6 ms·

Ask HN: How should one prepare for nuclear war nowadays?

27 points by amichail 5y ago

Any simple things that one can do now?

Bostonian 5y ago
I don't think it is possible. If you think there is a real chance of nuclear war, do some of your "bucket list" items now. Visit family members or friends you have not seen in a while.
kowlo 5y ago
Build an underground bunker
booleandilemma 5y ago
Call up the people close to you and tell them you love them.
rhexs 5y ago
Stockpile euthanasia drugs? That’s not a reality almost anyone wants to live through.
WheelsAtLarge 5y ago
You would need to go somewhere outside the fighting factions' sphere of influence and setup for long term survival without help with supplies for Year of survival. In other words not likely to be done by anyone. The best way to prepare is to fight against it even happening. Once it starts it's too late.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
vorpalhex 5y ago
Like any other threat: 1. Determine threat model 2. Model personal risk 3. Rank interventions Some simple ones might be just having a good communication plan with your family, or keeping some extra food and water on hand. If you are near an incident, your desired course of action is to evac as soon as possible outside the fallout area. That likely means conveyance and go bags. You don't need to "bug out" to the woods, but you need some food, documents, medications and other essentials in case you need to be in a shelter for a while. If you do have to hunker down and are in a fallout zone, you need to limit fallout exposure by sealing your home, and have enough supplies for 14 days or so. Iodide tablets to protect your thyroid would be good. You probably don't want to go full bunker. It's a lot of cost and probably not the right thing unless you are likely to be a direct target - but even then your chances aren't great. High cost low reward basically. Note that if you end up on the cusp of fallout, you are probably going to have a reduced life expectancy even with gear. Not much you can do. Maybe pack basic NBC suits and gas masks but those are prone to not being fitted and need semi-regular replacement.
ricksl 5y ago
My personal contingency is this: once the bombs start falling I’ll be running towards the blasts not away. When it comes to an “all out” nuclear war there are no outcomes that leave behind a world worth living in imo. Assuming the initial blasts spare me and I don’t live somewhere that gets peppered with fallout, I’ll have starvation and societal collapse to look forward to.
- Ourgon 5y ago
  I never understood this attitude, not when it was professed in the 80's, nor now. If I can find a way for me and my family to survive I will do my damnedest to try. Moving out of a densely populated country to the countryside in another, sparsely populated country was a good decision not just because I like to live in the woods, it also puts some distance between us and potential targets. This was not really why I made this decision but it doesn't hurt, either. Being self-sufficient to a relatively high degree - especially when it comes to energy the which actually does seem to grow on the trees here - also helps.
  - PeterWhittaker 5y ago
    Have you read On the Beach? If the exchange were sufficient, there would be no safe places, fallout would envelope the world and slowly claim us all. That’s the basic background to running blastward: die faster in less pain, than agonizingly.
    - Ourgon 5y ago
      Yes, fantastic book. Wrong premise though, fallout does not live as long as Nevil Shute makes it out to do, nor do the shifting wind patterns lead to the movement of large amounts of northern-hemisphere dust to the southern hemisphere.
  - mikewarot 5y ago
    >I never understood this attitude, not when it was professed in the 80's, nor now For me, it's pretty simple. You're going to have a fallout cloud world wide. That will cut food production by at least half. Infrastructure will be down, so the masses will flee the city like a plague of locusts. 90% of the population will starve in the first year or two. We'd be lucky to emerge from this with with 1900s level technology. No new chips, tool steel, lubricants, steel, or any other of the products now produced in the millions of tons per year will be available. It's a choice between a death in seconds, verses watching society completely collapse into small tribes of hunter gatherers.
obblekk 5y ago
According to MAD game theory, if a true doomsday style nuclear war were to happen, the initiator would need to deliver a crushing first strike to have any hope of surviving (by preventing a significant counterstrike). The hypersonics that Russia and China have publicly tested recently do seem capable of doing that. So, the goal would be to live in a place unlikely to be in the top ~1000 target locations list. The difference between being 999 most likely to be hit vs. 1001 might be the enough. If that logic is correct, maybe live somewhere with very low density of humans, away from the coasts, no critical infrastructure nearby, no remarkable geographic landmarks, and large amounts of undeveloped natural resources (which a future occupier may want to have). Which sounds a bit like saying "live on a Native American reservation." Maybe destiny is for this content to be returned to its original owners...
