Emergency Action Plans for DEFCON Levels

Thoughts, suggestions, and advice on what to do if the unthinkable happens.
RiffRaff
DEFCON Data Analyst
DEFCON Data Analyst
Posts: 2194
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2016 12:09 pm
Location: Indianapolis, Indiana, US
Contact:

Sat Sep 02, 2017 8:26 pm

Wolfalisk wrote:
Sat Sep 02, 2017 6:23 pm
Thanks for sharing this information. Out of curiosity, what was the biggest factor in choosing what weapon yields to account for? Did you research modern warheads that would be deployed by likely opponents like China or Russia?
Good question. Your inquiry made me take another look at my maps and I realized that I made an error in my original post. The blast radius used on that map is for a 500 kiloton airburst, not 250, with the furthest ring indicating 100% probability of no harm if out in the open. I've corrected that in the original post.

To answer your question, I went through several versions of these maps trying to account for different weapon yields against various targets, driving myself crazy in the process, before I settled on using a 500kt (airburst) for every target. Although both the US and Russia still have large megaton warheads in active service, my understanding is they are reserved for hardened targets, such as Cheyenne Mountain's NORAD complex. Multi-megaton weapons are simply no longer efficient methods of destruction for non-hardened surface targets. Most active weapons in both the US and Russian arsenals range from 100kt to 500kt, so I just went with the maximum yield on that range.

If we are dealing with Chinese nuclear weapons instead of Russian, the situation gets both worse and better. It gets better because China doesn't have anywhere near the number of warheads that the US does, so the number of potential targets drops drastically. It gets worse because most Chinese weapons are still in the 1 to 5 megaton yield, creating a much larger danger zone around each target. I do not account for Chinese weapons in my EAPs because the route I've chosen from Point A to Point B is still going to be far enough away from major cities and military bases that a 5 MT hit will not affect us unless we're looking at it when it detonates, and we have a contingency for that situation.
"It's in your nature to destroy yourselves." - Terminator 2: Judgment Day

RiffRaff
DEFCON Data Analyst
DEFCON Data Analyst
Posts: 2194
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2016 12:09 pm
Location: Indianapolis, Indiana, US
Contact:

Sat Sep 02, 2017 8:37 pm

RichardWad wrote:
Sat Sep 02, 2017 6:45 pm
Curious also on your choices for where bombs will be detonated. Obviously the airport and downtown area would be on the list if they were targeting citizen locations.
What about Camp Atterbury and the National Guard armory on the east side of Franklin?
My target choices came from several different sources, including FEMA's Nuclear Attack Planning Base from 1990. I also assumed worst-case scenario and showed primary, secondary, and tertiary targets. The only strategic military targets in Indiana seem to be the old Grissom AFB, Crane Naval facility, and Ft. Ben Harrison. My guess is Camp Atterbury and National Guard armories don't have strategic value.

I'm going to add the text from the first page of our Evacuation EAP to my original post, with appropriate redactions to protect our specific location and destination. It explains a lot more about target selection and route selection.
"It's in your nature to destroy yourselves." - Terminator 2: Judgment Day

RiffRaff
DEFCON Data Analyst
DEFCON Data Analyst
Posts: 2194
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2016 12:09 pm
Location: Indianapolis, Indiana, US
Contact:

Sat Sep 02, 2017 8:55 pm

I am adding the text from the first page of our Evacuation EAP below, with appropriate redactions, to include more information about target selection and choice of evacuation route. Apparently there is a maximum character limit per post of which I was unaware, so I could not add this to the original post as I had intended.
DEFCON 1 Evacuation Route

The following planned evacuation route is based on several assumptions which are listed below. Obviously, in any nuclear conflict scenario, the situation will be extremely fluid and subject to unpredictability. Plans need to be reevaluated constantly and changes implemented with little to no warning or time to think. Alternatives should always be considered and constant situational awareness is imperative.

1. This route is based on a worst-case scenario, assuming that there has been insufficient warning to take more direct routes. The route avoids all blast zones of primary, secondary, and tertiary nuclear targets and encompasses XXXX miles of travel, requiring XXXX hours of driving and a minimum of XXXX gallons of gasoline under the best circumstances. Faster, more direct routes should be used to conserve fuel and time only if there is sufficient warning to travel through potential target areas safely. After the first nuclear detonation, however, Interstates will become congested with people trying to escape urban areas. Avoid interstates once this becomes a problem.

