A few minutes ago CBS news did a piece on the possibility of a Nuclear exchange, the poor state of the Civil Defence, and the impact on targeted areas.
This possibility has always been the last shtf worry for me.
Since the MSM has been feeding the public various propaganda. And warming them up to various probabilities, is it going to happen?

No


Next question

Good, thank you. I feel much better.

There's a difference between tactical nukes and strategic nukes. Putin might try tactical nukes in Ukraine... maybe. I doubt it because it will piss off a lot of Western Europe and I don't think he will do that unless he absolutely has to. He ain't gonna send anything our way, he isn't stupid enough to do that.

I wouldn't want to live in Central Europe in these times.

I doubt it. Pretty much it's the "all in" option, because even small stuff could be seen as escalation from countries that aren't getting directly hit, but may face fallout. That doesn't mean we're at zero % risk, a crazy, small dick dictator could do it as a legacy or parting gift, but I imagine knowing the repercussions would be so significant it keeps most in check.


my plan is to just hopefully die in the blast though, if they do start falling...

There is just no real advantage for him to use them considering his probable goals.

Wont happen.
Would be the end of Russia

No country including China would deal with him again.

The one thing that jumped out at me from CBS this morning was our CD. No surprise to those of us here in the SF, it sucks and has been allowed to decay. But, the Russians have spent some very big bucks in the area of civil defense. The CD shelters in Moscow are reported to be state of the art.
That being the case, Putin might push the button and gamble that we won't return fire. And if we do, they will come out the winner. Last man standing gets to make the new rules.
I like to think it won't ever happen. But once subject matter gets the attention of msm, it is to warm the idea and possibilities to the masses.

Putin is not being shy about threatening immediate and severe consequences for Europe and the US for supplying and aiding Ukraine.  

Anything is possible,  but I hope not.

Yeah, I'm skeptical of anything reported to be "state of the art" in Russia. Their military has looks absolutely awful in this Ukraine campaign. And it doesn't look like it's been well kept up.

I'm not worried about large scale nuclear exchange. I'm more worried about someone taking Putin out , a power vacuum being created and Russia being destabilized, and nuclear material falling into hands of those who would convert into dirty bombs or try to smuggle one into the lower 48 and cause widespread damage through terror acts.

I agree Ivan has not proven to be the badass he was represented to be during the cold war.

That said, the concept of "Face' is not lost on the Russians. They could nuke someone just to prove they can or Hey fuck you! We said we would, love Ivan.

Well, with the leadership we have in govt and our military.

I give it a 51% chance of us starting it using a proxy, like Poland.

canned sunshine thread

Radiation, coming soon to a town near you. It's the wind that gets you.

Yesterday Putin warned the world that he sees any attempt to arm Ukraine with advanced weapons as an act of agression.
And this just in! The potato in the Whitehouse has done just that.
We are fucked.

I have no fear of nukes.  I am a child of the 50's.  I have a school desk.

Civil Defense is now called Emergency Management and is geared towards disaster preparedness in a general sense. Ours is still volunteer staffed and we meet regularly.

I doubt it. China and India would still do business with him because they would use nukes against their neighbors as well. Taiwan, Pakistan, Kasmir, Tibet to name a few tactical nuke targets.

Putin can and will use a theater nuke which is much smaller than what was dropped in 1945. It's the fallout and where it would go is what will determine the world response. Given the spineless cuck in the White House and in other nations, they will do nothing significant.

civil defense / emergency management wont do much for you directly.  however they have posted some pretty decent guides which imho are better written than the cheesy 80's style stuff floating around from mr kearney.  taken all together tho, there is a lot of info on how to make an appropriate shelter, and managing the radiation exposure etc..  

general preparedness imho gets you 80% of the way.  finding where you would shelter and making a plan for that do the rest.

I have one as well, but it got a lot smaller and I don’t fit under it any more

Ours is over run by fatass, stupid LARPers.  It's a joke.

Lol ems agencies in my area doing more continuing education exercises on radiological and fall out threats as of late. That caught my eye.

