I have a question, would a nuke strike have the same strength as a emp strike? Or would it be lesser?
WW3? Or nuclear fallout
- Thread starter Flight
- Start date
Help Support Homesteading & Country Living Forum:
Every nuclear bomb produces and EMP.
The thing is that inside the earths atmosphere the strength is very low and limited to about 150 yards from the blast if its a ground blast and up to about a quarter mile in an air burst.
The polarity of atmospheric bursts is negative while the HEMP pulse is positive because it is caused by throwing off electrons that are captured in the magnetic field. That leaves the positive ions free to cause all kinds of trouble before finding electrons to remove the charge.
If a bomb is dropped on or over a target and detonates less than 25 miles high you won't have to worry about the EMP but you will have to worry about the blast and radiation. An HEMP is so high you don't have to worry about the blast or the radiation but the EMP will destroy electronics, power distribution and power generation over an area from horizon to horizon from the bombs point of view.
I have enough EMP and bomb words in this post to renew my membership in all the wrong lists and clubs. This post is for educational purposes only and no one should attempt such actions as the results can cause severe injury and death. (that makes it all better now doesn't it NSA, CIA etc.)
The thing is that inside the earths atmosphere the strength is very low and limited to about 150 yards from the blast if its a ground blast and up to about a quarter mile in an air burst.
The polarity of atmospheric bursts is negative while the HEMP pulse is positive because it is caused by throwing off electrons that are captured in the magnetic field. That leaves the positive ions free to cause all kinds of trouble before finding electrons to remove the charge.
If a bomb is dropped on or over a target and detonates less than 25 miles high you won't have to worry about the EMP but you will have to worry about the blast and radiation. An HEMP is so high you don't have to worry about the blast or the radiation but the EMP will destroy electronics, power distribution and power generation over an area from horizon to horizon from the bombs point of view.
I have enough EMP and bomb words in this post to renew my membership in all the wrong lists and clubs. This post is for educational purposes only and no one should attempt such actions as the results can cause severe injury and death. (that makes it all better now doesn't it NSA, CIA etc.)
I think I understand, if the nuke doesn't kill us, probably the emp will. Lol
The EMP (HEMP) won't directly kill you. You may die due to the lack of infrastructure if you can't get your own water or food with the stores and banks all shut down. It doesn't cause physical harm at all.
You are right though, there will be a large percentage of the population that will die waiting for the government to fix it.
You are right though, there will be a large percentage of the population that will die waiting for the government to fix it.
HAHAHA figures that there is an app for that!
The have been putting on that same show of closing the border for years. I really like the handshake right at the end.
I bought my copy off Amazon a couple of months ago. Takes less space than a 3-ring binder, cost less, and involves less time. Downloading and storing on a thumb drive or other media might do just fine.
Let me see if I understand this correctly, I live about thirty miles, as the crow flies, from one of the two major targets in Alaska. As I understand it I shouldn't need to worry about an EMP from an atmospheric blast. If true this is good news for me.
I am downwind and either in the red or yellow zone, if there is a ground blast, depending on minor wind variations. A winter strike is most likely, per my readings, so it is possible that a north wind could push the fallout away from me. An atmospheric blast will cause more damage in a greater area and I would expect that to be the case.
No matter what power will be down for a couple years at best as the power plant is across the highway from the base.
I am downwind and either in the red or yellow zone, if there is a ground blast, depending on minor wind variations. A winter strike is most likely, per my readings, so it is possible that a north wind could push the fallout away from me. An atmospheric blast will cause more damage in a greater area and I would expect that to be the case.
No matter what power will be down for a couple years at best as the power plant is across the highway from the base.
Caribou,
You are essentially correct. At 30 miles away you are very much out of any danger zone except for fallout from a ground blast.
Ground blasts are used to destroy hardened targets and runways of airports. Airports that can serve a military interest, those that are over a mile in length and concrete, can be used by long range and heavy military planes. If that airport is just a small commercial airport it is not likely a primary target.
The power station, if it is a major power producer, is a primary target.
In either situation the worse case scenario is fallout from a ground burst. The radioactive life of fallout is very short. After two weeks it is very close to just background radiation. Rain will bring the fallout down to the ground sooner but its radioactivity goes away in the same two week period. I would expect the commercial power to be down for at least 2 weeks and probably closer to a year. You can learn to do without or try to be self powered with solar, wind or a combination of both. If you have running water nearby you could get a small hydro-power kit that will be more dependable than either solar or wind.
