Radiation Exposure From a Nuclear Attack

Quote of the Day

About 300 million people in the United States would be put at risk of death from exposure to radioactive fallout in the four days following a nuclear attack, according to a new report that models the possible effects of such a grim event. If the US is attacked with nuclear weapons , an adversary would most likely concentrate all fire on the country’s intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) launch facilities (silos). Any retaliatory attack from the US would come from these silos, located in Colorado , Montana , Nebraska , North Dakota , and Wyoming – and taking them out would be an enemy’s first priority.


Kevin OReilly
November 16, 2023
Report: Nuclear war in US would wipe out 90 percent of the population

The quote is deceptive and the article title is a lie. The quote can be interpreted to mean it is likely or even certain to kill 300 million people in the U.S..  If you read it carefully you will realize this is a worst case scenario for each area of the country. In reality the worst case would be for a much smaller area:

Using weather patterns recorded through 2021, scientists simulated the aftereffects of an 800-kiloton warhead hitting every one of the 450 silos at once to cripple the US arsenal. First, they mapped how wind patterns would have carried the fallout on each day of 2021.

For the map above, they recorded the worst possible outcome for each location. In this scenario, three million people living in communities around the silos would risk receiving eight grays (Gy) of radiation in the four days following the attack, resulting in certain death – one Gy is enough to cause radiation sickness.

The information above is for radioactive fallout. This is most severe from ground bursts. Nuking population centers and military bases would probably be done via air bursts which produce far less fallout while incinerating and a shock wave destroying almost everything within miles.

Still, a rule of thumb to keep in mind is that three feet of dirt will reduce the radiation by a factor of 1,000.

I want my underground bunker in Idaho.


8 thoughts on “Radiation Exposure From a Nuclear Attack

  1. Lovely fear porn! I’m sure everyone that believes in global climate change is needing to change their diaper about now.
    The real threat is from nuke-subs that can pop up out of the ocean and zap you anywhere on the planet.
    Such was the lesson a couple years back when someone’s sub surfaced off the California coast and fired a missile out over the ocean to the west.
    Their map also forgot Davis-Moffett airfield in in Tucson, AZ. which is reserve aircraft mothball fleet.
    No enemy is going to fight our strength if they don’t have to.
    And with the real invasion coming from the south it’s guaranteed they won’t need to.
    China is the one’s running drugs through the cartels that are killing Americans like an annual Hiroshima. Why risk your signature on a nuke?
    San Francisco just proved who’s in who’s pocket. Xi already controls the nuclear football. Why nuke anyone when the game is 34-0, two minutes on the clock, and you bought, paid, and outright control the football.
    And once the tribal wars start in America, the only resupply will be through the Mexican cartels. Which will be more than willing to trade stolen gold, silver and a host of other things for weapons, food, gas, etc. All from and through China.
    Why else would China and Russia be so patient through all this?
    Reality tells them were collapsing.
    Now change that map to black in every major city 72 hours after the EBT system goes down.
    No need for nukes when your winning.

  2. The map really is overly focused on a very few targets. Every US Navy base that sorties repairs and reprovisions our fleet of submarines are category 1 targets. If you add Kings Bay and Bremerton to the list the map looks very different

    • The map is about fallout. Fallout is primarily a ground burst issue. Any surface buildings or equipment is probably better dealt with via an air burst. If you want to play with the variables and see the immediate destruction and fallout patterns use the NUKEMAP.

      • Anything other than missile silos and a few secure facilities are better dealt with by airbursts. The first map is very cold warish. And Air Force centric as it excludes the boomer bases.

        I am not sure anyone other than the US has the capacity to do a counterforce strike these days. Maybe Russia depending on the state of modernization and maintenance. The other nuclear powers really only have the capacity for city busting which means air bursts and less fallout.

        What anyone with largish nukes and an ICBM has the capacity for is an EMP strike.

        • I think there is some question whether EMP is a real issue or not.
          Meanwhile, the singular focus on ICBM bases misses the fact that an enemy would also aim for decapitation. A forecast without a nuclear crater in DC is clearly incomplete. And given how much of the running of the country has been arrogated by the Federal bureaucracy in DC, the consequences of such a crater would obviously be quite severe. Recoverable, sure, in the long run. But, for example, buying and selling stuff when the Fed has been vaporized would certainly take some major adjustments.

          • Or Martha’s Vineyard. I’m thinking maybe Xi stopped by to confirm that Biden truly is senile, it’s not an act. And Obama is running things.
            And have Russia shift targeting?

          • The only way to “win” is to launch everything you’ve got on the first salvo, targeted in such a way to destroy all retaliatory capabilities before retaliation is possible.

            Basically they go down, but you might go down trying.

          • There is a theory that an attacker would spare DC to ensure that the US never recovers.

            And EMP is uncertain for sure. It is impossible to test for the effects. We have the Hawaii incident and some non-nuclear tests but nothing else.

Comments are closed.