Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Hobbies & Interests
Preppers' Corner
Anyone cashed their cache yet?
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="1krr" data-source="post: 2662557" data-attributes="member: 750"><p>You're right, pretty much all of those maps say the same thing. Even counter-force strikes in Oklahoma would hit Ft Sill, McAlester, Tinker, Altus, and others. With Russia's nuclear policy of "all for any" as well as use of nuclear weapons for any conflict that threatens the existance of the Russian Federation as a state, I don't see any conflict with Russia being anything less than a total exchange. </p><p></p><p>The good news is that being in a fallout area doesn't mean uninhabital. The mechanism that makes fallout so dangerous also means it decays rapidly. The rule of 7s says that the radiation emissions of fallout decrease ~90% for every factor of seven hours of the radiation levels measures at 1 hour. So at 7 hours, the ionizing radiation levels are ~10% of what they were at 1 hour. At 49 hours (7*7), it's about 1% of what it was at 1 hour and so on. This is a useful planning number since it gives you a ball park of how long you need to stay in your shelter but it also tells you at what point the radioactive particles in your environment have dcayed to a point that you can start to work in it and for what amount of time.</p><p></p><p><a href="http://www3.nd.edu/~nsl/Lectures/phys205/pdf/Nuclear_Warfare_9.pdf" target="_blank">http://www3.nd.edu/~nsl/Lectures/phys205/pdf/Nuclear_Warfare_9.pdf</a></p><p></p><p>The bad news of course is that radiation exposure is cumulative so you have to plan for it. I am trying to find it, but I did see a cool wind map from Mesonet that shows the general wind patterns over time at various stations and it seemed like over a year, central and southern oklahoma more often than not have a northernly component. So if the jet stream is north of us with a warm front coming up from the gulf as often happens in the spring through early fall, se OK might get a minimum amount of fallout. What it does get will likely come from Dallas as most other military and industrial targets are far enough away that the heaviest (and most radioactive particles) will "fall out" before they get there. Also, counter-value strikes will likely be airbursts to maximize blast damage on soft industrial targets. This is good news for fallout although runways long enough to support heavy bombers will get dug up by ground bursts which is bad news for fallout. That said, even Castle Bravo which is arguably the dirtiest atmospheric explosion with a strong wind pattern "only" sent the most dangerous radiation about 100 miles and 100 rad levels at about 300 miles 96 hours after. That was a 15mt ground burst yeilding ~10mt of it's energy from fission (need to cite this but I'll find the article if I can). Fission products are by far the biggest contributor to fallout and if I remember right, it was the largest fission reaction ever including tsar bomba which of it's ~50mt only pulled about 3% from it's fission primer. </p><p></p><p>Castle Bravo:</p><p><img src="https://www.okshooters.com/data/MetaMirrorCache/nuclearweaponarchive.org_Usa_Tests_Cbrvfll.gif" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I don't think we will face many megaton yield weapons as smaller mirved weapons are in vogue with their designers. A mirved attack allows a designer to attack multiple targets but it is also to amplify blast effects on targets since a series of relatively small ~80-500kt blasts are more destructive than a single large warhead of equivilent megatonage. This philosophy also bodes well for limited fallout since an attack of this type would likely also be an airbust attack since it's focusing on maximizing blast. This attack pattern will be the "city busters" I think we will face from ICBM and SLBM attacks. In the middle of the US, I'm not putting a great deal of emphasis on bomber based attacks given the characteristics of the Russian bomber fleet and the likelyhood that a decent number of fighters based in the central us will escape attacks on bases and be available to defend agaist bombers. In addition, bomber attacks will likely be offset weapons like cruise missles vs gravity bombs. </p><p></p><p>All that said is how I got to SE Oklahoma being a doable bugout location since in the best of my limited ability, the total fallout should be realitively limited by the distance to the targets I expect keeping the heaviest particles dropping out upwind and the ability to "wait out" the remaining lighter particles to decay to managable levels. Could be wrong about all of this (probably am) but given what I know, this is the best I've come up with so far. </p><p></p><p>Plus land seems to be a little cheaper down there so picking up a few acres somewhere obscure to cache on seems more doable. Since you are from the area, what do you think? Fallout not withstanding, am I way off base on my assumptions for personal scale ag and sustainability?