So, nuclear war . . .

[tanktop]

Oh believe me, I agree without a doubt that a civil war would result in a patriotic, toughened up, respectable nation. The pussies, the butthurts, the sjws, blm, the morons, all would perish. While this would be a complete step back, I think at the end of it we would be a few steps forward with a revised government having much less liberal ideology. Plus the whole population would become pro 2A.

Itd be pretty interesting to see how a civil war turned out, I think a Valkyrie style military takeover would be incredible. Imagine one day the President calling our nations armed forces into the capitol building, house of reps, large cities, etc and arresting corrupt leaders without question. Bringing all corrupt members of government into cutody and reforming government before people could blink an eye. We would be able to avoid the death of many and reverse much of what the Dems have screwed up along with other corrupt politicians.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You terrify me, please read the Bill of Rights and the Constitution then read them again and again. Keep reading until they sink in! The last thing you want is any agent of the government doing an action like this, it is solely reserved for We the People.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[theM90NP]

You terrify me, please read the Bill of Rights and the Constitution then read them again and again. Keep reading until they sink in! The last thing you want is any agent of the government doing an action like this, it is solely reserved for We the People.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, well we the people haven't been doing shit to uphold our rights. Governments just walked on and takin a nice piss all over them


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tgizzard]

Yeah, well we the people haven't been doing shit to uphold our rights. Governments just walked on and takin a nice piss all over them


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Calm down keyboard warrior.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Phillygunguy]

Back on topic, I actually have been thinking about nuclear war as well. Although I was thinking more likely there could be being a terrorist attack with nukes. Maybe not on the scale of a war but an attack on several cities could be possible. I thought about getting a Geiger counter to use if I'm traveling or at home after an attack to see what was contaminated. Having protection like a mask and head cover and gown for fallout may be helpful if you are a mile from the blast and moving away from the direction of wind also iodine pills would be helpful

[theM90NP]

Back on topic, I actually have been thinking about nuclear war as well. Although I was thinking more likely there could be being a terrorist attack with nukes. Maybe not on the scale of a war but an attack on several cities could be possible. I thought about getting a Geiger counter to use if I'm traveling or at home after an attack to see what was contaminated. Having protection like a mask and head cover and gown for fallout may be helpful if you are a mile from the blast and moving away from the direction of wind also iodine pills would be helpful

This is definitely more likely. With open borders and the Islamic Infidel killing virus rapidly infecting Europe, and starting in the US, its only a matter of time before the Jihadi 4th of july.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ubet]

Nuclear war with the bear isn't going to happen. They don't want nuked and neither do we. This is Saber rattling at it's best. Not saying a dirty bomb isn't possible, but open exchange of icbms with Russia will not happen. It's the MAD doctrine all over again.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[WickedWillis]

Nuclear war with the bear isn't going to happen. They don't want nuked and neither do we. This is Saber rattling at it's best. Not saying a dirty bomb isn't possible, but open exchange of icbms with Russia will not happen. It's the MAD doctrine all over again.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

I completely agree.

[BrigandTwoFour]

Just a few things based on my experience with nuclear weapons.

1. Don't underestimate the accuracy of Soviet, errr...Russian, weapons/missiles. As the saying went, we built Rolexes and they built Timexes, but both got the job done. Also, don't overestimate the "long in the tooth" nature of our ICBMs. The Minuteman III sitting in launch silos today is not the same Minuteman III that was emplaced there 40 years ago. The missiles today have been completely rebuilt with new solid fuel boosters, new(er) warheads, and the guidance systems are several generations newer. Everything on the missiles today was built within the last 10 years. They are also routinely tested several times a year. Testing includes everything from EMP hardness, C2 systems, and actually launching a live missile from the CA coast and hitting a target in the pacific with a non-nuclear warhead. The damn things work.

2. Try not to overestimate the size and power of the average nuclear weapon. The actual blast radius for a given yield is probably not what you think. If you are several miles away from ground zero, or in another town, you are probably going to be fine from a blast and infrared standpoint. Initial radiation is also similarly limited.

3. The nature of nuclear weapons detonations is such that it is often far more practical to detonate them at thousands of feet in the air rather than on the ground. This altitude maximizes the blast wave as it travels across the ground and takes advantage of reflected pressure from the surface to increase the overpressure and dynamic pressure effects. Detonating at these altitudes also means that fallout is minimal, and concerns over contamination are not as serious as some make it out to be. Now, a surface burst to "unbury" hardened targets is a different story and there will be significant fallout. But most of the fallout is dissipated within two weeks, as the really nasty fission fragments from a bomb are radioactive enough that they "burn out" relatively quickly and bring overall radiation levels down.

4. The probability of a nuclear exchange with another world nuclear power is pretty damn slim. Nobody wants to play that game, as they know that doing so would result in ending their country. That includes EMPs. Our governments nuclear C2 systems are hardened against EMP, and have many redundancies built in to ensure a response even after our country "goes dark." If there was to be a detonation, it's going to come from some small group that happened to get a device off the back of a truck. It's going to be difficult to trace or lay blame for. It will probably be small enough to be of little real consequence in nuclear terms. There will be political consequences, but the rest of the country will keep on moving.

[nova3930]

I think your best bet in the case of global nuclear war is to be directly underneath one when it goes off. No worries then....

[Doc Safari]

All right, I know this isn't the 1950's or 1960's when one could expect hydrogen bombs to wipe out entire sections of the country and the lingering radiation and fallout would pretty much doom any survivors.

I've Googled potential targets and fallout pattern maps, but how do we know what sized bombs an enemy might drop on a certain location? Would a small town of less than 100,000 get a smaller bomb than an air force base where XYZ weapon is based?

Given that modern yields are smaller, how far away must one be from ground zero to survive?