by Milan Adams, Lew Rockwell:
No one wants to think about a nuclear crisis – and hopefully it will never happen – but we all must accept the fact nuclear tensions are rising globally with Russia
According to time.com: We know that an all-out U.S.-Russia nuclear war would be bad. But how bad, exactly? How do your chances of surviving the explosions, radiation, and nuclear winter depend on where you live? The past year’s unprecedented nuclear saber-rattling and last weekend’s chaos in Russia has made this question timely. To help answer it, I’ve worked with an amazing interdisciplinary group of scientists to produce the most scientifically realistic simulation of a nuclear war using only unclassified data, and visualize it as a video. It combines detailed modeling of nuclear targeting, missile trajectories, blasts and the electromagnetic pulse, and of how black carbon smoke is produced, lofted and spread across the globe, altering the climate and causing mass starvation.
TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
Best option without building a bomb shelter, to survive a nuclear war!
Surviving a nuclear war would not be particularly difficult unless you lived in or near a large city or near a large military base within one of the warring nations. In the 1980’s, The US had about 30,000 nuclear bombs, many of which were 5–10 megatons. Now we have about 5,000 and very few are more than 1 megaton. The Russian ratios are about the same. In other words, our total nuclear capability is barely 5% of what it was in 1980. Historical nuclear weapons stockpiles and nuclear tests by country – Wikipedia We have nowhere near enough nuclear weapons to wipe out the planet.
One of today’s nuclear bombs (around 1 megaton) detonated over a major city would cause about 50,000 dead and another 100,000 casualties. That is a big deal for sure. But many of the bombs each side has will be aimed a military facilities, transport hubs and other major infrastructure targets, not cities. It is unlikely that they would be fired in mass waves and there is a good chance that only about half of them would be used. Even if they all attained that high casualty rate, that would be something like only 250 million dead and another 500 million injured. Let’s say another 500 million are casualties from after effects. That is fewer than a billion dead and injured. Even if you doubled that to 2 Billion dead and wounded, that leaves about 5 billion people remaining.
There would likely be famine and other sicknesses to deal with for several years, so maybe another billion or two would die, but that still leaves us with at least a billion or two humans remaining.
I would go to Central America, Central Africa or the central part of the US. Just stock up and know that the 5–10 years that would follow a nuclear war would be pretty rough, but humanity would certainly survive.
Learn a skill that will be valuable in the aftermath.
Surviving the war itself is the easy part. Just don’t get hit…and most people won’t be sucked into a mushroom cloud. The hard part comes when the survivors have to dust themselves off and carry on. Can you make yourself useful? There won’t be anything remotely like the social surplus we now enjoy. There might well be a famine. Will people need your work badly enough to pay for it with food they can hardly spare?