I have always felt that the two have distinct differences. CD is the get ready proactive side. EM is just is the mitigation, clean up side. And it's geared to taking care of those who wouldn't help themselves.

I saw some members of the local CERT class. I bet I know who's relatives will get front seats in the shelter.
I will make it a point to be prepared without calling on those folks.

There is civil defense in the USA, but it is limited to saving key political and military personnel.  If you want to survive fallout, you will have to build your own shelter. Depending on what falls in your area, you may or may not suffer an agonizing death. If you want to die immediately,  please find yourself in or near a large urban area. The local fallout should so radioactive as to kill you in a few hours if you survive the blast and flash effects.

Highly unlikely.  Yes Russia is rattling their nuclear sabers but in reality, I don't think any country aside from radical Islamists that would use nuclear weapons for anything other than defense against annihilation.  Worry about other things.

I hope you've right. But when the only took you have left is a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail.

The story did exactly what it was supposed to do - get you to watch their channel and commercials.

No one is going to invade Russia. They know this. They also like to throw out baseless claims and statements. Their military sucks so they have to rattle the nuclear threat every so often.

@gojoe
@Lowdown3 Bingo.

While I agree it is unlikely, I think there is definitely a scenario where it could happen.  NATO Article 5 is intended to be a deterrent but also acts as a hair trigger to all out war.  Under Article 5, if ANY NATO country is attacked, the attacker will be directly attacked by all of NATO.

Russia shares its border will over a dozen countries.  Right now, two of those are NATO members.  Latvia's border is only 365 miles away from Moscow.  That's like Washington DC having a Russian blood ally in Myrtle Beach, SC.  There is about to be a third and maybe fourth in the near future.  If Finland joins NATO, their border is only 93 miles away from the center of St. Petersburg.  Why is this important?  Because Article 5 does not see the difference between an unintentional attack and an intentional attack.  Those non-NATO bordering countries act as a buffer for an errant missile or chemical/radiation that floats a few miles over the border into a NATO country, triggering a NATO attack on Russia.

I think Putin massively miscalculated the global response to his "special military operation" in Ukraine, and as such has been left with a severely damaged economy, severely damaged military and a lot of pissed off Russians.  These are not things that can be quickly reversed.  He already feels like the world is against him, because in a lot of ways it is (deservedly).  So we know Russia is already in a bad position as of today, this is not a theory.  Now if you factor in an unintentional attack that triggers Article 5 and NATO starts attacking Russia directly, Russia will be facing destruction and effectively have nothing left to lose.  In this scenario I believe he could use nukes.  The more NATO countries that share a border with Russia, the more likely this becomes.

With all of that being said...   None of us can see the future.  I am trying to look at this situation based on facts, not emotions, determine a realistic threat probability, apply my threat/risk tolerance and then evaluate mitigation costs/efforts.  For me, this threat is real enough, and mitigation cheap/easy enough that is is worth preparing for.  I think that due to some people's location or general dread about the thought of a large nuclear exchange, they are exercising a strong case of normalcy bias/head in the sand syndrome and have succumb to defeatism.  If you feel this is a real threat, then you should prepare.  Even if you live in a city your chances of survival are exponentially increased by simply having knowledge of what to do if the warning comes in.  Knowledge is free and available.  Other mitigation measures are inexpensive and easy.  You just have to get past the mental block of "this will never happen".


.

That! I have been working on preps that are not expensive or useless for other needs. I don't have a shelter or basement, but I am not near any known targets. I can shelter indoors for some time and have a post incident plan in place.

It's not clear to me that there will be a warning if Russia decides to self-immolate by launching nukes at us. Weren't there some tests of the national alert system a few years ago that didn't go all that well? My guess is that the people who would issue such a warning will be busy heading for their designated bunker and won't be thinking about the population at large. I could be wrong. There might be some precursors to an attack that would be available open source. The trick is to filter out the cacophony of noise to get to the actual signal that tells you it's time to fo to whatever shelter you have in mind. If the people "in the know" have a 15 minute window, that means at best we might have a 5-10 minute window.

