Beach's Nuclear Survival Resources & Ark II Fallout Shel

welsh

welsh

Junkmaster
I just came across this and thought- hmmmm......

Rather interesting Fallout Shelter located in Ontario-
http://www.sugarmountainhome.com/homesteading/doomsday.htm


According to Mr. Beach- these are some of the myths of nuclear war-
Read more from the website.
MYTHS
Here are twenty-three myths that are repeatedly heard (some much more often than others) that this document tries to dispel.

MYTH #01: Almost everyone will suddenly be killed on doomsday.
MYTH #02: Most people would be quickly killed by the bomb blasts, thermal radiation, or radioactivity.
MYTH #03: You can build an adequate shelter in your basement.
MYTH #04: You must filter the air coming into a shelter to remove the fallout.
MYTH #05: Water would become radioactive.
MYTH #06: There would be no dangerous radioactivity after a couple of weeks.
MYTH #07: Radiation sickness is not contagious so there is no danger in assisting those affected.
MYTH #08: Food exposed to radiation becomes radioactive and is therefore not edible.
MYTH #09: If you have a special radiation suit (like you see in the movies and on TV) you will be protected from the radiation.
MYTH #10: New crops of food grown in future years will not be radioactive.
MYTH #11: There is no such thing as a fallout pill.
MYTH #12: There is a fallout pill that will protect you from all radioactivity.
MYTH #13: There would be dangerous radioactivity for thousands of years.
MYTH #14: There would be no dangerous radioactivity after a couple of years.
MYTH #15: You are prepared if you have a two weeks emergency supply of food stored.
MYTH #16: You should be prepared to be self-sufficient and be able to survive on your own.
MYTH #17: Any survivors would have to live the rest of their lives underground.
MYTH #18: Life after doomsday won't be worth living.
MYTH #19: You need not make any preparation because you are either going to die in the holocaust or be saved (religious connotation).
MYTH #20: The bombs today are so large and there are so many they will destroy the world.
MYTH #21: You will receive adequate warning from your government.
MYTH #22: You will receive no warning, and there is no hope if you do.
MYTH #23: One of the primary targets will be nuclear power plants.
Click to expand...
 
some basic advice, some interesting insights,... got me thinking about what actually could be done in my area. and on what it would cost.

if they nuke Brussels (with it's NATO/EU co-notation...) & the wind is in the wrong direction, i'm pretty much cooked without shelter. (same with the port of Antwerp or even Kleine-Brogel where the american nukes are & pretty much the only 'dangerous' base in Belgium)

too bad many of the underlying concepts & assumptions aren't really applicable in a denser populated area like Flanders (or most of north-western Europe). there would be no real place to run from the fallout in a worse case scenario.

luckily for me an all-out nuclear armageddon scenario is pretty unlikely for Europe ;)
 
Interesting read, although the divine references in the end of the article are out of place and reek of Christian propaganda.

And Suaside: Wrong. The Polish army released recently a few Soviet/LWP plans of an European invasion, in which it was supposed to invade Denmark, Holland and Belgium, using two hundred nuclear warheads, would a war break out.
 
The news article precised that a loss of 40% of the attacking force was calculated in that plan. About the nukes, the news article didn't precise what kind of nuclear weapons would be used. They could have been "tactical" nuclear warheads, that have a relatively much smaller area of immediate effect than a city-busting, conventional weapon.
 
200 nukes for Denmark, Belgium and Holland? boy, you guys are desperate...

wtf do we got worth bombing? Brussels (symbolic), Antwerp (economic), Kleine-Brogel (american nuclear response base), perhaps a naval base, a few airforce bases, and a few army commando bases.

Edit: any possibility of getting more detail on that Wooz?
 
Wooz said:
The news article precised that a loss of 40% of the attacking force was calculated in that plan.
Click to expand...

What kind of retards come up with plans like that, anyway?

I thought the whole 'bomb something to pieces right before you have to walk though it' strategy was finally discarded after Barbarossa, but apparently they remain catchy.

And hit Poland.
Click to expand...

See, now that's a better strategy.
 
I'll look on this as soon as I <s>sober up</s> gain access to more precise descriptions of this particular war scenario.

Jeebs said:
What kind of retards come up with plans like that, anyway?
Click to expand...

The Soviet military command? Using a large army of a subordinate nation to do the dirty work sounds logical.

I thought the whole 'bomb something to pieces right before you have to walk though it' strategy was finally discarded after Barbarossa, but apparently they remain catchy.
Click to expand...

Shruggers. Maybe the nukes or mini-nukes were supposed to hit large concentrations of retaliatory ground troops. Or cities. Or ships. The Russkies had more than enough nukesto spare a few hundred.
 
What about Norway? does everyone think we're a bunch of eskimo's living in ice huts?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top