- AbrahamParangi 5y ago
  Do hypersonics meaningfully impact first-strike capabilities? ICBMs are substantially faster than what can be achieved fully in-atmosphere.
  - Ourgon 5y ago
    The point with hypersonic missiles is that they can manoeuvrer until the terminal part of their trajectory, this in contrast to ballistic missiles which are on a set course past the boost phase. This makes it harder to shield against hypersonic missiles which is useful both for first-strike - more of your missiles will hit their targets - as well as when executing a counterstrike.
- berberous 5y ago
  Wouldn’t the targets mostly be military (sites housing nukes or otherwise militarily important) and perhaps a few cities to largely neutralize them from doing anything other than kick their wounds (NY, DC, LA)? I don’t see why they should want to destroy more minor cities as well (Baltimore, Miami, Charleston, etc) for no reason; seems like it doesn’t meaningful add protection when doing a first strike
  - 5y ago
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
msandford 5y ago
One practical thing you can do is to buy a significant quantity of iodine. If there's a nuclear exchange and fallout one of the big killers will be radioactive iodine that lodges in your thyroid and then kills it. Having a lot of potassium iodide so you can absolutely saturate your thyroid and at least stave off that disaster is fairly easy and fairly cheap. If you live through the first second then you want to have the ability very soon. If you then live through the first month it'll help you make it through the next few years. https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/emergencies/ki.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/emergencies/ki.htm
- stef25 5y ago
  Here in Belgium you can get it free from pharmacies cause they were scared one of our old reactors might malfunction one day. You don't need lots, it's just a small box of pills. It does say that if you're over 40 there's the risk of it messing up your thyroid and you should maybe reconsider. It's especially useful among children. One studied showed that people in parts Belarus that were children when Chernobyl blew up had something like a 30-40% chance to develop cancer.
gus_massa 5y ago
* Canned food for two or four weeks. It's handy in case of other disasters, and you can use it as part of your normal food to keep it fresh. * Iodide pills. They are small, and Iodide has 1 week half life, the other elements decay too fast or too slow to do anything. * Bottled water. It takes too much room and is much more expensive than tap water, so it's an investment. I have like 100 liters (25galons) for my family. Not enough for a nuclear war, but good enough for small problems.
- vorpalhex 5y ago
  You can easily and cheaply bottle your own water. If you rotate it yearly, no additional treatment is needed. If less regularly, get a treatment kit. Aquatainers are good for small amounts (and good for camping), but you are likely looking at food grade 55 gallon drums for this kind of scenario.
bwestergard 5y ago
If you are a well-off resident of a high-income country, are open to moving far from your current place of residence and preparing appropriate shelter and stockpiles, you can certainly prolong your life as a biological organism. But can you meaningfully prolong your life as a human being, the inheritor of a specific culture and history? No. You could have no meaningful future after every human being's past had been rendered meaningless by the war. If you want to understand what the world would look like after a global nuclear exchange, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists is a good starting point. The movie Threads does a good job focusing attention not on the "day after", but the abject misery of the decades that follow, about which nothing could be done. https://thebulletin.org/ https://thebulletin.org/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Srqyd8B9gE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Srqyd8B9gE
- amelius 5y ago
  What if you find shelter with a small community? Sounds similar to me like going on an extended space mission with a small group of people, in terms of isolation.
  - chucksta 5y ago
    What if you are immune to radiation? Point is odds are its not going to be pretty, If you are planning and relying on what-ifs it's moot.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
newacc9 5y ago
Water filter, dry rice, dry beans, spam, firearm, ammo, cabin in the woods, leave military target areas. Too much to do if you really think its going to happen.
jacobmarble 5y ago
Live a good life every day, such that if it were your last, then that would be OK. There are many ways for a perfectly healthy person to die unexpectedly.
rolph 5y ago
-stock up medications and other supplies particular to your life requirements. -acquire/produce gieger counter, dosimeter, PPEs; Iodine, sealed food and water. -acquire and reinforce hygiene, dust and cross over restrictions. -survive the initial blast[s]; then latent effects and hazards; and the following environmental disruption.
stronglikedan 5y ago
Like I prepare for everything else that isn't going to happen in my lifetime: I ignore it. "That's planning for failure, Morty. Even dumber than regular planning." --Rick