On the other hand, if you live near a base that would take action as the DEFCON level changes, you might be able to see a flurry of activity and maybe hit the road. I can remember back in the day living near an old Strategic Air Command base, we'd frequently see a flight of 4 B-52 aircraft take off. Rumor had it if you saw more than 4, get in the car and head away as fast as possible because they never launched more than 4 at a time unless the balloon went up. If all the ships suddenly leave Norfolk Naval Base, it could be a hurricane is coming or WW3 is getting ready to start. If it's the former, it will be on the weather report for days beforehand. If it's the latter, not so much.

Having a grab-and-go bag pre-packed with whatever is necessary to stay holed up in a shelter for 7-10 days is just prudent. It's not like there aren't things like fast-moving fires, floods, tornadoes, chemical spills, and hurricanes that such a bag would come in handy for even if there's never a nuclear attack. The key is to have it nearby and not hesitate when you make the decision to go.

Nukes are about number 50 of things I worry about.

Even a true madman thinks twice about anteing up when every round means you play Russian rullete for not just all the chips but your life and everything you've worked to build.

Putin might be crazy or stupid or both. There's still a lot of people who could kill him if they though he was going to end the world.

I think what will happen first is that Russia will set off a nuke in siberia or over the artic and televise the event to scare the world.

Just the next fear topic for the news clowns.

Well, it looks like the Biden regime is "sending a message" that it is ready.  But by the time they load this up with Biden and his Big Wigs, they should rename it.  "Ship of Fools" would be more appropriate than "Nightwatch."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/president-s-doomsday-plane-spotted-being-tested/ar-AAWX0Qf?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=ea5e600770414ba48c4450272d593f6a

The chance of dying in a car accident is 1 in 107.  Less than a 1% chance, but I still put on my seatbelt.

Nukes probably are #50 or even lower down the list, but since the threat is very real, why not spend a little time researching to better understand how it works, what can happen and how best to respond?  Reading is free.  Other mitigation measures are inexpensive.

Just because the media is taking advantage of the current rhetoric for easy views/clicks doesn't mean there is no threat.  The nuclear arsenals on both sides are very real.  Nukes have been used in war before.  The massive amount of manpower, money, time and energy being used 24/7 right now by multiple nations around the globe for the sole purpose of gaining a slight edge in the event of nuclear war is very real and happening right now as I type this.

Again, I think the chances are very slim, but to simply dismiss it as news cycle sensationalism is sticking your head in the sand.

I think that the Biden team might be willing to escalate the DEFCON as the elections approach to effect the vote, or suspend the vote. What is going on with Putin has cultivated the field for just such an opportunity.  

Remember, they do what they accuse you of doing; and remember they accused Trump of doing this after he "lost."   Miley even called China to assure them.

Such an escalation provides for ample opportunity for miscalculation.

No disagreement. OP asked if it was going to happen. I cant say 100% no but I will say it's extremely, extremely unlikely.

People die from getting hit by meteors. And lightening. I'm just saying worrying about your seat belt or say retirement funds is a much better use of time than meteor preps.

Correct.....

Ignorance is bliss.  You should try it.

That news cycle sensationalism has been around for what? 70 years or so?

I also ride a motorcycle, smoke cigarettes, don't wear sunscreen, don't use insect repellant, and dont carry a lightning rod above my head either.

It's the media seeing something and taking the wrong lesson from it.  
If they paid attention, they would know those aircraft are flying regularly.  Seeing one isn't unusual.  The actual "news" would actually be the tanker testing involved.

Another bit of government propaganda spread by complicit media.  Especially when Dems are running things, they will use every scare tactic to raise taxes and spend money.

Cities will be targeted, so minorities will be more affected. Need more money.

Civil Defense/HDS isn't fully prepared.  Need more money.

Any threat or crisis this government and state-subsidized media mentions, be skeptical and see what there goal is...and it's usually fleecing tax payers to launder money to pad their own pockets, not solve some potential crisis.