2. EMP may render any vehicle inoperable at any point along this route without warning. Be prepared to travel on foot, if necessary.

3. Detonation areas shown on the map are based on best available information, and depict the danger zone for a 500 kiloton airburst over each target. 500 kilotons represents the largest warheads likely to be used for both NATO and Russian Federation nuclear weapons. The use of smaller weapons on any given target is probable, and some detonations might be groundbursts. In both cases, the danger zone will be smaller than depicted on the map.

4. Ground Zero for every detonation is assumed to be exact center of the city or target unless more exact information is available. Actual impact areas may be slightly different than depicted.

5. There is the possibility of larger yield weapons being utilized, especially if China is involved in the nuclear exchange. However, the impact of these larger weapons along the planned route will be minimal.

6. Radioactive fallout patterns are not displayed on these maps. Weather conditions at the time and place of each detonation are too variable to make accurate predictions. Generally speaking, any fallout will occur to the east of each detonation. Refer to FEMA Nuclear Attack Planning Base Annex B for general fallout patterns by state and county. Personal radiation dosimeters should be worn at all times and checked regularly. Airbursts with modern nuclear weapons actually produce minimal fallout problems.

7. This section deals with actions to take upon reaching our destination and has been removed for security purposes.

8. The range rings of each detonation depict the following:
Inner Red Ring: 2,140 feet radius - 200 psi overpressure
Outer Red Ring: 1.39 mile radius - 20 psi overpressure
Inner Grey Ring: 3.43 mile radius - 5 psi overpressure
Outer Grey Ring: 7.98 mile radius - 1.5 psi overpressure
Orange Ring: 13.1 mile radius - Absolute minimum safe distance

Even beyond minimum safe distance, looking directly at a detonation could result in temporary or permanent blindness. The use of a patch over one eye should be considered while navigating this route, especially while traveling in the general direction of a possible target.
"It's in your nature to destroy yourselves." - Terminator 2: Judgment Day

Librarylady
.
Posts: 66
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2017 4:22 pm
Location: NYC

Sat Sep 02, 2017 11:34 pm

Thanks for all of the information on weapons. A crossbow sounds like a good idea (since I can't imagine that I'm likely to become an expert archer anytime soon).

If we're in an all out nuclear war it won't make any difference since my city is always a top target, but I keep as prepped as possible in the hopes that "all" we'll have to deal with is a single strike (hopefully somewhere else), coordinated terrorist activity, widespread civil unrest, breakdown of infrastructure and other depressing things...

Yingyang
Regular contributor
Posts: 557
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 1:12 am
Location: Perth Western Australia

Sun Sep 03, 2017 11:58 am

RiffRaff wrote:
Sat Sep 02, 2017 8:55 pm
I am adding the text from the first page of our Evacuation EAP below, with appropriate redactions, to include more information about target selection and choice of evacuation route. Apparently there is a maximum character limit per post of which I was unaware, so I could not add this to the original post as I had intended.
DEFCON 1 Evacuation Route

The following planned evacuation route is based on several assumptions which are listed below. Obviously, in any nuclear conflict scenario, the situation will be extremely fluid and subject to unpredictability. Plans need to be reevaluated constantly and changes implemented with little to no warning or time to think. Alternatives should always be considered and constant situational awareness is imperative.

1. This route is based on a worst-case scenario, assuming that there has been insufficient warning to take more direct routes. The route avoids all blast zones of primary, secondary, and tertiary nuclear targets and encompasses XXXX miles of travel, requiring XXXX hours of driving and a minimum of XXXX gallons of gasoline under the best circumstances. Faster, more direct routes should be used to conserve fuel and time only if there is sufficient warning to travel through potential target areas safely. After the first nuclear detonation, however, Interstates will become congested with people trying to escape urban areas. Avoid interstates once this becomes a problem.

2. EMP may render any vehicle inoperable at any point along this route without warning. Be prepared to travel on foot, if necessary.

3. Detonation areas shown on the map are based on best available information, and depict the danger zone for a 500 kiloton airburst over each target. 500 kilotons represents the largest warheads likely to be used for both NATO and Russian Federation nuclear weapons. The use of smaller weapons on any given target is probable, and some detonations might be groundbursts. In both cases, the danger zone will be smaller than depicted on the map.