- msandford 5y ago
  Well it might happen in your lifetime. But only for the last second I guess?
jvanderbot 5y ago
There are good individual / household tips here, but the best long-term success strategy, imho, is to have a community of relatively self-sufficient people with you. You can find such folk everywhere: Farmers, mechanics, handymen, ... any non-white collar person to speak very stereotypically (sorry). First thing I'm doing if things get hairy is moving to the country with my in-laws and helping them.
hectormalot 5y ago
If it's a true concern, the answer is probably iodine tablets and a respirator. Increases your chances of survival (if you would survive the first wave). But, what more can we do? It's an interesting question to think about. Nuclear war would probably be the result of a significant escalation, and in all likelihood will involve many nukes back-and-forth, rather than a single nuke hitting a single city. With that in mind, I'll give it a go. I'm assuming your goal is to survive the war, and be able to continue living afterwards. Step 1: A location likely to survive the war. You need to pick a location that allows you to survive the initial wave of nukes, then provides sufficient shelter for the resulting radioactive fall-out, and then finally allows to you rebuild some resemblance of living, once you're able to go outside again. This probably eliminates all countries that have nukes, or are part of alliances that have nukes. You'll either get a direct hit, or will likely be close to the fall-out. Maybe French Polynesia is a good place. It is in the southern hemisphere (vs US, Russia, EU in the north), very remote, has limited military value. Step 2: Shelter. Although you've picked a location unlikely to get nuked, it's still good to be in a sturdy shelter, underground (maybe even under water), that also holds your supplies. Assuming no direct hits, I'd go for a concrete basement with an extra thick roof. Step 3: Stocking up to survive the aftermath of the war. You'll need various supplies: (a) water (for days, assuming you have a way to get new fresh water, e.g. a well or small-scale desalination), (b) food (months, maybe years, assuming global supply chains no longer exist), (c) basic defensive weapons (when others find out you have supplies), (d) materials to survive the increased radiation outside (iodine tablets, respirators), (e) medicine (antibiotics, painkillers, etc.) Step 4: Building a new life: seeds, fertiliser, building materials that are hard to get in the post-war world, fishing equipment, a boat, etc Bonus items: Communication (FM/AM antenna on a weather balloon?), Transport (Sailing yachts with solar panels and desalination equipment can go a long way, might even be a good shelter if you find the right place to sail), pooling up with a group of people so that you can maintain a small 'society'.
panzerboy 5y ago
Nothing. Accept your fate as it is. Living after such an event would be a hell anyways. So let the big random number generator in the sky decide for you.
qiskit 5y ago
The likelihood of nuclear war is pretty much 0. But if you want to prepare, I can only think of off-grid homesteading or farming with known community ( aka it has some friends or family that you know ). People will need help from others/community to survive. In a nuclear war, you want to be as far away from population centers ( cities, suburbs, etc ). And you want to be able to supply your own food in some capacity. This is assuming human civilization has collapsed and won't return within our lifetimes.
bb88 5y ago
My take is slightly different, but if you manage to survive a first (and a second) strike, would you really want to live in that world anymore? I would try to make sure I have a way to die as peaceful as is possible. I'm not saying you shouldn't do all the other stuff (stock up on supplies, find a place that's safe from fallout and nuclear contamination). What I am saying is that today if the reality is that Russia holds 6,000 nukes, and many of them are cobalt bombs, depending upon the weather and where you live and how many cobalt bombs were dropped and the efficiency of conversion of CO-59 to CO-60, etc... I'm not sure there's much you can do other than die peacefully. I think some people will say, "But Nuclear War is Survivable. People dying of fallout won't happen. Nuclear winter is a false hypothesis. Russia doesn't have cobalt bombs." I just don't want to test the hypothesis and find out they were wrong.
- ASalazarMX 5y ago
  I'm with you, but first I would want to take my chances before deciding to euthanize myself and my family. The amount and diversity of knowledge in your neighborhood would surprise you, not everyone sits in front of computers. Rebuilding small communities will be feasible in many parts of the world.
iExploder 5y ago
well I'm not exactly an expert on surviving mass extinction events, I gave it a bit of thought, given sufficient amount of funds I think it goes as following: 1. move to New Zealand 2. find a nice plot of arable land, 3. build a radiation proof bunker, does not need to be nuke impact safe as I dont expect NZ to be a designated target for direct strike, but hey, if you have the money go nuts with the reinforced concrete 4. stockpile on canned food and seeds 5. probably need some kind of radiation level detection systems or poll some official sites as an early warning system
