

New Advice On How to Survive Nuclear Attack - linhir
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/16/science/16terror.html?hp

======
commieneko
"Duck and cover" has always been about as good advice as you can get.

Now I grew up in the '60s, within 30 miles of a cluster of Titan missile
silos, practically surrounded by them (one of them blew up in the '80s! What
fun that was!) So I knew that I could duck and cover till the cows came down
and it wouldn't do any good. Because I'd be incandescent gas.

However, in my grade school and teenage nightmares it was Russian HBombs that
I was obsessing about. Terrorist bombs are likely to be much smaller, closer
to the size of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs. Or smaller. So "assuming the
position" is actually pretty good advice if you aren't killed instantly.

Staying put to avoid fallout is another issue. It depends on how close to the
blast you are, and what the prevailing winds are doing. If I were in a good
spot, say a building basement or the subway, I'd probably stick with it. In a
car or a heavily damaged frame building, I dunno. The roads are likely to be
impassable, so the best bet might be to head for a larger, building basement
or other underground structure.

Assuming the current inhabitants are taking in stragglers...

The article is amazingly light on analysis and actual advice.

Well, another reason to keep those wind up radios around.

~~~
enjo
The bombs are also much more likely to be ground detonated, which changes the
equation a bit. Particularly it means a much reduced blast radius, but a
higher amount of fallout. That's where this advice comes from. The government
is trying to save lives by reducing as much exposure to fallout as they
possibly can. In this case, retreating to your basement is definitely a good
idea.

~~~
commieneko
The trouble with all advice like this is that it all really depends on
conditions on the ground and where you are.

If you are upwind of the blast, and a reasonable distance away, it might make
sense to make a run for areas not effected by the blast and out of the
immediate fallout pattern. Especially if there is an effort to rescue and
remove survivors from the area underway. During an actual nuclear war there is
unlikely to be any organized efforts by the surviving government, but after a
terrorist attack, there will almost certainly be. And hopefully they will be
broadcasting on emergency frequencies, hence the wind up radio.

If you are in the fallout area, unless you are in a well stocked fallout
shelter, you are probably screwed. Rescue efforts are likely to be minimal for
weeks. Food and water will be a problem. Not to mention people who've been
wandering around in the fallout wanting to share your hidy hole. It could be
pretty grim.

------
Seth_Kriticos
From the practical point of view:

wouldn't it be the easiest to make a TV entertainment series that would play
in a nuclear apocalyptic scenario and include 60-ish style warnings of what to
do when you see a mushroom?

Maybe something fallout style? This would not make anyone panic, as it's
entertainment, but the message would go into subconsciousness to most.

~~~
wallflower
> include 60-ish style warnings of what to do when you see a mushroom?

Before the mushroom too. Like when the tide goes out before a tsunami.

I remember watching the 'Day After' a long time ago and in one scene is
everyone on a highway - and all of their cars suddenly die/stall. I assume
this is EMP blast related?

~~~
narag
It was EMP related. IIRC, it was explained previously in the film and I
believe that there was some special effect to suggest an explosion had taken
place in the stratosphere.

By the way, Jason Robard's character did one educational thing: bending (I
hope that's the right word) as much as he can behind the dashboard.

Also the movie featured prominently a white noodle-like dust rain that had
that charming effect of making people bald.

There was another film with William Hart (can anybody remember the title?)
about a post-apocalyptic world where most electronics are fried due to EMP.

------
camiller
Apparently the first step is logging on to the NY Times. I didn't get any
further than that.

~~~
dailo10
<http://www.bugmenot.com/view/nytimes.com>

~~~
camiller
You know that's not the point. If the NY Times wants me to read their articles
they should not make it difficult.

~~~
curtis
In general, I agree with you. However, the NY Times is not just some random
site on the Internet. It's one of the best sources for actual, meaningful
content. So I make an exception for them, and have for more than ten years
now.

------
cosmicray
back in the 1960s, USDA drew up several sets of plans for ag facilities, and
homes, that contain fallout shelters. LSUAgCenter has a few of them still
posted...

Three Bedroom House with Emergency Shelter
[http://www.lsuagcenter.com/en/our_offices/departments/Biolog...](http://www.lsuagcenter.com/en/our_offices/departments/Biological_Ag_Engineering/Features/Extension/Building_Plans/residential/3_br/Three+Bedroom+House+with+Emergency+Shelter.htm)

Bunker-type Fallout Shelter (for beef cattle)
[http://www.lsuagcenter.com/en/our_offices/departments/Biolog...](http://www.lsuagcenter.com/en/our_offices/departments/Biological_Ag_Engineering/Features/Extension/Building_Plans/beef/equipment/Bunkertype+Fallout+Shelter.htm)

Stall Barn & Fallout Shelter
[http://www.lsuagcenter.com/en/our_offices/departments/Biolog...](http://www.lsuagcenter.com/en/our_offices/departments/Biological_Ag_Engineering/Features/Extension/Building_Plans/dairy/housing/Stall+Barn++Fallout+Shelter.htm)

Fallout Shelter, Dairy Barn & Family Center
[http://www.lsuagcenter.com/en/our_offices/departments/Biolog...](http://www.lsuagcenter.com/en/our_offices/departments/Biological_Ag_Engineering/Features/Extension/Building_Plans/dairy/housing/Fallout+Shelter+Dairy+Barn++Family+Center.htm)

------
ScotterC
Finally. Some sense has been added to radiation attacks. Getting inside a
building or making sure there is any sort of barrier between you and ionizing
radiation is the best thing you can do.

------
jamescoops
Children of the Dust is a great book about what happens after a Nuclear attack
- conclusion - best thing is to die.

------
jdp23
Wow, it takes me back to when I was in elementary school and we practiced
going to the fallout shelters in the basement ...

------
bhavin
I can't get to the article, asks me to login!