4. Ground Zero for every detonation is assumed to be exact center of the city or target unless more exact information is available. Actual impact areas may be slightly different than depicted.

5. There is the possibility of larger yield weapons being utilized, especially if China is involved in the nuclear exchange. However, the impact of these larger weapons along the planned route will be minimal.

6. Radioactive fallout patterns are not displayed on these maps. Weather conditions at the time and place of each detonation are too variable to make accurate predictions. Generally speaking, any fallout will occur to the east of each detonation. Refer to FEMA Nuclear Attack Planning Base Annex B for general fallout patterns by state and county. Personal radiation dosimeters should be worn at all times and checked regularly. Airbursts with modern nuclear weapons actually produce minimal fallout problems.

7. This section deals with actions to take upon reaching our destination and has been removed for security purposes.

8. The range rings of each detonation depict the following:
Inner Red Ring: 2,140 feet radius - 200 psi overpressure
Outer Red Ring: 1.39 mile radius - 20 psi overpressure
Inner Grey Ring: 3.43 mile radius - 5 psi overpressure
Outer Grey Ring: 7.98 mile radius - 1.5 psi overpressure
Orange Ring: 13.1 mile radius - Absolute minimum safe distance

Even beyond minimum safe distance, looking directly at a detonation could result in temporary or permanent blindness. The use of a patch over one eye should be considered while navigating this route, especially while traveling in the general direction of a possible target.
Any thoughts on welding mask?or is that just dumb .

RiffRaff
DEFCON Data Analyst
DEFCON Data Analyst
Posts: 2194
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2016 12:09 pm
Location: Indianapolis, Indiana, US
Contact:

Sun Sep 03, 2017 1:53 pm

Yingyang wrote:
Sun Sep 03, 2017 11:58 am
RiffRaff wrote:
Sat Sep 02, 2017 8:55 pm
I am adding the text from the first page of our Evacuation EAP below, with appropriate redactions, to include more information about target selection and choice of evacuation route. Apparently there is a maximum character limit per post of which I was unaware, so I could not add this to the original post as I had intended.
DEFCON 1 Evacuation Route

The following planned evacuation route is based on several assumptions which are listed below. Obviously, in any nuclear conflict scenario, the situation will be extremely fluid and subject to unpredictability. Plans need to be reevaluated constantly and changes implemented with little to no warning or time to think. Alternatives should always be considered and constant situational awareness is imperative.

1. This route is based on a worst-case scenario, assuming that there has been insufficient warning to take more direct routes. The route avoids all blast zones of primary, secondary, and tertiary nuclear targets and encompasses XXXX miles of travel, requiring XXXX hours of driving and a minimum of XXXX gallons of gasoline under the best circumstances. Faster, more direct routes should be used to conserve fuel and time only if there is sufficient warning to travel through potential target areas safely. After the first nuclear detonation, however, Interstates will become congested with people trying to escape urban areas. Avoid interstates once this becomes a problem.

2. EMP may render any vehicle inoperable at any point along this route without warning. Be prepared to travel on foot, if necessary.

3. Detonation areas shown on the map are based on best available information, and depict the danger zone for a 500 kiloton airburst over each target. 500 kilotons represents the largest warheads likely to be used for both NATO and Russian Federation nuclear weapons. The use of smaller weapons on any given target is probable, and some detonations might be groundbursts. In both cases, the danger zone will be smaller than depicted on the map.

4. Ground Zero for every detonation is assumed to be exact center of the city or target unless more exact information is available. Actual impact areas may be slightly different than depicted.

5. There is the possibility of larger yield weapons being utilized, especially if China is involved in the nuclear exchange. However, the impact of these larger weapons along the planned route will be minimal.

6. Radioactive fallout patterns are not displayed on these maps. Weather conditions at the time and place of each detonation are too variable to make accurate predictions. Generally speaking, any fallout will occur to the east of each detonation. Refer to FEMA Nuclear Attack Planning Base Annex B for general fallout patterns by state and county. Personal radiation dosimeters should be worn at all times and checked regularly. Airbursts with modern nuclear weapons actually produce minimal fallout problems.