euroderf 5y ago
Talk to your SO and make sure your ideas about it are in sync.
jdrc 5y ago
I assume that MAD isn't real, there are no nukes, everybody is bluffing, it's just that nobody has called each other's bluff, so everyone thinks it's real
robga 5y ago
Based on 2020-21, by purchasing as much toilet paper and pasta as your SUV will take.
darkhorn 5y ago
Invest in undergraund bunker or something similar, like a good basement of building. Invest in air defence systems. Or ask your politicians to invest in air defence systems. If you live in big city or near a university consider moving to a mountenous region where there is nothing. No university, no military base, no companies, nothing.. By moving I mean now. 60 seconds won't be enough to move. Canned food and iodine. AM radio and chargers. And also read this one https://www.ready.gov/nuclear-explosion https://www.ready.gov/nuclear-explosion
muzani 5y ago
Come to Malaysia. Good food, good weather, fast internet (YMMV). It's a neutral country, outside of the influence of USA/Russia/China. We do have oil, so that may not be a foolproof idea, but if nukes are flying around, who really cares about the oil?
credit_guy 5y ago
Read "Nuclear War Survival Skills" by Cresson Kearny [1]. You can find a pdf online. If you live a distance from a city center and you can work from home, try to do that when tensions are high. Nuclear bombs are not that powerful. By that I mean they still are stupendously powerful compared to conventional bombs, but in the popular imagination they are capable of erasing countries off the map. It's not quite like that. A typical Russian ICBM warhead has a yield of 150-300 kT, which means it's 10 to 20 times larger than Hiroshima. The effect of a nuclear explosion however varies with the cubic root of the yield, so such a weapon would have twice to three times the effect of Hiroshima. Actually, it appears it would be much smaller than that if the target is an urban area as per wikipedia [2]: "Advanced computer modelling of real-world conditions and how they impact on the damage to modern urban areas has found that most scaling laws are too simplistic and tend to overestimate nuclear explosion effects". So, if you go to the nukemap [3] and model a bomb, take the results with a big grain of salt. But even if you take the nukemap results at face value, you'd be surprised to see that the effects of a bomb are less than you'd expect. For example the link I provided shows the effects of an airburst of a 150 kt nuke in lower Manhattan: - fireball radius: 450 m. Everything inside is vaporized instantaneously. But the optimal height for the detonation (chosen to maximize the radius of the 5psi blast) is 1660m, so there's only air inside the 450m radius). - radiation radius: 1km; most people inside this radius die within a month. Good thing there's nobody inside this radius either, only air again. - moderate (5psi) blast radius: 3.7 km. This is quite bad: lots of buildings will collapse, either outright, or they'll catch fire and collapse eventually (not clear how effective the firefighting would be after a nuclear detonation). What's inside this radius? All lower Manhattan up to about 30th Street, a good chunk of Jersey City, and a slice of Brooklyn. But what's surprising is what's outside: about 3/4 of Manhattan and Jersey City, 90% of Brooklyn and 100% of Queens, the Bronx and Staten Island. What happens if you are in the subway? Quite likely you'll survive. Why would you be in the subway? Because the US has satellites and is able to tell that an incoming ICBM is coming at least 15 min ahead of time, and most likely all iPhones will beep really loud. The most important lesson though is this: if you are, let's say in Newark, NJ, or Greenwich, CT, or Scarsdale, NY, then you will not die from the blast. How about the radiation from the fallout? That might kill you, so you need to be careful. As a rule of thumb, after 2 weeks the radiation disappears. But will you have food and water to survive in some basement for 2 weeks? I'll stop here, I already wrote a wall of text. Read Kearney's book, and you'll get a lot of useful info. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cresson_Kearny https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cresson_Kearny [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_nuclear_explosions#Summary_of_the_effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_nuclear_explosions#... [3] https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/?&kt=150&lat=40.71427&lng=-74.00597&hob_psi=5&hob_ft=5443&ff=50&psi=20,5,1&zm=13 https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/?&kt=150&lat=40.71427&lng...
imartin2k 5y ago
I'm reading through the replies and find them strangely comforting. Seems like not worth the effort to prepare at all, but rather face and get comfortable with fears one might (or probably does) have about death. If a nuclear war doesn't happen after all (which is the most likely outcome anyway even now), then one's life likely will take a dramatic turn, since one has faced and embraced the biggest fear there is.
xlaacid 5y ago
Bend over, put your head between your legs, and kiss your ass goodbye.

