Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Updated rules on preparedness for nuclear explosion

ready.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 188 posts

Re: Updated rules on preparedness for nuclear explosion

#141

Post by throwawaylinux »

ihumanable wrote: post #128
throwawaylinux wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, what's silly is filling people's heads with rubbish about COVID in case of a nuclear disaster or other acute emergency. Hand sanitizer is absolutely not the right thing to be concerned with. Masks perhaps, but not for COVID. Storing clean water, minimizing your perishable food waste, securing your house/shelter and making makeshift repairs to damage, using a radio (e.g., from your car) to listen for information,…

Remember kids, the best time to needlessly contract a disease is right after a nuclear blast has rendered any aid completely inaccessible. Also considering that one of the parts that suggests hand sanitizer says the following If you are able to, set aside items like soap, hand sanitizer that contains at least 60 percent alcohol, disinfecting wipes, and general household cleaning supplies that you can use to disinfect…

Again, COVID is just not that high a concern to mention it 8 times on a short page that is supposed to be giving advice about surviving a nuclear explosion.

You also don't want to light yourself on fire if you're cold, slit your wrists to drink the blood if you get thirsty, or try to loot the nearest gun store for protection.

Bringing hand sanitizer with you is stupid and ridiculous, and so is social distancing from your family or people who you are with while you're trying to help each other through the disaster. It's idiotic and wrong. Again, water, shelter, warmth, and basic communication are the most important.

Covid is an absolute non-issue in this situation.

Re: Updated rules on preparedness for nuclear explosion

#142

Post by [deleted] »

titzer wrote: post #64

If you're warned of an imminent nuclear attack, be sure to move towards the expected epicenter of the blast. You'll want to be vaporized rather than cooked alive or suffer fatal radiation sickness (over the period of days or weeks). You'll want to be spared the horror of watching others die and society quickly unravel. You'll want to avoid being a burden on the non-existent safety net that won't survive. Watch "The D…

[deleted]

Re: Updated rules on preparedness for nuclear explosion

#143

Post by XorNot »

phdelightful wrote: post #109

If we are envisioning a single “nuclear explosion” (not a large nuclear attack), then this advice is not as crazy as it might seem. Think terrorism, or accident. If you survive the initial event, and the rest of the country is immediately in a position to render aid, then your objective is just to stay healthy and safe for the 1-4 days it would take to start getting things sorted out. In that scenario, access to clea…

Well, also the wilderness can't support a large foraging population for more then a couple weeks at most. Like, there are straight up too many people for wilderness survival to work at scale - North Korea is in widespread ecological collapse because its population has essentially stripped the wilderness bare trying to survive.

Re: Updated rules on preparedness for nuclear explosion

#144

Post by toast0 »

wanderer_ wrote: post #17

Nothing about avoiding population centers? My reaction to nuclear attack would be to hightail it into the woods. Take some supplies, wait it out, and try not to be a burden to emergency services. As for fallout and the like, I would just have to hope. Being far from potential targets and away from major jet streams (or whatever I'm not a meteorologist) would be my way to go.

If you want to live in the woods, fine, but you probably want to wait, inside (in a basement or building interior), for a few days so the shorter halflife stuff in the fallout can decay significantly. Plus you'll want to wait and see where everyone else is going, so you can avoid traffic.

Re: Updated rules on preparedness for nuclear explosion

#145

Post by Johnny555 »

jdlyga wrote: post #73

No shelters within 200 miles of me. I live next to New York City. Are we screwed?

I live next to New York City. Are we screwed

You're probably screwed unless you have an extensive shelter that you can stay in for days or weeks. I'd expect NYC to be high on the list of targets with multiple warheads.