7. This section deals with actions to take upon reaching our destination and has been removed for security purposes.

8. The range rings of each detonation depict the following:
Inner Red Ring: 2,140 feet radius - 200 psi overpressure
Outer Red Ring: 1.39 mile radius - 20 psi overpressure
Inner Grey Ring: 3.43 mile radius - 5 psi overpressure
Outer Grey Ring: 7.98 mile radius - 1.5 psi overpressure
Orange Ring: 13.1 mile radius - Absolute minimum safe distance

Even beyond minimum safe distance, looking directly at a detonation could result in temporary or permanent blindness. The use of a patch over one eye should be considered while navigating this route, especially while traveling in the general direction of a possible target.
Any thoughts on welding mask?or is that just dumb .
Well, the whole point is to be able to drive the evacuation route while still protecting your eyesight. Welding mask would protect your eyesight, but you might have trouble navigating curves in the road. ;)
"It's in your nature to destroy yourselves." - Terminator 2: Judgment Day

Wolfalisk
.
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 8:52 pm

Sun Sep 03, 2017 6:53 pm

RiffRaff wrote:
Sat Sep 02, 2017 8:26 pm
Wolfalisk wrote:
Sat Sep 02, 2017 6:23 pm
Thanks for sharing this information. Out of curiosity, what was the biggest factor in choosing what weapon yields to account for? Did you research modern warheads that would be deployed by likely opponents like China or Russia?
Good question. Your inquiry made me take another look at my maps and I realized that I made an error in my original post. The blast radius used on that map is for a 500 kiloton airburst, not 250, with the furthest ring indicating 100% probability of no harm if out in the open. I've corrected that in the original post.

To answer your question, I went through several versions of these maps trying to account for different weapon yields against various targets, driving myself crazy in the process, before I settled on using a 500kt (airburst) for every target. Although both the US and Russia still have large megaton warheads in active service, my understanding is they are reserved for hardened targets, such as Cheyenne Mountain's NORAD complex. Multi-megaton weapons are simply no longer efficient methods of destruction for non-hardened surface targets. Most active weapons in both the US and Russian arsenals range from 100kt to 500kt, so I just went with the maximum yield on that range.

If we are dealing with Chinese nuclear weapons instead of Russian, the situation gets both worse and better. It gets better because China doesn't have anywhere near the number of warheads that the US does, so the number of potential targets drops drastically. It gets worse because most Chinese weapons are still in the 1 to 5 megaton yield, creating a much larger danger zone around each target. I do not account for Chinese weapons in my EAPs because the route I've chosen from Point A to Point B is still going to be far enough away from major cities and military bases that a 5 MT hit will not affect us unless we're looking at it when it detonates, and we have a contingency for that situation.
Interesting! It's very neat how survival prospects have increased (unless I've misunderstood something horribly) since the Cold War due to some of the major powers opting for lower yield weapons in the modern day. May I ask, if DEFCON 1 is reached due to events on the Korean Peninsula, do you intend to go through with your personal evacuation plans despite North Korea only having a limited arsenal? I suppose in other words, will your response vary depending on the capability of the adversary to simply deliver a nuclear weapon versus how many they can send? If that makes sense.

apollonights
.
Posts: 247
Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2017 4:46 pm

Sun Sep 03, 2017 7:39 pm

Wolfalisk wrote:
Sun Sep 03, 2017 6:53 pm
RiffRaff wrote:
Sat Sep 02, 2017 8:26 pm
Wolfalisk wrote:
Sat Sep 02, 2017 6:23 pm
Thanks for sharing this information. Out of curiosity, what was the biggest factor in choosing what weapon yields to account for? Did you research modern warheads that would be deployed by likely opponents like China or Russia?
Good question. Your inquiry made me take another look at my maps and I realized that I made an error in my original post. The blast radius used on that map is for a 500 kiloton airburst, not 250, with the furthest ring indicating 100% probability of no harm if out in the open. I've corrected that in the original post.

To answer your question, I went through several versions of these maps trying to account for different weapon yields against various targets, driving myself crazy in the process, before I settled on using a 500kt (airburst) for every target. Although both the US and Russia still have large megaton warheads in active service, my understanding is they are reserved for hardened targets, such as Cheyenne Mountain's NORAD complex. Multi-megaton weapons are simply no longer efficient methods of destruction for non-hardened surface targets. Most active weapons in both the US and Russian arsenals range from 100kt to 500kt, so I just went with the maximum yield on that range.