27 points by amichail 5y ago

Any simple things that one can do now?

I don't think it is possible. If you think there is a real chance of nuclear war, do some of your "bucket list" items now. Visit family members or friends you have not seen in a while.

kowlo 5y ago

Build an underground bunker

booleandilemma 5y ago

Call up the people close to you and tell them you love them.

rhexs 5y ago

Stockpile euthanasia drugs? That’s not a reality almost anyone wants to live through.

WheelsAtLarge 5y ago

You would need to go somewhere outside the fighting factions' sphere of influence and setup for long term survival without help with supplies for Year of survival. In other words not likely to be done by anyone. The best way to prepare is to fight against it even happening. Once it starts it's too late.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

vorpalhex 5y ago

Like any other threat: 1. Determine threat model 2. Model personal risk 3. Rank interventions Some simple ones might be just having a good communication plan with your family, or keeping some extra food and water on hand. If you are near an incident, your desired course of action is to evac as soon as possible outside the fallout area. That likely means conveyance and go bags. You don't need to "bug out" to the woods, but you need some food, documents, medications and other essentials in case you need to be in a shelter for a while. If you do have to hunker down and are in a fallout zone, you need to limit fallout exposure by sealing your home, and have enough supplies for 14 days or so. Iodide tablets to protect your thyroid would be good. You probably don't want to go full bunker. It's a lot of cost and probably not the right thing unless you are likely to be a direct target - but even then your chances aren't great. High cost low reward basically. Note that if you end up on the cusp of fallout, you are probably going to have a reduced life expectancy even with gear. Not much you can do. Maybe pack basic NBC suits and gas masks but those are prone to not being fitted and need semi-regular replacement.

ricksl 5y ago

My personal contingency is this: once the bombs start falling I’ll be running towards the blasts not away. When it comes to an “all out” nuclear war there are no outcomes that leave behind a world worth living in imo. Assuming the initial blasts spare me and I don’t live somewhere that gets peppered with fallout, I’ll have starvation and societal collapse to look forward to.

Ourgon 5y ago
I never understood this attitude, not when it was professed in the 80's, nor now. If I can find a way for me and my family to survive I will do my damnedest to try. Moving out of a densely populated country to the countryside in another, sparsely populated country was a good decision not just because I like to live in the woods, it also puts some distance between us and potential targets. This was not really why I made this decision but it doesn't hurt, either. Being self-sufficient to a relatively high degree - especially when it comes to energy the which actually does seem to grow on the trees here - also helps.
- PeterWhittaker 5y ago
  Have you read On the Beach? If the exchange were sufficient, there would be no safe places, fallout would envelope the world and slowly claim us all. That’s the basic background to running blastward: die faster in less pain, than agonizingly.
  - Ourgon 5y ago
    Yes, fantastic book. Wrong premise though, fallout does not live as long as Nevil Shute makes it out to do, nor do the shifting wind patterns lead to the movement of large amounts of northern-hemisphere dust to the southern hemisphere.
- mikewarot 5y ago
  >I never understood this attitude, not when it was professed in the 80's, nor now For me, it's pretty simple. You're going to have a fallout cloud world wide. That will cut food production by at least half. Infrastructure will be down, so the masses will flee the city like a plague of locusts. 90% of the population will starve in the first year or two. We'd be lucky to emerge from this with with 1900s level technology. No new chips, tool steel, lubricants, steel, or any other of the products now produced in the millions of tons per year will be available. It's a choice between a death in seconds, verses watching society completely collapse into small tribes of hunter gatherers.

obblekk 5y ago

According to MAD game theory, if a true doomsday style nuclear war were to happen, the initiator would need to deliver a crushing first strike to have any hope of surviving (by preventing a significant counterstrike). The hypersonics that Russia and China have publicly tested recently do seem capable of doing that. So, the goal would be to live in a place unlikely to be in the top ~1000 target locations list. The difference between being 999 most likely to be hit vs. 1001 might be the enough. If that logic is correct, maybe live somewhere with very low density of humans, away from the coasts, no critical infrastructure nearby, no remarkable geographic landmarks, and large amounts of undeveloped natural resources (which a future occupier may want to have). Which sounds a bit like saying "live on a Native American reservation." Maybe destiny is for this content to be returned to its original owners...

