In limited circumstances. Which likely won’t be limited. Not in the nuclear wars these people want to survive.
We aren’t talking about nuclear bunkers in Kashmir. I could understand why someone in Kashmir might think that was a good idea.
These are people in Texas and Florida. If there’s a nuclear war that would reach them, a bunker, even a luxury bunker, is not going to be enough to get them through it. That’s a global annihilation event.
It really depends. Nuclear bombs are powerful, but they are not as powerful as some people think. If you hit a city center, you would be able to survive in the suburbs easily. In addition, there is a good chance a portion of targets won’t be cities, but military bases and other military targets.
So for me, the question that will decide if you survive or not (aside from whether you are unlucky enough to be hit directly) is whether you can secure a food source after your initial supplies run out.
Survive the initial blast maybe, but the fallout? From a global nuclear war? Things talking about waiting a week or two and then it being basically safe to emerge are based on things like Chernobyl, not events where there is fallout being blown through the atmosphere from explosions across the globe.
There will be very few survivors of such an event and the ones in the suburbs with the shelters are probably not the ones who are going to be amongst them.
Right and as a kid from the Cold War, anyone with half a brain knew it’d be a terrible life after surviving the initial devastation in a global attack.
Lots of us were committed to running toward the blast, rather than ducking and covering.
Things talking about waiting a week or two and then it being basically safe to emerge are based on things like Chernobyl, not events where there is fallout being blown through the atmosphere from explosions across the globe.
There were about 2,060 nuclear warheads detonated as part of various nuclear tests by all countries combined. So we know how fallout behaves and it is not based on Chernobyl.
In addition, there is only about 13,400 warhead in the world, about 9000 of which are not actively deployed and therefore would not be part of an unexpected nuclear exchange. So no, the fallout would not be fun, but it would not kill that many people. Especially if they stayed in a bunker for a few weeks.
Due to the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, the majority of bombs since 1962 were detonated underground to limit fallout dispersion.
Also keep in mind that A-bombs like were dropped in Japan killed everyone within a 1 mile radius. Modern warheads are H-bombs which kill everyone in a 5-10 mile radius.
Due to the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, the majority of bombs since 1962 were detonated underground to limit fallout dispersion.
Ok, so we have data only on about 300 above ground nuclear detonations, instead of 2,000. And those 300 included H-Bombs.
Also keep in mind that A-bombs like were dropped in Japan killed everyone within a 1 mile radius. Modern warheads are H-bombs which kill everyone in a 5-10 mile radius.
And how far from a large city do you think the suburbs spread? Yes, anyone near the city center has no chance. That was not disputed by anyone.
And if we want to be pedantic, a hardened underground bunker would probably have chances for survival quite a bit closer than 5-10 miles.
60+ years ago medical science was a lot worse than today. They were still giving people lobotomies and using leaded gas in the 50s and 60s. They knew the acute effects of radiation but some of the long term effects did not become apparent until decades later. Just because you survive the initial blast, does not mean you escape harm. Suburban areas as much as 20 miles downwind could receive severe fallout.
I wouldn’t trust the bunkers to be able to maintain a consistent supply of air, water, and electricity for extended periods of time. Once you have to flee to the surface, you have to contend with not only radiation but a complete collapse of infrastructure and social services. Fires will burn unchecked with fire departments dead or overwhelmed and broken gas lines stoking fires among the rubble. Water supplies will be interrupted or tainted. Electrical services will probably have failed along with cell and internet. Roads will be blocked by debris and abandoned vehicles, so even if anyone wanted to risk radiation to bring in supplies, it would be extremely difficult. Deaths from thirst or starvation will follow the deaths from radiation.
Hiroshima had about 250,000 people and conservatively 66k were killed and another 69k were injured from the initial blast. The final total killed is between 90k-166k. Now extrapolate that to cities with 10x the population hit by a bomb that affects 10x the area. Now imagine 10 cities like this being hit at once. Social collapse would be inevitable and nobody is going to be able to outlast that in a bunker.
Which is exactly what I said. That survival would mainly depend on getting a source of food after having to leave the bunker.
PS: I guess I will address the fallout one last time. The most dangerous radioactive elements in nuclear fallout are those with shortest half-life, since they decay the fastest, releasing radiation the fastest. But they also disappear fast since they decay, so in a few weeks, the radiation would be at a very survivable level. You, as you are now, would absolutely not want to receive such dose and it would increase your lifetime risk of cancer. But it would not make it into top 10 concerns you would have in a post-ww3 world.