You are essentially correct. At 30 miles away you are very much out of any danger zone except for fallout from a ground blast.
Ground blasts are used to destroy hardened targets and runways of airports. Airports that can serve a military interest, those that are over a mile in length and concrete, can be used by long range and heavy military planes. If that airport is just a small commercial airport it is not likely a primary target.
The power station, if it is a major power producer, is a primary target.
In either situation the worse case scenario is fallout from a ground burst. The radioactive life of fallout is very short. After two weeks it is very close to just background radiation. Rain will bring the fallout down to the ground sooner but its radioactivity goes away in the same two week period. I would expect the commercial power to be down for at least 2 weeks and probably closer to a year. You can learn to do without or try to be self powered with solar, wind or a combination of both. If you have running water nearby you could get a small hydro-power kit that will be more dependable than either solar or wind.
Thanks SheepDog, The AF base has a runway across from the power plant for the area. They are far enough apart to possibly require two nukes. The Anchorage airport would also be a ground target using your criteria. There is also a general aviation airport with a 4000'X100' asphalt strip that may or may not be a target.
If they take out the Anchorage docks they have effectively stopped freight into Alaska but if they take out the power plant they will also take out the only road north from Anchorage thereby cutting off most of Alaska from food and supplies.
I would expect that three ground burst nukes would do the trick here with two more possible. How many redundant devices there might be I don't have a clue. I doubt that they would waste a HEMP just to take out the power and communication in a bunch of villages. Two of these blasts will take out the transmission lines to my area and any of them will cut the natural gas to the power plant which is the same line that feeds our area.
I have generators, and solar panels when they get hooked up. I have a potential for wind power but no hydro on my property. I have a Pelton Wheel but I never had a place to put it.
As my risk for an EMP is extremely low I don 't need to consider the very expensive Sol-Ark solar system.
If they take out the Anchorage docks they have effectively stopped freight into Alaska but if they take out the power plant they will also take out the only road north from Anchorage thereby cutting off most of Alaska from food and supplies.
I would expect that three ground burst nukes would do the trick here with two more possible. How many redundant devices there might be I don't have a clue. I doubt that they would waste a HEMP just to take out the power and communication in a bunch of villages. Two of these blasts will take out the transmission lines to my area and any of them will cut the natural gas to the power plant which is the same line that feeds our area.
I have generators, and solar panels when they get hooked up. I have a potential for wind power but no hydro on my property. I have a Pelton Wheel but I never had a place to put it.
As my risk for an EMP is extremely low I don 't need to consider the very expensive Sol-Ark solar system.
Anchorage is most likely to be a ground blast nuke. The Airforce base, depending on a few things might be a conventional bunker buster but if is a SAC base with nuke storage it will be a ground burst nuke too.
The HEMP won't do much to a few villages tied into the same grid but it will take out any electronics in the area. Anchorage would be the one I would be sure about being a target. Not only is the airport big enough for tankers and jets but it is a big population center too. The feds have surplussed the old DEW line stations and are using satellites now but the AF still operates some interceptor facilities up north. They are likely to be on the primary target list too. The big "trump" card (nothing to do with the president) is our submarine defense system. They can strike with less than a minute notice in most places with enough fire power to do a lot of damage.The same is true of the soviets and China too though. No nuke wars in the near future anyway.
The HEMP won't do much to a few villages tied into the same grid but it will take out any electronics in the area. Anchorage would be the one I would be sure about being a target. Not only is the airport big enough for tankers and jets but it is a big population center too. The feds have surplussed the old DEW line stations and are using satellites now but the AF still operates some interceptor facilities up north. They are likely to be on the primary target list too. The big "trump" card (nothing to do with the president) is our submarine defense system. They can strike with less than a minute notice in most places with enough fire power to do a lot of damage.The same is true of the soviets and China too though. No nuke wars in the near future anyway.
If you draw a line between Anchorage and Fairbanks there are no roads west of that line except for a few side roads or short stretches and I doubt much over ten miles long and even that would be rare. Half of Alaskans live in the Anchorage area. A quarter of Alaskans live in the Fairbanks area. The rest live in a pattern that closely resembles a shotgun blast at a distant target, and most of those live off the road system. My last home was 400 miles west of Anchorage and the only way there is by air. We have our own generating plant as do most villages, though some share if they are very close. Alaska does not have a grid per se, though some power companies cover a considerable area.
I ran an ambulance service for a bit that covered an area the size of Oregon but without a road system. Many villages have no vehicles so no roads. Some villages have one vehicle, a truck. Some communities, like mine, have city streets. I could drive from one side of town to the other, a distance of four miles, in the summer. In late winter I could go over 150 miles by driving on the river.