ROCK6

Having worked and dealt with several NATO countries, I honestly only think a couple counties would actually go on offense to defend the US if we were attacked. Just about every NATO County in Western Eruope, outside of the UK have extremely poor readiness and their typical socialist governments would fold like Germany is doing right now with Russia.

The US has always been the only deterrent in NATO.  While I think the probability is extremely low, if there is an attack, I honestly don't think very many nations would come to out aid unless it was to feign foreign assistance by pilfering our resources.

ROCK6

http://oism.org/nwss/nwss.pdf

Free pdf "nuclear war survival skills", for those interested.

Post 9/11 I worked with many institutions on nucelar preparedness, and it was a hot topic for about 5-10 years and after Obama got in dropped entirely off the map and I had to rid state bunkers of thousands of nuclear monitoring devices, dosimeters, etc.  Trashed!  We won't need these again!!

Now while there is a real emergency - everyone is talking about Johnny Depp Poop and more important topics like abortion.

The government institutions that used to concern themselves about nuclear preparedness are now more worried about white extremists, yet have several black extremist shootings under their watch.  Never mind a city going to ruins that isn't a job for the government.

I don't normally concern myself with nukes or their effects outside of maybe surfing the survival forum for EMP stuff.  That being said I look at Putin as the closest to an unstable nuclear state leader we have seen in quite some time.  He is getting humiliated in Ukraine and at this point could go all in to save a little face in his old eyes or at least do something so extreme it makes the world think twice before retaliating against him.  The Soviet mentality used to be pushing the limit until the realized the USA and others would tolerate no more then back off.  Now, we are constantly feeding their enemy like in Afghanistan in the 80's and making it much more drawn out then he wants to deal with.  Putin is an old man and at this point could just shove all his chips in and go for broke or set back and tolerate a drawn out war.  Either way his legacy is tarnished but you never know what he may look at as his last ditch effort to push the west away from challenging his rule.  

As for me he's motivated me to spend about 6k over the last two months and get more into prepping.  I'm not sure that is the greatest thing ever but it definitely has motivated me.

To piggyback on this (I'm not disagreeing with you, I just want to add more); there are many things I think people misunderstand about Art 5.
-Art 5 is not automatic and guaranteed.  Someone has to ask for Art 4 deliberations and then the NATO members have to agree to invoke Art 5 (remember that some NATO nations have cozied up to RUS and others have a lot to lose in a fight with RUS).
-Even if Art 5 is invoked not a single member nation has to contribute a dime, bullet or body to it.  They are allowed to determine what they will contribute themselves.  Art 5 can be invoked and still leave NATO toothless.  NATO is not some slumbering giant with forces of it's own of any significance; it is a unified headquarters that is designed to take control of all the disparate allied forces and operate them in a cohesive manner if a conflict arises.  This leads me to......
-Up until VERY recently many NATO nations have let their militaries crumble.  Germany's aircraft and armor readiness is abysmal for example.  To be fair though, there are some NATO nations that have relatively respectable militaries (Poland for example).
-NATOs nuclear forces (with the exception of the UK and US) are laughable.  If RUS lobs a couple tac nukes at Poland for example, does anyone really think that the UK and US are going to make themselves targets by responding in a timely manner?

NATO ain't what it used to be.  Most European nations jobs in NATO was to serve as a speed bump to buy time for the US to legitimately get into the fight.  Thirty years of demilitarization had slowed how quickly we can get there, shrunk how long the European countries could hold out and shrunk the number of forces we could bring to the fight.  Yes Russia has done abysmally in Ukraine, but that does nothing to absolve any of the issues NATO has; relying on your adversary to fail is a shitty plan.

I'm not going to weigh into the discussion on whether RUS will use nukes beyond saying 'doing so would likely win them the battle and lose them the war' metaphorically.  But I hope I can help clear up some assumptions for those who wish to discuss the main topic further.

ETA:  For some reason the website is goobering up the format a little regardless of what I try to do to correct it.

Here in the US of A we are more likely to be bombed by our own .gov either conventionally or nuclear than Russia or anyone else