Increasing your odds of surviving the initial blast and waiting out those first few weeks where fallout is a concern is what a bunker would be useful for.
The fallout will just give you cancer in 10-20 years as long as you wait to go outside for a week or so. Assuming you’re far enough away that the blast doesn’t kill you, stay as underground or as much to the center of a building as possible for that first week and something like 95% of the rad stuff will have decayed.
Sure some people will get enough dose to die, but more people will get sick and recover. Radiation is not like the movies.
What does the delivery method have to do with anything? The numbers of warheads does not change just because you have multiple in one missile.
Also, MIRV is not as widely used as you may think, because until recently, it was limited by treaties.
For example, the peacekeeper, which was a replacement for minuteman designed to carry up to 11 warheads was discontinued and dismantled. So the US still only has minuteman missiles.
As I added in the edit, it is lot less used then what a cursory look may lead you to believe. Mostly only SLBMs really use it.
Regardless, it does not change the number of active warheads a country has, so hitting one city multiple times means not hitting other cities.
Plus, it would take dozens to really cover a city like New York. You can play around with https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/ to get a feeling for it.
Edit: To be clear, many missiles are capable of carrying MIRVs. Minuteman III missiles can still carry up to 3 warheads. But due to the New START nuclear treaty limits, they are loaded with a single warhead.
Airports, bridges, military installations - your national guard base too, city centers, power production facilities and substations…plenty of targets around where the most people live.
i think that bridge is too small target for a nuke but it can catch a PGM slightly later, same with substations. airports and airbases, railway yards, powerplants, dams, oil refineries, oil storage facilities, all kinds of large military structures, decision centers, things of this size and nature
Where I live there are limited bridge crossings over a large waterway near a major metro area.m. Destroying those alone would be incredibly disruptive.
Title: “expert warnings they aren’t going to provide protection”
Rest of the article: Explains in detail how they are going to provide protection.
In limited circumstances. Which likely won’t be limited. Not in the nuclear wars these people want to survive.
We aren’t talking about nuclear bunkers in Kashmir. I could understand why someone in Kashmir might think that was a good idea.
These are people in Texas and Florida. If there’s a nuclear war that would reach them, a bunker, even a luxury bunker, is not going to be enough to get them through it. That’s a global annihilation event.
It really depends. Nuclear bombs are powerful, but they are not as powerful as some people think. If you hit a city center, you would be able to survive in the suburbs easily. In addition, there is a good chance a portion of targets won’t be cities, but military bases and other military targets.
So for me, the question that will decide if you survive or not (aside from whether you are unlucky enough to be hit directly) is whether you can secure a food source after your initial supplies run out.
Survive the initial blast maybe, but the fallout? From a global nuclear war? Things talking about waiting a week or two and then it being basically safe to emerge are based on things like Chernobyl, not events where there is fallout being blown through the atmosphere from explosions across the globe.
There will be very few survivors of such an event and the ones in the suburbs with the shelters are probably not the ones who are going to be amongst them.
The primary killer from global thermonuclear war will be starvation due to crop failures. Not fallout, radiation, or direct damage.
Right and as a kid from the Cold War, anyone with half a brain knew it’d be a terrible life after surviving the initial devastation in a global attack.
Lots of us were committed to running toward the blast, rather than ducking and covering.
Bullet to the head for me. If you have to run towards the blast you’re not going to have a painless death
There were about 2,060 nuclear warheads detonated as part of various nuclear tests by all countries combined. So we know how fallout behaves and it is not based on Chernobyl.
In addition, there is only about 13,400 warhead in the world, about 9000 of which are not actively deployed and therefore would not be part of an unexpected nuclear exchange. So no, the fallout would not be fun, but it would not kill that many people. Especially if they stayed in a bunker for a few weeks.
Due to the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, the majority of bombs since 1962 were detonated underground to limit fallout dispersion.
Also keep in mind that A-bombs like were dropped in Japan killed everyone within a 1 mile radius. Modern warheads are H-bombs which kill everyone in a 5-10 mile radius.
Ok, so we have data only on about 300 above ground nuclear detonations, instead of 2,000. And those 300 included H-Bombs.