I ran an ambulance service for a bit that covered an area the size of Oregon but without a road system. Many villages have no vehicles so no roads. Some villages have one vehicle, a truck. Some communities, like mine, have city streets. I could drive from one side of town to the other, a distance of four miles, in the summer. In late winter I could go over 150 miles by driving on the river.
If I could get the isolation of Alaska in a more temperate climate I would live there without regret. I just can't take the winter dark and summer light or the cold of winter.
Arizona is nice but it is expensive and water is not widely available.
Arizona is nice but it is expensive and water is not widely available.
If the weather was great we'd have to put up with masses of people from California.
I disagree and I live here.
Where I live the pop density is 6 per sq mile. Pretty low. We have plenty of water at my house from our own well. We live very inexpensively here and have for the last 15 years. Moving to Arizona was the best decision I ever made.
A friend of mine has property not too far from Tucson. He witched his property and has excellent water. He has enough water that he could keep a couple dozen cows.
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2017
- Messages
- 1,571
.. and even that distancewas way too much...
Japan copied US Radiation Safety standards.
which are designed to not exceed a dose that would raise the possibility of you getting excess cancer by 5% over a lifetime of habitation at that spot..
And most of the calculations are based on a model that ignores the bodies repair mechanisms AND has every step of the calculation multiplied by ten for "worst case".
In other words it pretty meaningless.
Last edited:
I agree but then again I would err on the side of caution too!
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2017
- Messages
- 1,571
I have taught some seminars before on the subject of fallout.. and in the end i hear a lot "lets err on the side of caution".... but I believe its more important to have accurate and understanding.
Especially for a prepper
After SHTF some folks out of fear may avoid contaminated towns.. but unless you are talking about the immediate aftermath of a Nuke (2- 2.5 days) the place is easily safe enough from a radiation standpoint to go in and out to grab resources.
Once the fires in a city are out, thats your clue because they can put dust in the air you dont want... but make a judgement call too.
Put on a mask with a HEPA filter (any military mask has a layer of HEPA plus of course commercial masks with HEPA) or even any dust mask with goggles will do in a pinch, then drive in and plunder than food/gas/ammo resources that others, are afraid of going near due to radiation fears.
Just dont camp there overnite.. quickly in and out, if you have a pick who to send it might be best practices to consider middle aged adult males (the more resistant of the species).
Wash rubber boots (if worn) discard other footwear, discard your gloves ( you did wear gloves right?)
Take a good shower, done.
With those precautions you can may be able to get the resources that will make your and yours live and even thrive (and if the fallout is a couple weeks old even those precautions may not be necessary)
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2017
- Messages
- 1,571
PS: Anyone who wants to understand Nuclear Weapons Effects, needs to read THE book on this subject.
"Nuclear Weapons Effects" by Glasstone.
Free here:
https://archive.org/details/TheEffectsOfNuclearWeapons/page/n1
Read it.. then if you have any specific question like if you are stuck in a chapter ask me on this forum.
(Pm me if I dont see it please)
"Nuclear Weapons Effects" by Glasstone.
Free here:
https://archive.org/details/TheEffectsOfNuclearWeapons/page/n1
Read it.. then if you have any specific question like if you are stuck in a chapter ask me on this forum.
(Pm me if I dont see it please)
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2017
- Messages
- 19,644
I have been wondering about masks. I have looked at them and it seems there are so many options. I always thought a mask with a HEPA filer would be more than $100, but I see some that are around $20-30, and some even cheaper than that. The cheaper ones do not have eye protection, while the more expensive ones do. This one looks like the filters are replaceable, and hopefully come in other colors.
https://www.magidglove.com/3M-Half-Facepiece-Respirator-Assemblies-6000-Series-with-3M-Particulate-Filters-3M2091-3M6291M.aspx?utm_source=Google&utm_medium=Merchant Center&utm_campaign=Product Feed&gdffi=7517adbfe2dc4813a56a4a3835e1f8e9&gdfms=A8C68253D2234502A1E173C721F63F82&gclid=Cj0KCQiA5Y3kBRDwARIsAEwloL5Pw_FR_TgMmkoQMiAT8x5Him2O3cXRAMVK2TYCPt8Vthm8MqttzvUaAr6zEALw_wcB
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2017
- Messages
- 1,571
Just about any particulate filter will do nicely.
Those that are HEPA rated are the best.