AbrahamParangi 5y ago
Do hypersonics meaningfully impact first-strike capabilities? ICBMs are substantially faster than what can be achieved fully in-atmosphere.
- Ourgon 5y ago
  The point with hypersonic missiles is that they can manoeuvrer until the terminal part of their trajectory, this in contrast to ballistic missiles which are on a set course past the boost phase. This makes it harder to shield against hypersonic missiles which is useful both for first-strike - more of your missiles will hit their targets - as well as when executing a counterstrike.
berberous 5y ago
Wouldn’t the targets mostly be military (sites housing nukes or otherwise militarily important) and perhaps a few cities to largely neutralize them from doing anything other than kick their wounds (NY, DC, LA)? I don’t see why they should want to destroy more minor cities as well (Baltimore, Miami, Charleston, etc) for no reason; seems like it doesn’t meaningful add protection when doing a first strike
- 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

msandford 5y ago

One practical thing you can do is to buy a significant quantity of iodine. If there's a nuclear exchange and fallout one of the big killers will be radioactive iodine that lodges in your thyroid and then kills it. Having a lot of potassium iodide so you can absolutely saturate your thyroid and at least stave off that disaster is fairly easy and fairly cheap. If you live through the first second then you want to have the ability very soon. If you then live through the first month it'll help you make it through the next few years. https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/emergencies/ki.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/emergencies/ki.htm

stef25 5y ago
Here in Belgium you can get it free from pharmacies cause they were scared one of our old reactors might malfunction one day. You don't need lots, it's just a small box of pills. It does say that if you're over 40 there's the risk of it messing up your thyroid and you should maybe reconsider. It's especially useful among children. One studied showed that people in parts Belarus that were children when Chernobyl blew up had something like a 30-40% chance to develop cancer.

gus_massa 5y ago

* Canned food for two or four weeks. It's handy in case of other disasters, and you can use it as part of your normal food to keep it fresh. * Iodide pills. They are small, and Iodide has 1 week half life, the other elements decay too fast or too slow to do anything. * Bottled water. It takes too much room and is much more expensive than tap water, so it's an investment. I have like 100 liters (25galons) for my family. Not enough for a nuclear war, but good enough for small problems.

vorpalhex 5y ago
You can easily and cheaply bottle your own water. If you rotate it yearly, no additional treatment is needed. If less regularly, get a treatment kit. Aquatainers are good for small amounts (and good for camping), but you are likely looking at food grade 55 gallon drums for this kind of scenario.

bwestergard 5y ago

If you are a well-off resident of a high-income country, are open to moving far from your current place of residence and preparing appropriate shelter and stockpiles, you can certainly prolong your life as a biological organism. But can you meaningfully prolong your life as a human being, the inheritor of a specific culture and history? No. You could have no meaningful future after every human being's past had been rendered meaningless by the war. If you want to understand what the world would look like after a global nuclear exchange, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists is a good starting point. The movie Threads does a good job focusing attention not on the "day after", but the abject misery of the decades that follow, about which nothing could be done. https://thebulletin.org/ https://thebulletin.org/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Srqyd8B9gE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Srqyd8B9gE

amelius 5y ago
What if you find shelter with a small community? Sounds similar to me like going on an extended space mission with a small group of people, in terms of isolation.
- chucksta 5y ago
  What if you are immune to radiation? Point is odds are its not going to be pretty, If you are planning and relying on what-ifs it's moot.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

newacc9 5y ago

Water filter, dry rice, dry beans, spam, firearm, ammo, cabin in the woods, leave military target areas. Too much to do if you really think its going to happen.

jacobmarble 5y ago

Live a good life every day, such that if it were your last, then that would be OK. There are many ways for a perfectly healthy person to die unexpectedly.

rolph 5y ago

-stock up medications and other supplies particular to your life requirements. -acquire/produce gieger counter, dosimeter, PPEs; Iodine, sealed food and water. -acquire and reinforce hygiene, dust and cross over restrictions. -survive the initial blast[s]; then latent effects and hazards; and the following environmental disruption.

stronglikedan 5y ago

Like I prepare for everything else that isn't going to happen in my lifetime: I ignore it. "That's planning for failure, Morty. Even dumber than regular planning." --Rick

msandford 5y ago
Well it might happen in your lifetime. But only for the last second I guess?

