Do you have a New Year's Resolution regarding disaster preparedness

Thoughts, suggestions, and advice on what to do if the unthinkable happens.

Do you have a New Year's Resolution regarding disaster preparedness

You may select 1 option

 
 
View results
User avatar
RiffRaff
DEFCON Data Analyst
DEFCON Data Analyst
Posts: 2159
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2016 12:09 pm
Location: Indianapolis, Indiana, US
Contact:

Sun Dec 31, 2017 9:56 pm

Upshot wrote:
Sun Dec 31, 2017 8:14 pm
Boy's, running after the bombs go off is a bad, bad idea. Total desperation, last resort, and probably a death sentence if it's hot.
Run before. That means economics can go to hell, screw it! I'm getting out now! Liquidate, move it out to where the weather doesn't feature falling warheads, irradiated refugee's, marxists and muslims. Or, making the right decision at the right time(before SHTF), then git while the git'ins good.
I chose the former. Why keep paying for a country and society that is planning to die? Cut your losses! Once you get out, and re-adjust your thinking, you'll wonder why you were wasting your life.
Indianapolis has several secondary and tertiary nuclear targets, including:
Indianapolis International Airport
Raytheon
Ft. Benjamin Harrison
Seat of government
Power stations and substations
Major transportation hub

We live within blast radius of two of those targets. If we stay, even in our shelter, we will be vaporized if one of them gets hit. Even if we're not vaporized, the fallout would be so intense in this area that our shelter would not protect us. We will bugout immediately if:
A: A nuclear weapon is detonated above ground anywhere on the planet
B: DWS hits DEFCON 2 or 1.

I have a preplanned route already laid out that keeps us on back country roads and highways, avoiding any and all potential nuclear targets between here and the border. And we have a "failsafe" point between here and there where we have the option to stop and reassess our plans before we get to far from home.

We have considered immigrating to Canada. Without jobs waiting for us, it would be difficult to pull off. We are pretty financially secure where we are right now. It would be a huge risk for us to ditch all of it and move north.
"It's in your nature to destroy yourselves." - Terminator 2: Judgment Day

User avatar
DEFCONWarningSystem
Director
Director
Posts: 5957
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 10:26 pm
Contact:

Sun Dec 31, 2017 10:34 pm

RiffRaff wrote:
Sun Dec 31, 2017 9:56 pm
We have considered immigrating to Canada. Without jobs waiting for us, it would be difficult to pull off. We are pretty financially secure where we are right now. It would be a huge risk for us to ditch all of it and move north.
I've been wanting to move to Canada. Prince George is the area I've been looking at.

But Canadian immigration is harsh. I have my own income so don't need a job, but I don't have millions of dollars. So I don't qualify for any of their immigration categories.

If there is a nice Canadian out there who wants to help...... hahahahahaha

Upshot
Regular contributor
Posts: 1028
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2014 5:58 am

Sun Dec 31, 2017 11:52 pm

Prince George!!??!! Have you seen Prince George? That dung heap makes Tehran seem down right desirable. Believe, mate, canaduh sucks major ass. I can't imagine strategic nuclear war would improve matters, and canadians in panic mode ? I'd take my chances with Mexico. Mexicans are far nicer people than canadians. Don't believe the 'nice canadian' lie. A more vicious pack of rectum chewing hyena's you won't find.
Quite a bit of that dump is going to get chewed on, bad, anyway. Doesn't take a lot of kablamo to wipe it out, as the oil, gas and critical infrastructure is concentrated, often close to population. Roads are few in numbers, and I could cut the west coast off with ten 1000lb LGB's.
One big choke point, too many nuclear beaten zones astride the road- and in many places, there is one road out.
Sometimes, the only rational choice is a head shot.

User avatar
KimPossible
Regular contributor
Posts: 1263
Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2017 5:52 pm

Mon Jan 01, 2018 1:29 am

RiffRaff wrote:
Sun Dec 31, 2017 6:14 pm
KimPossible wrote:
Sun Dec 31, 2017 3:59 pm
Luckily I live in Wisconsin so not to many targets around where I am at, lots of nowhere.
Interesting. Our bugout route takes us north straight up the middle of Wisconsin, where you're right; there's a lot of nowhere and no major targets.

Out of curiosity, why head south, through Mexico, no less? We're heading north across the Canadian border, where fallout should be minimal as well. I can't speak to Costa Rica, but Mexico will be extremely dangerous, especially for gringos. Not to mention the fuel requirements to get there by car will be huge.
Nuclear winter. That's why. We have enough firearms and Ammo to overthrow Mexico, also three cars fully geared to get us to the Mexican border or further. Nuclear winter isn't a joke or a theory. In all out nuclear war, nuclear winter would only take weeks to kick in and it could last years meaning food sources anywhere will be all gone.

But the equator, just like the past 7 ice ages, equator has always been habitable. We are all very skilled with fire arms and hand to hand combat, I'm not afraid of no Mexican trash we may come across, plus no stopping for anything on our way to Costa Rica. We have it very well mapped out.

