Nuclear bomb explosion blast city shutterstock
If a nuclear bomb were to hit, these are the items should should keep to hand.
North Korea on Tuesday reportedly launched its first intercontinental ballistic missile — a rocket capable of travelling more than 3,400 miles with a weapon on top. The feat suggests that the isolated country, one of nine nations that together wield more than 14,900 nukes, could strike Alaska.
However, the rest of the US faces a much different and shadowy nuclear threat: a terrorist-caused nuclear detonation, which is one of 15 disasters scenarios that the federal government has planned for — just in case.
"National Planning Scenario No. 1 is a 10-kiloton nuclear detonation in a modern US city," Brooke Buddemeier, a health physicist and expert on radiation at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, told Business Insider. "A 10-kiloton nuclear detonation is equivalent to 5,000 Oklahoma City bombings. Though we call it 'low yield,' it's a pretty darn big explosion."
Read more ....
Update: If a nuclear bomb explodes, these are the emergency supplies you should have prepared or grab on the run (Yahoo News/Business Insider)
WNU Editor: In Canada I am always stocked up that can always be used for any emergency .... nuclear attack, earthquake, etc.. In my Moscow condo .... a bomb shelter that is two buildings away is all that I have.
10 comments:
It's a sobering realization, but better for the USA to nuke them first than wait for them to nuke us, which they will eventually do, since Kim is insane.
Option #2 - US pull out from South Korea entirely in conjunction with encouragement to reunify N & S Korea. I think this would freak Japan out, though.
Years of poor decisions by multiple parties are combining to create a future disaster of enormous magnitude.
I've heard before that Russia has bomb shelters for a lot of its citizens in major cities. Is this true?
Yes Steve .... there are many shelters. The problem is that they are not well stocked with supplies. In the event of a worse case scenario when the missiles are arriving, we have been told to grab as much non-perishable food/water and other supplies, and to make a beeline to these shelters because the doors would then be shut within minutes after the activation of the sirens.
AND the US apparently has NOTHING in the way of nuclear shelters and/or plans to deal with such an attack. Since the US is the most likely country on earth to be hit with a preemptive nuclear attack either by Russia (should the current diplomatic process being carefully pursued by Trump and Putin fail due to the extreme stupidity of Trump's opponents) or Islamic terrorists it would seem experiential common sense for the US to have numerous bomb shelters for its citizens along with making sure they are well stocked and rehearsals should start immediately involving US citizens on how we are going to be ready for this sort of thing.
Instead the "super power" whose military is barely even capable of defending the mainland has a government that is, at best, ignoring the problem and, at worst, pretending it does not exist at all. Denial of reality seldom ends well.
As for a solution to the NK/SK situation, option 2 as proposed by Roger above is the best option. Given our situation we are going to have to withdraw anyway. As such, lets make it an orderly one. I would add to this leaving a "parting gift" to SK of a few dozen nuclear weapons or whatever it takes to put them on an equal footing with SK. Once the parties are on equal footing earnest negotiations on some type of reunification would be much more likely to occur assuming this what the parties actually want. As to whether or not this freaks out Japan, this is NOT our concern. It needs to be made abundantly clear to all parties that they will no longer be allowed to use the US or its military personnel as pawns in their power struggles.
As to the years of poor decision making on the part of multiple parties combining to create the potential of a huge disaster, I could not have stated this any better myself. Now as to this ending "one way or the other", at this point how it is likely to end is with a reunification of the Koreas with North Korea in control. US policy makers should probably plan accordingly and set US policy accordingly. Note the operative words are "likely" and "probably" as we cannot "know" the outcome of a military conflict until it actually occurs. With this in mind the 28,000 or so US forces in SK along with the equipment and support personnel should probably be removed IMMEDIATELY and redeployed to areas that make sense for our national security needs rather than have them annihilated in a conflict that is likely unwinnable for US and South Korean forces.
Now IF South Korea had a nuclear deterrent this would likely even the odds. As such, the idea of a nuclear free peninsula that is being touted by some here seems to be a bad idea that would greatly undermine the ability of South Korea to defend itself.
The big problem comes after the sheltering period, a single city there will be help from the outside, but if multiple cities,key cities, transportation hubs etc, there wont be any outside help, then people are on their own. Food becomes a major problem in 3 to 7 days, civil disorder shortly after that, no nation has enough troops or emergency worker to deal with an attack of more than a few cities.
TWN,
Water.
Yup .... if you are in a bunker water will be the most precious commodity around.
"Food becomes a major problem in 3 to 7 days, civil disorder shortly after that,"
Every city is 3 days from total anarchy.
3 days from total anarchy? Try three meals!
"Every city is 3 days from total anarchy" thats true, I think some places based on past events 3 hours or 3 minutes, how ever you look at it it will be one hell of a mess.
Post a Comment