jvanderbot 5y ago

There are good individual / household tips here, but the best long-term success strategy, imho, is to have a community of relatively self-sufficient people with you. You can find such folk everywhere: Farmers, mechanics, handymen, ... any non-white collar person to speak very stereotypically (sorry). First thing I'm doing if things get hairy is moving to the country with my in-laws and helping them.

hectormalot 5y ago

If it's a true concern, the answer is probably iodine tablets and a respirator. Increases your chances of survival (if you would survive the first wave). But, what more can we do? It's an interesting question to think about. Nuclear war would probably be the result of a significant escalation, and in all likelihood will involve many nukes back-and-forth, rather than a single nuke hitting a single city. With that in mind, I'll give it a go. I'm assuming your goal is to survive the war, and be able to continue living afterwards. Step 1: A location likely to survive the war. You need to pick a location that allows you to survive the initial wave of nukes, then provides sufficient shelter for the resulting radioactive fall-out, and then finally allows to you rebuild some resemblance of living, once you're able to go outside again. This probably eliminates all countries that have nukes, or are part of alliances that have nukes. You'll either get a direct hit, or will likely be close to the fall-out. Maybe French Polynesia is a good place. It is in the southern hemisphere (vs US, Russia, EU in the north), very remote, has limited military value. Step 2: Shelter. Although you've picked a location unlikely to get nuked, it's still good to be in a sturdy shelter, underground (maybe even under water), that also holds your supplies. Assuming no direct hits, I'd go for a concrete basement with an extra thick roof. Step 3: Stocking up to survive the aftermath of the war. You'll need various supplies: (a) water (for days, assuming you have a way to get new fresh water, e.g. a well or small-scale desalination), (b) food (months, maybe years, assuming global supply chains no longer exist), (c) basic defensive weapons (when others find out you have supplies), (d) materials to survive the increased radiation outside (iodine tablets, respirators), (e) medicine (antibiotics, painkillers, etc.) Step 4: Building a new life: seeds, fertiliser, building materials that are hard to get in the post-war world, fishing equipment, a boat, etc Bonus items: Communication (FM/AM antenna on a weather balloon?), Transport (Sailing yachts with solar panels and desalination equipment can go a long way, might even be a good shelter if you find the right place to sail), pooling up with a group of people so that you can maintain a small 'society'.

panzerboy 5y ago

Nothing. Accept your fate as it is. Living after such an event would be a hell anyways. So let the big random number generator in the sky decide for you.

qiskit 5y ago

The likelihood of nuclear war is pretty much 0. But if you want to prepare, I can only think of off-grid homesteading or farming with known community ( aka it has some friends or family that you know ). People will need help from others/community to survive. In a nuclear war, you want to be as far away from population centers ( cities, suburbs, etc ). And you want to be able to supply your own food in some capacity. This is assuming human civilization has collapsed and won't return within our lifetimes.

bb88 5y ago

My take is slightly different, but if you manage to survive a first (and a second) strike, would you really want to live in that world anymore? I would try to make sure I have a way to die as peaceful as is possible. I'm not saying you shouldn't do all the other stuff (stock up on supplies, find a place that's safe from fallout and nuclear contamination). What I am saying is that today if the reality is that Russia holds 6,000 nukes, and many of them are cobalt bombs, depending upon the weather and where you live and how many cobalt bombs were dropped and the efficiency of conversion of CO-59 to CO-60, etc... I'm not sure there's much you can do other than die peacefully. I think some people will say, "But Nuclear War is Survivable. People dying of fallout won't happen. Nuclear winter is a false hypothesis. Russia doesn't have cobalt bombs." I just don't want to test the hypothesis and find out they were wrong.

ASalazarMX 5y ago
I'm with you, but first I would want to take my chances before deciding to euthanize myself and my family. The amount and diversity of knowledge in your neighborhood would surprise you, not everyone sits in front of computers. Rebuilding small communities will be feasible in many parts of the world.

iExploder 5y ago

well I'm not exactly an expert on surviving mass extinction events, I gave it a bit of thought, given sufficient amount of funds I think it goes as following: 1. move to New Zealand 2. find a nice plot of arable land, 3. build a radiation proof bunker, does not need to be nuke impact safe as I dont expect NZ to be a designated target for direct strike, but hey, if you have the money go nuts with the reinforced concrete 4. stockpile on canned food and seeds 5. probably need some kind of radiation level detection systems or poll some official sites as an early warning system

euroderf 5y ago

Talk to your SO and make sure your ideas about it are in sync.

jdrc 5y ago

I assume that MAD isn't real, there are no nukes, everybody is bluffing, it's just that nobody has called each other's bluff, so everyone thinks it's real

robga 5y ago

Based on 2020-21, by purchasing as much toilet paper and pasta as your SUV will take.

darkhorn 5y ago

Invest in undergraund bunker or something similar, like a good basement of building. Invest in air defence systems. Or ask your politicians to invest in air defence systems. If you live in big city or near a university consider moving to a mountenous region where there is nothing. No university, no military base, no companies, nothing.. By moving I mean now. 60 seconds won't be enough to move. Canned food and iodine. AM radio and chargers. And also read this one https://www.ready.gov/nuclear-explosion https://www.ready.gov/nuclear-explosion

muzani 5y ago

Come to Malaysia. Good food, good weather, fast internet (YMMV). It's a neutral country, outside of the influence of USA/Russia/China. We do have oil, so that may not be a foolproof idea, but if nukes are flying around, who really cares about the oil?

credit_guy 5y ago

Read "Nuclear War Survival Skills" by Cresson Kearny [1]. You can find a pdf online. If you live a distance from a city center and you can work from home, try to do that when tensions are high. Nuclear bombs are not that powerful. By that I mean they still are stupendously powerful compared to conventional bombs, but in the popular imagination they are capable of erasing countries off the map. It's not quite like that. A typical Russian ICBM warhead has a yield of 150-300 kT, which means it's 10 to 20 times larger than Hiroshima. The effect of a nuclear explosion however varies with the cubic root of the yield, so such a weapon would have twice to three times the effect of Hiroshima. Actually, it appears it would be much smaller than that if the target is an urban area as per wikipedia [2]: "Advanced computer modelling of real-world conditions and how they impact on the damage to modern urban areas has found that most scaling laws are too simplistic and tend to overestimate nuclear explosion effects". So, if you go to the nukemap [3] and model a bomb, take the results with a big grain of salt. But even if you take the nukemap results at face value, you'd be surprised to see that the effects of a bomb are less than you'd expect. For example the link I provided shows the effects of an airburst of a 150 kt nuke in lower Manhattan: - fireball radius: 450 m. Everything inside is vaporized instantaneously. But the optimal height for the detonation (chosen to maximize the radius of the 5psi blast) is 1660m, so there's only air inside the 450m radius). - radiation radius: 1km; most people inside this radius die within a month. Good thing there's nobody inside this radius either, only air again. - moderate (5psi) blast radius: 3.7 km. This is quite bad: lots of buildings will collapse, either outright, or they'll catch fire and collapse eventually (not clear how effective the firefighting would be after a nuclear detonation). What's inside this radius? All lower Manhattan up to about 30th Street, a good chunk of Jersey City, and a slice of Brooklyn. But what's surprising is what's outside: about 3/4 of Manhattan and Jersey City, 90% of Brooklyn and 100% of Queens, the Bronx and Staten Island. What happens if you are in the subway? Quite likely you'll survive. Why would you be in the subway? Because the US has satellites and is able to tell that an incoming ICBM is coming at least 15 min ahead of time, and most likely all iPhones will beep really loud. The most important lesson though is this: if you are, let's say in Newark, NJ, or Greenwich, CT, or Scarsdale, NY, then you will not die from the blast. How about the radiation from the fallout? That might kill you, so you need to be careful. As a rule of thumb, after 2 weeks the radiation disappears. But will you have food and water to survive in some basement for 2 weeks? I'll stop here, I already wrote a wall of text. Read Kearney's book, and you'll get a lot of useful info. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cresson_Kearny https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cresson_Kearny [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_nuclear_explosions#Summary_of_the_effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_nuclear_explosions#... [3] https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/?&kt=150&lat=40.71427&lng=-74.00597&hob_psi=5&hob_ft=5443&ff=50&psi=20,5,1&zm=13 https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/?&kt=150&lat=40.71427&lng...

imartin2k 5y ago

I'm reading through the replies and find them strangely comforting. Seems like not worth the effort to prepare at all, but rather face and get comfortable with fears one might (or probably does) have about death. If a nuclear war doesn't happen after all (which is the most likely outcome anyway even now), then one's life likely will take a dramatic turn, since one has faced and embraced the biggest fear there is.

xlaacid 5y ago

Bend over, put your head between your legs, and kiss your ass goodbye.