~~~
oiuytrfiuytre
Then you aren't on the list of chosen ones.

~~~
bhavin
yeah, I understand what's going on.

------
ergo98
The more survivable a nuclear war is perceived to be, the more likely nuclear
war becomes.

~~~
jerf
True with rational actors. Massive nation states in the 20th century tended
towards a certain degree of rationality by their ponderous nature. Cold war
dogma will have to be updated in an era when you can not count on rationality
from the actors possessing nuclear weapons, where small sets of individuals or
potentially even individuals can control when and where they detonate.

Emphasizing the _un_ survivability of a nuclear war _encourages_ terrorists
and marginal, rogue nation states and feeds into their ideation of "Once I
have a nuke, they'll have to take me seriously!", a dynamic we can already see
in the world. If you want to consider the effects of propaganda on world
behavior (severed from the question of the truth of the propaganda), a good
case can be made that now is the time to _under_ state the dangers of nuclear
weapons, that they are in the end just fairly large bombs, etc. Or perhaps
just tell the truth, which is that they are dangerous and devastating, yes,
but their effects have historically been overstated for the reasons discussed
above.

Also, remember, part of what makes these nation states marginal is their lack
of solid leadership and control. Iran right now thinks that a nuke is their
meal ticket, but based on my reading of their own internal turmoil I would
consider it a nontrivial possibility that if a nuke does show up there very
significant internecine conflicts would begin and it's impossible to know who
would actually end up with it; even if the current leadership retained control
of the country the nuke may end up with somebody else. (Actually, the
probability of the Iranian nuke actually ending up going off _in Iran_ due to
internal conflicts I would consider nontrivial, though certainly low odds
relatively speaking.)

~~~
ergo98
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were relatively tiny nuclear bombs. The results were
absolute devastation of the sort that most nations rightly don't want to
endure.

It isn't world-ending apocalyptic if North Korea launched its entire arsenal,
but it would be _incredibly devastating_ , which is exactly why the world
treats it with such kid gloves. No one is overstating the concern regarding
that, and a nuclear attack on Tokyo or, less likely, the West Coast of the US,
would be horrifying.

Just to go back to Japan for a moment, note that in most world conflicts the
decision to be aggressive or not is a very selfish one from the perspective of
leadership: Leaders and peoples who feel that they and their family are
impervious, or at least reasonably impervious, are far more likely to engage
in and prolong conflict. To talk terrorism for a moment, as that has come up,
NY city residents, as a general rule, tend to be against US oversea actions,
whereas people in rural states -- where the risk of so-called "blowback" is
dramatically reduced -- are far more emboldened.

The world faces incredible peril if the people with their finger on the
button, so to speak, can do so with any comfort that they themselves will
ultimately be okay.

~~~
reemrevnivek
No, the world faces incredible peril _because_ the people who will sooner or
later have their finger on the button _don't care_ whether they (or at least
their physical bodies) are ultimately OK.

Mutually assured destruction is not a problem for terrorists or suicide
bombers who feel that their own martyrdom would be of benefit to them.

~~~
ergo98
Terrorists aren't as inhuman and single-minded as you've been essentially
brainwashed into thinking. They have the same motivations as most other human
beings. In many cases the "harem of virgins" is a Western ruse, and really
they are looking out for their family that often benefits from significant
"bereavement" payments.

It's interesting how many Western movies include the _heroes_ essentially
committing suicidal acts. That's commendable. Terrorists...well they're just
irrationally crazy!

Further, to carry out a terrorist plot the actors usually need substantial
support by people who aren't as...committed (see: Osama himself). Syria, for
instance, was often considered a major sponsor, or at least facilitator, of
terror, but since the Afghanistan war they've been one of the most committed
to making sure terrorism is stopped. There are a lot of such middlemen who
have selfish reasons to ensure that terrorism does not occur.

I find the concept, though, that nuclear weapons are only sought because of
some sort of incorrect illusion of their effectiveness to be simply shocking.
Does anyone really believe that? Does anyone really believe that even at the
most "pessimistic", a nuclear weapon would be at least a thousand times more
effective than anything any terrorist could dream up?

~~~
jerf
"Terrorists aren't as inhuman and single-minded as you've been essentially
brainwashed into thinking. They have the same motivations as most other human
beings."

As a whole, this is true of the leadership. This is virtually true by
definition because being that inhuman and single-minded is incompatible with
leadership and anybody who tries fails as a leader. Unfortunately, the way
they lead is to fire very very potent memetic weaponry around with relatively
wild abandon and they do unfortunately end up producing True Believers in
quantity. We know this, because a suicide bomber almost by definition has to
be a True Believer, and suicide bombers definitely exist. I would tend to
agree that _most_ terrorist leadership would rather use the nuke as a stick to
beat people with rather than fire it but I am uncomfortable with the scenario
in which one or more True Believers come to believe that their leadership are
actually traitors and in their True Belief fire the weapon anyhow. Terrorists
build their structures around some very toxic and volatile belief structures
and we are justified in being very concerned about the combination of that and
nuclear weaponry. Perhaps not "terrified" but certainly a matter of
justifiable international concern. (I would reserve _terrified_ for 5-15 years
in the future when biological warfare becomes easy enough for them.)

It only takes one True Believer.

