You CAN Survive a Nuke Attack

Quote of the Day

You CAN survive a nuke attack … but you MUST make an effort to learn what to do! By learning about potential threats, we are all better prepared to know how to react if something happens.

Janet Liebsch
February 27, 2022

The almost offhand post the other day about a Geiger counter had so many comments that I thought I would do a little more research on the topic.

The linked article above is pretty good stuff. It gives you the basics of the various types of threats such as initial blast and radiation, fallout radiation, and types of radiation (alpha, beta, gamma). Then it goes into types of shelters including how to make an expedient shelter.

If you are thinking of building an underground bunker then these have more detailed information:

The bottom line is:

To survive a nuclear blast, you would need to be at least 3 feet deep underground. Also, you need to be at least 36 inches of concrete or tightly-packed dirt to shield you from the blast radius.

There are other options to dirt and concrete, but in most cases those would be the cheapest.

To figure out the blast radius for the targets nearest to your bunker read Are You Living in a Nuclear Death Zone? Find Out with the U.S. Nuclear Target Map and use this nuke map.

The article also includes this image of the supposed Primary target locations for Soviet nuclear strikes during 1980s:


I am more than a bit skeptical because, while I can understand Boomershoot being a primary target, Boomershoot didn’t even exist until 1998.


15 thoughts on “You CAN Survive a Nuke Attack

  1. The target that’s got me scratching my head is the one in NW Wyoming. The Russkies were gonna nuke the east side of Yellowstone?

    I can’t think of a single target of military value anywhere around this area, including Montana.

    Now, if they’d target Jackson down in Teton County, every Wyomingite (except maybe those downwind) would cheer ’em on.

  2. Weird placement of the dots. In the northwest, wouldn’t the dots be around Fort Lewis/McChord, or Bremerton, rather than on the coast? And I’d think the Boomershoot dot would be positioned over Spokane and Fairchild AFB and all its BUFFs.

  3. It’s always good to think about the what if’s of the world. To me, I just don’t see a reason anyone would want to nuke us.
    If one compares Hiroshima to Detroit of today? Coupled with a woke, trans, rainbow flag waving military? Bidenomics and illegal immigration all in line with affirmative action?
    We’ve sent most our munitions to Ukraine. Drained our oil reserves for cheap to China. We don’t make much here anymore, so we have no reserve capacities.
    And a very effective information war has been waged in such a way that we don’t understand. We’ve already nuked ourselves.
    No reason for anyone else to waste time, money, and reputation. No reason to nuke what’s already an ash pile.
    We’ve been at war with the Chinese for the last 30 years. And they already won. Were a laughing stock on the world stage are we not?
    They took the south China sea without firing a shot. They already have everything Japan wanted to control in WWII. And they have Russia sucking in and destroying everything we have in equipment.
    All they have to do is shut off the EBT system and half the cities in this country will be smoking craters. At the same time our reserve currency status will go, POOF, for good.
    Other than a few strategic bases. Submarines, bombers maybe. We ain’t a threat to anyone but ourselves. Wasn’t it our own left that wants to use nukes and F-16’s on us for not disarming ourselves?
    Since it’s Biden and Kamala in charge of the nuke codes? Maybe that’s why Bommershoot is a target?

  4. That map is too old to be useful. Bothe Plattsburgh AFB in northern New York and Loring AFB in Northern Maine we’re closed in the 1990s. I’m sure there were other bases close by BRAC that appear as targets.

  5. So….if that targeting map is incorrect, or at least out of date, is there someplace to which we can direct updates and targeting suggestions? I have a couple of recommendations I’d like to submit.

  6. Surviving a nuclear attack depends on where you are at the moment of detonation. It’s mostly a matter of chance. The issue is surviving the aftermath of the attack.
    If you are close enough to a detonation and survive it the risks from the radioactive fallout are still significant. Most of urban America will be destroyed by a full scale attack. Parts of rural America that are close to military bases and missile sites will also suffer greatly. But the rest will be relatively unscathed…at first. Who suffers the most from fallout after the fact will depend on the weather, the wind and other unforeseen and uncontrollable factors. Finally…Even if you suffer no damages at all from the actual attack you are still at grave risk…from other people. Who WILL turn into utter and complete savages in the effort to survive.
    THAT is the one area where prepping and planning can make a difference.

  7. Also, it doesn’t seem to include Kings Bay, GA or Naval Base Kitsap, WA (former Bangor submarine base) Those are the two Navy bases where our nuclear ballistic missile submarines are based.

    Both were in full operation at the time the maps was created, and are still in full operation.

    The map is not only out of date, it was never accurate to begin with.

    • And to me, that is the major consideration. As the difference will mean either air burst, (for max. population destruction). Or ground strike for hard target destruction.
      Ground bursts are the worst as they throw radioactive dirt into the atmosphere. Which means major problems down wind.
      While air bursts kill more people outright, but only a small amount of radiation goes downwind.
      So ya, if you live downwind or within 50-100 mile of someplace like Mountain Home AFB-strike force center in Idaho, or your before mentioned Bangor sub base. You and everyone down wind are in deep do-do.

  8. I live just west of DC. It gives me comfort that my ashes will emit a soothing green glow for millenia. I have NO hope of surviving a hit on DC.

  9. Silly map. Fallout is really a function of a counterforce strike (digging up missile silos). An efficient countervalue strike (busting cities) would use air bursts which produce much less fallout. While the Soviets may or may not have been capable or a counterforce strike, the Russians are surely not and would be reduced to countervalue.

    As others have noted many of the dots are in non-sensical places. I will add that a couple of dots in SoCal seem to be on training bases. Not clear to me that these would be a priority target in either a counter value or counter force strike. If the Soviets or Russians had anything left after the first round, maybe.

  10. The first thing I noticed about that map has no targets in Michigan – if it’s from before 1995, that’s definitely wrong. We used to have 3 SAC bases, but K.I. Sawyer AFB, near Marquette in the Upper Peninsula, closed in 1995, and I think that was the last of them.

Comments are closed.