Based on a simulator [1], An single 8 megaton airburst has a 28 mile radius of "extensive injuries/fatalities. With a dangerous fallout cloud hundreds of miles long (winds may blow it toward or away from you)

https://www.nuclearwarmap.com/

(their 1000 warhead large attack scenario predicts almost 200 million deaths across the USA)

Re: Updated rules on preparedness for nuclear explosion

#146

Post by lvs »

throwawaylinux wrote: post #102
geraldalewis wrote: post #46

The comments here are silly. You can absolutely prioritize your risks, which means you’re not precluded from taking sensible precautions if you’re able to. This isn’t rock/paper/scissors. If you’re far enough away from the point of impact and the winds are right, Covid might be more of a threat than a nuclear bomb. If you’re two states away from where a bomb goes off, and insist on open-mouth kissing strangers as the…

No, what's silly is filling people's heads with rubbish about COVID in case of a nuclear disaster or other acute emergency. Hand sanitizer is absolutely not the right thing to be concerned with. Masks perhaps, but not for COVID. Storing clean water, minimizing your perishable food waste, securing your house/shelter and making makeshift repairs to damage, using a radio (e.g., from your car) to listen for information,…

You do realize that this advice is supposed to apply for some time into the future, i.e. potentially during the next wave, right? Risk assessments are fluid and change with conditions. Covid precaution hostility is not rational.

Re: Updated rules on preparedness for nuclear explosion

#147

Post by hedora »

iends wrote: post #88

I'm about 45 miles from a large US military base, is there a point in doing anything?

Probably. Unless they're missile silos that are housing nuclear weapons meant to be used as part of an automated nuclear response, US military bases are surprisingly low on the nuke priority list.

The eastern seaboard, communications hubs and centers of industry will go first.

It's easy to mop up the military bases once the command structure and supply lines have been annihilated (and defectors/equipment may come in handy post-war). If the aggressor survives the initial strike, they basically just needs to wait.

(That'd only happen if the mutually assured destruction mechanisms failed. They're set up to glassify the surface of the earth once the government collapses. Most military bases get melted during that wave, but then so does everything else.)

The craziest part is that the Russians actually built the doomsday machine from Dr Strangelove, and then kept its existence secret.

Game theoretically, that somehow made it a better deterrent, as sarcastically posited in the film.

At least they didn't do something really dumb, like set the launch codes to all zeros()

() yes, that was the actual launch code. They probably didn't sticky note it to the monitor though, at least at first.

Re: Updated rules on preparedness for nuclear explosion

#148

Post by beefman »

If it seems ridiculous to add COVID stuff here, consider that the nuclear stuff is equally ridiculous. No one wants to use nuclear weapons, and if they did it would be against military targets (mostly other nukes). If one did hit a populated area, the region between instantly dead and totally fine is narrow. Yet this page implies all readers are in that region, and the danger of fallout is highly exagerrated. Get to a shelter? What fration of a percent of the population can they accomodate? I just texted 43362 with my zip code (San Jose, CA) and got this reply: "We could not locate a SHELTER within 200 miles of [zip]." Even during the cold war hysteria of the early '80s, my town of 30,000 people had only one shelter: the bank.

The COVID-19 stuff is perfectly at home here.

Re: Updated rules on preparedness for nuclear explosion

#149

Post by throwawaylinux »

lvs wrote: post #146
throwawaylinux wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, what's silly is filling people's heads with rubbish about COVID in case of a nuclear disaster or other acute emergency. Hand sanitizer is absolutely not the right thing to be concerned with. Masks perhaps, but not for COVID. Storing clean water, minimizing your perishable food waste, securing your house/shelter and making makeshift repairs to damage, using a radio (e.g., from your car) to listen for information,…

You do realize that this advice is supposed to apply for some time into the future, i.e. potentially during the next wave, right? Risk assessments are fluid and change with conditions. Covid precaution hostility is not rational.

No, they're clearly talking about quite immediately afterwards (as well as mentioning covid before, and during).

You do realize that this advice is useless at best, and that it is deliberate covid fearmongering, right?

Re: Updated rules on preparedness for nuclear explosion

#150

Post by hedora »

TeeMassive wrote: post #13

> Try to maintain a distance of at least six feet between yourself and people who are not part of your household. If possible, wear a mask if you’re sheltering with people who are not a part of your household. Children under two years old, people who have trouble breathing, and those who are unable to remove masks on their own should not wear them. Is there a reason other than Covid-19? I know that when they give Iod…

Watch the "fallout" video I pasted elsewhere. It covers dealing with contamination.
Post reply on HN