ago, crash_davis said:

didn't know where to put this. i mean could fit in any number of threads and forums. i wonder how much money he made on this bullshit.

from the comments: "We all know, if there’s an apocalyptic event the most important thing to have is 40 gallons of cheesy broccoli rice..."

Bullshit? The 56 buckets sitting in my barndominium/nuclear fallout shelter say otherwise, sir.

Sign In

Nuclear/Catastrophe Planning

Recommended Posts

Damor 1237

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Jkwellborn 6749

Link to comment

Share on other sites

NorthLoop 14254

Link to comment

Share on other sites

BabaYaga 15331

Link to comment

Share on other sites

CHIEF 5095

Link to comment

Share on other sites

NorthLoop 14254

Link to comment

Share on other sites

phdhorn 6224

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Gatorubet 30324

Link to comment

Share on other sites

NorthLoop 14254

Link to comment

Share on other sites

immamac 43217

Link to comment

Share on other sites

FartingMonk 3608

Link to comment

Share on other sites

InkaUtexas 26179

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Link to comment

Share on other sites

NeverMarryAStripper 21966

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Superhero 8855

Link to comment

Share on other sites

immamac 43217

Link to comment

Share on other sites

NorthLoop 14254

Link to comment

Share on other sites

InkaUtexas 26179

Link to comment

Share on other sites

JesusSweatDuck 17814

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Eskimohorn 5644

Link to comment

Share on other sites

staboner 4988

Link to comment

Share on other sites

staboner 4988

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Superhero 8855

Link to comment

Share on other sites

jettrink 40

Link to comment

Share on other sites

JesusSweatDuck 17814

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Newdoc 3453

Link to comment