If we are dealing with Chinese nuclear weapons instead of Russian, the situation gets both worse and better. It gets better because China doesn't have anywhere near the number of warheads that the US does, so the number of potential targets drops drastically. It gets worse because most Chinese weapons are still in the 1 to 5 megaton yield, creating a much larger danger zone around each target. I do not account for Chinese weapons in my EAPs because the route I've chosen from Point A to Point B is still going to be far enough away from major cities and military bases that a 5 MT hit will not affect us unless we're looking at it when it detonates, and we have a contingency for that situation.
Interesting! It's very neat how survival prospects have increased (unless I've misunderstood something horribly) since the Cold War due to some of the major powers opting for lower yield weapons in the modern day. May I ask, if DEFCON 1 is reached due to events on the Korean Peninsula, do you intend to go through with your personal evacuation plans despite North Korea only having a limited arsenal? I suppose in other words, will your response vary depending on the capability of the adversary to simply deliver a nuclear weapon versus how many they can send? If that makes sense.
You need to answer three questions:
A. How concerned are you about North Korean biological weapons?
B. How concerned are you about a North Korean EMP?
C. How concerned are you that you would actually be in a 100 KT strike zone from a worst case scenario NK attack? To be honest if you don't live in LA, Seattle, Honolulu etc you probably don't need to worry about C.

RiffRaff
DEFCON Data Analyst
DEFCON Data Analyst
Posts: 2194
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2016 12:09 pm
Location: Indianapolis, Indiana, US
Contact:

Sun Sep 03, 2017 7:46 pm

Wolfalisk wrote:
Sun Sep 03, 2017 6:53 pm
Interesting! It's very neat how survival prospects have increased (unless I've misunderstood something horribly) since the Cold War due to some of the major powers opting for lower yield weapons in the modern day. May I ask, if DEFCON 1 is reached due to events on the Korean Peninsula, do you intend to go through with your personal evacuation plans despite North Korea only having a limited arsenal? I suppose in other words, will your response vary depending on the capability of the adversary to simply deliver a nuclear weapon versus how many they can send? If that makes sense.
Modern nuclear weapons are also a lot cleaner as far as fallout is concerned, especially if airburst, increasing survivability after the war is over.

Honestly, we will more than likely initiate our evacuation plan the minute a nuclear weapon is detonated in combat anywhere on the planet, regardless of who launched it. Too many nuclear war game scenarios see a single detonation escalate into a global exchange. I don't know that we would travel all the way to our final bugout location, but we would definitely get to a much safer location than the middle of Indianapolis and monitor the situation from there.
"It's in your nature to destroy yourselves." - Terminator 2: Judgment Day

RiffRaff
DEFCON Data Analyst
DEFCON Data Analyst
Posts: 2194
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2016 12:09 pm
Location: Indianapolis, Indiana, US
Contact:

Sun Sep 03, 2017 7:59 pm

apollonights wrote:
Sun Sep 03, 2017 7:39 pm
You need to answer three questions:
A. How concerned are you about North Korean biological weapons?
B. How concerned are you about a North Korean EMP?
C. How concerned are you that you would actually be in a 100 KT strike zone from a worst case scenario NK attack? To be honest if you don't live in LA, Seattle, Honolulu etc you probably don't need to worry about C.
A: Not as concerned as I am about nuclear and EMP. Reason being is KJU is so focused on becoming a nuclear power that I think he has abandoned all research into biologicals, at least for now. He is so obsessed with striking the US with a nuclear weapon. In an all-out conflict he might use his biologicals on ROK or Japan, but I think he would try to get his existing nukes launched at the US. Plus, it is much harder for civilians to defend against biologicals than nuclear weapons, requiring equipment that is expensive and hard to obtain. I kind of take a much more fatalistic approach to biological weapons than I do nuclear weapons.

B: I think we are ignoring the potential devastating impact EMP would have on our country, regardless of who launches it. In my opinion, EMP gives an attacker the most efficient damaging results per warhead, and DPRK is the newest nuclear power who needs the most bang for their buck. Couple that with their two "earth observation satellites" sitting in a polar orbit, and I think it's a higher risk than most people believe.

C: I am not worried about Indianapolis being hit by a DPRK nuclear missile, even if we are in range. What I *am* concerned about is nuclear escalation that brings Russia and/or China into play against the US, at which point we live too close to too many secondary and tertiary targets to risk remaining in the city.
"It's in your nature to destroy yourselves." - Terminator 2: Judgment Day

Post Reply