</p><p></p><p></p><p>EDIT: sorry if I'm hijacking the original post. LMK and I'll move/delete it.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="1krr, post: 2662557, member: 750"] You're right, pretty much all of those maps say the same thing. Even counter-force strikes in Oklahoma would hit Ft Sill, McAlester, Tinker, Altus, and others. With Russia's nuclear policy of "all for any" as well as use of nuclear weapons for any conflict that threatens the existance of the Russian Federation as a state, I don't see any conflict with Russia being anything less than a total exchange. The good news is that being in a fallout area doesn't mean uninhabital. The mechanism that makes fallout so dangerous also means it decays rapidly. The rule of 7s says that the radiation emissions of fallout decrease ~90% for every factor of seven hours of the radiation levels measures at 1 hour. So at 7 hours, the ionizing radiation levels are ~10% of what they were at 1 hour. At 49 hours (7*7), it's about 1% of what it was at 1 hour and so on. This is a useful planning number since it gives you a ball park of how long you need to stay in your shelter but it also tells you at what point the radioactive particles in your environment have dcayed to a point that you can start to work in it and for what amount of time. [url]http://www3.nd.edu/~nsl/Lectures/phys205/pdf/Nuclear_Warfare_9.pdf[/url] The bad news of course is that radiation exposure is cumulative so you have to plan for it. I am trying to find it, but I did see a cool wind map from Mesonet that shows the general wind patterns over time at various stations and it seemed like over a year, central and southern oklahoma more often than not have a northernly component. So if the jet stream is north of us with a warm front coming up from the gulf as often happens in the spring through early fall, se OK might get a minimum amount of fallout. What it does get will likely come from Dallas as most other military and industrial targets are far enough away that the heaviest (and most radioactive particles) will "fall out" before they get there. Also, counter-value strikes will likely be airbursts to maximize blast damage on soft industrial targets. This is good news for fallout although runways long enough to support heavy bombers will get dug up by ground bursts which is bad news for fallout. That said, even Castle Bravo which is arguably the dirtiest atmospheric explosion with a strong wind pattern "only" sent the most dangerous radiation about 100 miles and 100 rad levels at about 300 miles 96 hours after. That was a 15mt ground burst yeilding ~10mt of it's energy from fission (need to cite this but I'll find the article if I can). Fission products are by far the biggest contributor to fallout and if I remember right, it was the largest fission reaction ever including tsar bomba which of it's ~50mt only pulled about 3% from it's fission primer. Castle Bravo: [img]https://www.okshooters.com/data/MetaMirrorCache/nuclearweaponarchive.org_Usa_Tests_Cbrvfll.gif[/img] I don't think we will face many megaton yield weapons as smaller mirved weapons are in vogue with their designers. A mirved attack allows a designer to attack multiple targets but it is also to amplify blast effects on targets since a series of relatively small ~80-500kt blasts are more destructive than a single large warhead of equivilent megatonage. This philosophy also bodes well for limited fallout since an attack of this type would likely also be an airbust attack since it's focusing on maximizing blast. This attack pattern will be the "city busters" I think we will face from ICBM and SLBM attacks. In the middle of the US, I'm not putting a great deal of emphasis on bomber based attacks given the characteristics of the Russian bomber fleet and the likelyhood that a decent number of fighters based in the central us will escape attacks on bases and be available to defend agaist bombers. In addition, bomber attacks will likely be offset weapons like cruise missles vs gravity bombs. All that said is how I got to SE Oklahoma being a doable bugout location since in the best of my limited ability, the total fallout should be realitively limited by the distance to the targets I expect keeping the heaviest particles dropping out upwind and the ability to "wait out" the remaining lighter particles to decay to managable levels. Could be wrong about all of this (probably am) but given what I know, this is the best I've come up with so far. Plus land seems to be a little cheaper down there so picking up a few acres somewhere obscure to cache on seems more doable. Since you are from the area, what do you think? Fallout not withstanding, am I way off base on my assumptions for personal scale ag and sustainability? EDIT: sorry if I'm hijacking the original post. LMK and I'll move/delete it. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
Hobbies & Interests
Preppers' Corner
Anyone cashed their cache yet?
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom