8 ms·
FEMA Planning Guidance for Response to a Nuclear Detonation [pdf]
- jleyank 4y agoWhen I was a kid, it was more "Find a sturdy wall, ideally below ground, to sit against. Put your head between your legs and kiss your ass goodbye." Hopefully, now, they're smaller and farther away. Ideally, they're farther away in time also.
- pdkl95 4y agoSun Ra, "Nuclear War" It's a motherfucker don't you know If they push that button Your ass got to go What you gonna do Without your ass https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsPrINajncU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsPrINajncU
- JetAlone 4y agoYou know what? I'd give the whole superheroism gig a try. Keep an eye on the comic book store shelves for "The Phantom Clenching Adventures of ASS-LESS CHAP!!". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_xg9w98bd4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_xg9w98bd4
- ch4s3 4y agoDepending on the size of the bomb, and your distance you might actually be fine. If you survive the initial blast, shower, change clothes, and leave the area quickly you may not have any noteworthy issues at all. Or you could see the blast, and get cooked at a cellular level and die horribly a few days later. They were right that dirt and concrete do wonders to stop gamma rays.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- repler 4y agoIs it just me or is some of this not lining up with guidance published in the 80s?
- defrost 4y agoDifficult to say, the report has 250 pages covering a spectrum of responses and I personally have zero knowledge of what you yourself recollect from whatever guidance you were exposed to in the 1980s. Are you thinking 1980s general public guidance, armed forces guidance, or scientific advice from comittee? Would this be 1980s UK, US, or AU guidance?
- DaiPlusPlus 4y ago> Would this be 1980s UK, US, or AU guidance? I recently got a copy of Duncan Campbell's /War Plan UK/ and it's as engrossing as it is depressing. Worth a read if you're into that sort of thing: https://www.amazon.com/War-Plan-UK-Duncan-Campbell/dp/1326506129 https://www.amazon.com/War-Plan-UK-Duncan-Campbell/dp/132650...
- ranger207 4y agoI wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't line up. 80s guidance probably assumed mass nuclear war, while this document focuses on nukes that might be used by terrorists or "rogue states" aka North Korea or in the future Iran. In the former case there'd be massive nukes going off everywhere so dispersion would be emphasized, but in the latter case it's more likely to only have one nuke so rapid concentration and organization is more important
- jnwatson 4y ago"This 2021 Planning Guidance update addresses an expanded range of threat scenarios, including nation-state threats2 with much larger explosive yields. This guidance also considers nuclear devices delivered by ballistic missile or aircraft that can deliver detonations elevated above the surface. Low-altitude air bursts can increase the scale of the blast and thermal damage inflicted but may also significantly reduce local fallout impacts..."
- defrost 4y agoThe US is extremely lucky to have never had to put any of this into practice considering they've dropped live armed nukes by accident on mainland US of A several times .. and at least one should have detonated (but failed, by the narrowest margin) to detonate. These are accidents in Georgia, North Carolina, Texas, etc - see "Broken Arrows". #1 Lesson: If a nuclear weapon does detonate, don't immediately assume enemy action.
- technothrasher 4y ago> several times More than "several". This declassified document goes on for 225 pages, and it's only as of 1967: https://www-tc.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/media/filer_public/24/db/24dbd8c1-c74a-4841-ab63-c3258a14ceb4/_cc_afswp_technical_incidents_reduced1.pdf https://www-tc.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/media/filer_p...
- defrost 4y ago"Technical incidents" is a far broader category than "armed nukes dropped on mainland USofA". I guess we can agree there were a multitude of fuckups that almost resulted in an unintended nuclear explosion, but far fewer events of the specific nature I mentioned.
- denkmoon 4y agoCommand and Control by Eric Schlosser is a fun read.
- julian_sark 4y agoGreat audio book, too. Can recommend.
- echoradio 4y agoAn excellent book. I read his research lasted seven years. Worth noting: there is an American Experience documentary based on this book (with a primary focus on the Damascus incident), but it’s nowhere near as good as the text.
- smeej 4y agoIn the last day, a video came out in NYC also talking about this [0], AND our local nuclear power plant, during a system test, "accidentally" alerted everyone over loud speakers on beaches that something had gone wrong, which they later issued an emergency alert to correct. [1] Three is a lot of nuclear-related warnings/drills for me to come across in one day. It is three more than I recall having seen in the last ten years combined. [0] https://youtu.be/N-5d7V4Sbqk https://youtu.be/N-5d7V4Sbqk [1] https://www.wmur.com/article/seabrook-power-plant-false-alarm-new-hampshire/40589166 https://www.wmur.com/article/seabrook-power-plant-false-alar...
- Spooky23 4y agoIt’s a way to project “whatever” to the Russians as they keep rattling about their Satan missile. Ditto for missile defense deployments and aggressive interceptions.
- mattgperry 4y agoI don't think that dopey NYC video really conveys "whatever", more like we don't know what the fuck we're doing
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- mlyle 4y agoWhat would you advise, instead? If a nuke goes off, the FEMA steps of get inside, stay inside, and stay tuned is your best bet. Yes, some people will need to evacuate, but it's a pretty small slice of the overall affected population-- better for everyone to wait for specific instructions on what to do than to have everyone in a massive jam trying to flee and exposing themselves to high levels of radiation and other hazards.
