Quote of the Day
Global security leaders are warning nuclear threats are growing as weapons spending surged to $91.4 billion last year. At the same time, private bunker sales are on the rise globally, from small metal boxes to crawl inside of to extravagant underground mansions.
Critics warn these bunkers create a false perception that a nuclear war is survivable. They argue that people planning to live through an atomic blast aren’t focusing on the real and current dangers posed by nuclear threats, and the critical need to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
Meanwhile, government disaster experts say bunkers aren’t necessary. A Federal Emergency Management Agency 100-page guide on responding to a nuclear detonation focuses on having the public get inside and stay inside, ideally in a basement and away from outside walls for at least a day. Those existing spaces can provide protection from radioactive fallout, says FEMA.
Martha Mendoza
December 8, 2024
Nuclear bunker sales increase, despite expert warnings they aren’t going to provide protection
I have to know. Does it require special training to be that blind to incongruent statements? Or are some people just naturally impervious to irrational thought?
It is times like this that I could be convinced that our society has made life too easy. It was a mistake to prevent stupid people from removing themselves from the gene pool with demonstrations of their stupidity. I must conclude Idiocracy was brilliantly prophetic. And we should do almost anything to prevent that prophecy from happening.
Another thing to point out is that “government experts” are telling you that you don’t need an underground bunker. I wonder if anyone they have told that to has asked if they have access to an underground bunker?
And/or tell them to convince all the politicians they don’t need an underground bunker. And if they are needed, politicians must come after those necessary to rebuild a post-apocalyptic world. This would include all the construction workers, miners, and factory workers. It would also include teachers, engineers, and medical care people. Law enforcement, bankers, and business leaders are essential too.
I believe politicians should know they will not have access under any circumstances. It is the job of politicians to prevent us from getting nuked. If they fail at their job, they should pay a higher price for that failure than anyone else. This policy ensures they have the proper incentive.
This is very much like the claim you don’t need guns because the government has F-15s. Or the claim you don’t need guns for personal protection while politicians keep guns (and armed guards) for personal protection.
To funny Joe. One can only marvel.
“Critics warn these bunkers create a false perception that a nuclear war is survivable. They argue that people planning to live through an atomic blast aren’t focusing on the real and current dangers posed by nuclear threats, and the critical need to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.”
Like clown-world calls and asks our permission to start WWIII and launch nukes?
“I must conclude Idiocracy was brilliantly prophetic. And we should do almost anything to prevent that prophecy from happening.”
“By the sweat of your brow, you will eat the fruit of the earth.”
God.
Like it or not, that’s the curse God placed upon man. And rather than fighting it. We should learn to live under it.
When everyone works it make the work easier on us all. And if your not willing to sweat, you ain’t needed.
You can be stupid and still do a day’s work.
Lazy and stupid is what should be unacceptable.
The easiest way is to just deport them to Africa where it’s everyday life. And make Haiti a prison colony for the criminal ones.
And race need not be a consideration.
I think that if the government “experts” claim that you don’t need an underground bunker, it’s a pretty good indication that you should have built one for yourself already.
Believing the opposite of what yhe government says might not get you to the truth, but I find that — as a rule of thumb — it’s a much better starting point than a lot of places.
An underground bunker is nearly useless for blast protection, because the likelihood you’ll be occupying the bunker at time of blast is minuscule.
A fallout shelter, however, is different from a bunker. This is anything that puts time, space, and mass between you and fallout particles.
It could be as simple as a basement dug several feet deeper than normal, a brick or lead-lined lean-to structure inside an interior room of a large apartment or office building, or even a houseboat anchored in the center of a lake that you scrub the fallout particles off of as often as possible.
“Critics warn these bunkers create a false perception that a nuclear war is survivable. They argue that people planning to live through an atomic blast aren’t focusing on the real and current dangers posed by nuclear threats, and the critical need to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.”
This bit is the same gas lighting that the left used in the 70’s and 80’s. Movies like “The Day After”, and “Threads” that made a nuclear war and a resultant nuclear winter look neigh unforgivable. Save that “Nuclear Winter” looks to be a deeply flawed theory (as much so as Global Warming), and unless you’re in the blast radius or downwind in a heavy fallout area it’s not unsurvivable.
Fallout in all but the worst areas is manageable. As Wallphone has already stated, you want “time, space, and mass between you and fallout particles”.
What I’ve noticed looking at tables on shielding thicknesses by material, is that it seems to take about 200 pounds of material covering every square foot. I’m sure the physics involved isn’t that simple, but as a simple rule of thumb it works.
http://www.ki4u.com/goodnews.htm
https://archive.org/details/lifeafterdoomsda0000clay
It will be bad if you’re close to Ground Zero.
Anywhere else it’s survivable if you’ve planned.
If you survive the blast, and you survive the fallout, you’re going to have to survive the constant threat of mass home invasion from those whose disaster planning is just 3 days.
That logic would not only apply to a nuclear blast; but to economic collapse, mega earthquake, ect.
So if you suggest surviving a nuclear blast is undesirable because dealing with the aftermath would be unpleasant, what do you suggest for the other disasters? Cyanide?
Pingback: Planning Against the Poor Planners | The View From North Central Idaho
You don’t need an underground bunker?
Then please explain Cheyenne Mountain, Mt Weather and Site R?
Some expert.
*You* don’t need one.
*They*, on the other hand…