Though that is just in case a full out nuclear exchange happens globally. Otherwise our shelter hopefully by end of Jan 2018 can hold us for a year in case of civil war or terror attacks or whatever else disasters.
There is a war on woman! #VoteThemOut

User avatar
KimPossible
Regular contributor
Posts: 1263
Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2017 5:52 pm

Mon Jan 01, 2018 1:34 am

Everyone knows about Nuclear Winter right? So why in the event of a full nuclear exchange would you head north?????
There is a war on woman! #VoteThemOut

User avatar
RiffRaff
DEFCON Data Analyst
DEFCON Data Analyst
Posts: 2159
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2016 12:09 pm
Location: Indianapolis, Indiana, US
Contact:

Mon Jan 01, 2018 2:29 am

KimPossible wrote:
Mon Jan 01, 2018 1:34 am
Everyone knows about Nuclear Winter right? So why in the event of a full nuclear exchange would you head north?????
Nuclear Winter was a theory put forth by some very well-meaning scientists almost 40 years ago. I have nothing but respect and admiration for Dr. Carl Sagan. But that theory has all but been debunked in the past decade or so. Computer simulations have shown that the long-term atmospheric effects of a global nuclear war, while definitely not healthy, will not be nearly as devastating nor as long lasting as the Nuclear Winter theorists hypothesized. There is also some doubt if cities hit by nuclear weapons will actually create firestorms, which is a prerequisite for the Nuclear Winter model to be accurate.

Unfortunately, we have less practical information available to us on Nuclear Winter than we do EMP. We won't know for sure until it happens.

I would rather take my chances in the far north where fresh water and wild game are plentiful, populations are low, and radiation from fallout will be minimal than trying to cross half the US, all of Mexico, and any number of inhospitable third-world countries to reach the equatorial region of the planet.

But, I could be wrong. I've been wrong before. Once. Maybe twice. I'll let you know how it goes up north if it happens. :mrgreen:
"It's in your nature to destroy yourselves." - Terminator 2: Judgment Day

Yingyang
Regular contributor
Posts: 548
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 1:12 am
Location: Perth Western Australia

Mon Jan 01, 2018 2:36 am

KimPossible wrote:
Mon Jan 01, 2018 1:34 am
Everyone knows about Nuclear Winter right? So why in the event of a full nuclear exchange would you head north?????
Thats why I'm grateful I'm in the southern hemisphere .

User avatar
KimPossible
Regular contributor
Posts: 1263
Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2017 5:52 pm

Mon Jan 01, 2018 5:39 am

Well me and everyone on my block firmly believe that in a full nuclear exchange the majority of major cities on pretty much every continent will be burning like Cali wild fires blocking most the sun at lest for a year or two.

Not to mention all the other countless nukes dropped on strategical targets there will be definitely enough shit in the atmosphere to block enough light for awhile.

We live in modern civilization, Cities are built with cheap thin material that are only meant to last a few decades. Cities will burn like dry hay...
There is a war on woman! #VoteThemOut

Upshot
Regular contributor
Posts: 1028
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2014 5:58 am

Mon Jan 01, 2018 5:40 am

I revered Sagan-until he went off his nut on the nuclear winter thing. Then GW II, when gag the rag bag started dynamiting oil wells, Sagan came out spluttering about imminent 'nuclear winter' effects.
Clunk.
Bad science is worse than no science.
The other bad thing about canada; other than the climate, the people, the marxist nanny state, the trigger-happy homicidal goons in police uniform, the bugs, the climate, the food, the hubris, the climate, justin trudeau, the Quebecois, lousy roads, six dollar loaves of bread, the CBC, the climate, the people...
uhh...what was I on about?
Yeah, right. Only a fairly narrow band close to the 49th is actually habitable, and most of that only a month or two a year.
Most of that is bad fallout country. Out of all of it, the most survivable bits , radiologically and climatically, are a narrow band of west coast vancouver island, and some parts of the coast north of north vancouver island. East side of island, south coast is a radiological beaten zone extending east through the interior due to fat targets requiring ground bursts-big ones! (Graving docks, AD installations, 12000 ft runway), and a target rich area from Seattle north.
That area is less desirable in non general nuclear war due to the very high concentrations of socialists, hairy-legged subaru driving dykes, marxists, tree-creatures, duck-squeezers, whale dry-humpers, pinkos, and wealthy toronto marxists.
(You may have noted I harbour a certain amount of disdain for the little gulag on the prairie, being a former canadian....)
Sometimes, the only rational choice is a head shot.

Yingyang
Regular contributor
Posts: 548
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 1:12 am
Location: Perth Western Australia

Mon Jan 01, 2018 6:28 am

KimPossible wrote:
Mon Jan 01, 2018 5:39 am
Well me and everyone on my block firmly believe that in a full nuclear exchange the majority of major cities on pretty much every continent will be burning like Cali wild fires blocking most the sun at lest for a year or two.

Not to mention all the other countless nukes dropped on strategical targets there will be definitely enough shit in the atmosphere to block enough light for awhile.

We live in modern civilization, Cities are built with cheap thin material that are only meant to last a few decades. Cities will burn like dry hay...
In western Australia alone we have 2.464 million square kilometers with a dozen targets of with a 500km radius of fallout zones can still easily be avoided and just lucky the global wind patterns will delay for some time and dicipate northern hemisphere unfortunate effects of nuclear war by the time it reaches australia. We shouldn't suffer complete sun block to your extremes.

Post Reply