- smeej 4y agoI'd be afraid in an atmosphere like NYC that the damage to buildings, gas pipes, electrical wires and the like would make staying in whatever building you happened to be in quite dangerous in its own right. I guess it's still probably less dangerous than risking radiation exposure, but it seems like an overly broad solution.
- recyclelater 4y agoWith the looming currency crisis in Pakistan, we are probably closer than we ever have been to nukes falling into the hands of people who shouldn’t have them. Also not too friendly with Russia or china these days…
- WebbWeaver 4y agoCare to expand on the looming currency crisis? Central asia is undergoing some interesting times.
- recyclelater 4y agoLarge dollar denominated debt, strong dollar, results in potential defaults on that debt. Pretty sure USA won’t let Pakistan falter given their nuclear state status, but definitely interesting times.
- ilaksh 4y agoThe entire economic system is faltering. Rich and powerful countries that seem like they won't have a big problem are just less susceptible not necessarily so much better managed. No one should have nukes.
- justatdotin 4y agoNO ONE should have them.
- ben_w 4y agoSure, but the justification for nations having them is much the same as with private individuals having guns in the USA, and just like the problem the USA has with gun crime, I don't see any path from here to the good world that's likely to get past the political hurdle.
- justatdotin 4y agothe path you seek is called the TPNW
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- ThinkBeat 4y agoPowerful fear inducing propaganda . What is it the government wants to justify this time? We had to invade Iraq they have WMDs, if we dont the next thing we see might be a huge mushroom cloud on the horizon.
- Retric 4y agoFEMA’s job is to prepare for such disasters, this is simply 3rd edition of one such document. The hypothetical cause could be accidental US detonation of a nuclear warhead but assigning blame isn’t their job disaster recovery is. It’s much better to have a plan than try to make stuff up on the spot so horrific but unlikely threats should be planed for.
- alfiedotwtf 4y ago
- ilaksh 4y agoI agree on the general principal of taking government's messages with a grain of salt and considering their motivations. But I also think it's amazing that everyone has just accepted the vast array of nuclear weapons and takes it for granted that they will never be deployed. It's bizarre and incredibly stupid.
- ThinkBeat 4y agoMy favorite movie of all time is "War Games" and it comes to mind whenever I read about related stories. There is a great speech by a character called Falken. and he gives the best advice for how to prepare for nuclear war: """ Oh, it's all right. I've planned ahead. We're just three miles from a primary target. A millisecond of brilliant light and we're vaporized Much more fortunate than the million |who'll wander sightless through the shouldering aftermath. We'll be spared the horror of survival.. """ There entire dialog is my favorite part of the movie. Check out the movie. Yes it is a bit 80s but nuclear holocaust was a bit 80s
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- michaelplny 4y agoI took the liberty to look through the document and saw this: "This guidance also reflects evolving nuclear threats. The 2010 Planning Guidance focused on 10 kiloton (kT) and smaller-yield detonations consistent with the threat of nuclear terrorism, all occurring at the Earth’s surface. This 2021 Planning Guidance update addresses an expanded range of threat scenarios, including nation-state threats with much larger explosive yields. This guidance also considers nuclear devices delivered by ballistic missile or aircraft that can deliver detonations elevated above the surface." However, after skimming the guide, there is no specific recommendation on what to do when a weapon over 100kT detonates. As of 2021, Russia has over 460 500-800kT warheads that can be delivered via ICBM, and around 1000 100kT warheads. Source: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00963402.2021.1885869 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00963402.2021.18... Possible inferences: 1. Cities are not targets for high yield weapons (maybe it is not strategically valuable to completely annihilate cities). 2. Cities attacked with a 100kT or lower yield have a chance of survival and ability to mount an emergency response. 3. Cities attacked with a high yield (e.g. 800kT) have no chance of survival and making a guide for local authorities is useless. Does anyone know if nuclear doctrine (Russian, American, or other) designate what yields would be used on cities? For example, lets assume, a nuclear aggressor can do a surprise strike and target NYC. As of 2019 the vaults of the NY FED had 6,190 tons of gold. Wouldn't a 800kT bomb, obliterate or damage the gold? Wouldn't the infrastructure of the city be wasted? It makes senses to target locations that would help a country wage war so military bases and factories, but cities?
- adrianN 4y agoI mean, what recommendations do you expect? If ICBMs start flying all you can do is get to the most sturdy reinforced concrete structure you can reach in a couple of minutes and pray. Afterwards try not to breathe in dust and move as far away from the dust cloud as you can.
- michaelplny 4y agoOf course, in the minutes waiting for the bomb to detonate one can only shelter and hide, the guide also mentions this. The guide is more for how localities can mount rescue operations within the first 12-24 hours after detonation and before Federal Aid would arrive. What is most eye opening is that the guide recommends for first responders that zone around ~ 1 mile from ground zero of a 10 kT nuclear explosion has the greatest lifesaving potential through early responder actions.
- lakomen 4y ago
- FunnyBadger 4y agoClearly a false flag is being planned and it will be a nuke detonated in a Blue City. When you see it, know it for what it is.
- echoradio 4y agoI’m surprised no one has brought up “Threads.” [1] [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threads_(1984_film) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threads_(1984_film)