And how far from a large city do you think the suburbs spread? Yes, anyone near the city center has no chance. That was not disputed by anyone.
And if we want to be pedantic, a hardened underground bunker would probably have chances for survival quite a bit closer than 5-10 miles.
60+ years ago medical science was a lot worse than today. They were still giving people lobotomies and using leaded gas in the 50s and 60s. They knew the acute effects of radiation but some of the long term effects did not become apparent until decades later. Just because you survive the initial blast, does not mean you escape harm. Suburban areas as much as 20 miles downwind could receive severe fallout.
I wouldn’t trust the bunkers to be able to maintain a consistent supply of air, water, and electricity for extended periods of time. Once you have to flee to the surface, you have to contend with not only radiation but a complete collapse of infrastructure and social services. Fires will burn unchecked with fire departments dead or overwhelmed and broken gas lines stoking fires among the rubble. Water supplies will be interrupted or tainted. Electrical services will probably have failed along with cell and internet. Roads will be blocked by debris and abandoned vehicles, so even if anyone wanted to risk radiation to bring in supplies, it would be extremely difficult. Deaths from thirst or starvation will follow the deaths from radiation.
Hiroshima had about 250,000 people and conservatively 66k were killed and another 69k were injured from the initial blast. The final total killed is between 90k-166k. Now extrapolate that to cities with 10x the population hit by a bomb that affects 10x the area. Now imagine 10 cities like this being hit at once. Social collapse would be inevitable and nobody is going to be able to outlast that in a bunker.
Which is exactly what I said. That survival would mainly depend on getting a source of food after having to leave the bunker.
PS: I guess I will address the fallout one last time. The most dangerous radioactive elements in nuclear fallout are those with shortest half-life, since they decay the fastest, releasing radiation the fastest. But they also disappear fast since they decay, so in a few weeks, the radiation would be at a very survivable level. You, as you are now, would absolutely not want to receive such dose and it would increase your lifetime risk of cancer. But it would not make it into top 10 concerns you would have in a post-ww3 world.
Increasing your odds of surviving the initial blast and waiting out those first few weeks where fallout is a concern is what a bunker would be useful for.
The fallout will just give you cancer in 10-20 years as long as you wait to go outside for a week or so. Assuming you’re far enough away that the blast doesn’t kill you, stay as underground or as much to the center of a building as possible for that first week and something like 95% of the rad stuff will have decayed.
Sure some people will get enough dose to die, but more people will get sick and recover. Radiation is not like the movies.
Maybe if it was singular explosion, but modern nuclear arsenals are built around MRV and MIRV warheads.
What does the delivery method have to do with anything? The numbers of warheads does not change just because you have multiple in one missile.
Also, MIRV is not as widely used as you may think, because until recently, it was limited by treaties.
For example, the peacekeeper, which was a replacement for minuteman designed to carry up to 11 warheads was discontinued and dismantled. So the US still only has minuteman missiles.
MRV and MIRV are standard…and there’s a big difference between one warhead hitting your urban center, and 5.
As I added in the edit, it is lot less used then what a cursory look may lead you to believe. Mostly only SLBMs really use it.
Regardless, it does not change the number of active warheads a country has, so hitting one city multiple times means not hitting other cities.
Plus, it would take dozens to really cover a city like New York. You can play around with https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/ to get a feeling for it.
Edit: To be clear, many missiles are capable of carrying MIRVs. Minuteman III missiles can still carry up to 3 warheads. But due to the New START nuclear treaty limits, they are loaded with a single warhead.
Source: https://eu.greatfallstribune.com/story/news/local/2014/06/18/last-malmstrom-icbm-reconfigured-treaty/10773351/
https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/485611/malmstrom-completes-final-minuteman-iii-configuration/
fair share of countervalue targets will be likely airports (all with runway over specific length - 1.8km? - near cities)
Airports, bridges, military installations - your national guard base too, city centers, power production facilities and substations…plenty of targets around where the most people live.
i think that bridge is too small target for a nuke but it can catch a PGM slightly later, same with substations. airports and airbases, railway yards, powerplants, dams, oil refineries, oil storage facilities, all kinds of large military structures, decision centers, things of this size and nature
Where I live there are limited bridge crossings over a large waterway near a major metro area.m. Destroying those alone would be incredibly disruptive.
… People are dumb enough to try building underground in Florida?