LA Will Be The First Nuclear Casualty (Revelation 16)

A Los Angeles suburb released this ominous video about how to survive a nuclear attack

Leanna Garfield and Dave Mosher
Aug. 9, 2017, 3:36 PM 4,246
Earlier this week, an analysis from US intelligence officials revealed that North Korea has figured out how to fit nuclear warheads on missiles, and that the country may have up to 60 nuclear weapons. (Some independent experts estimate the figure is much smaller).
On Monday, North Korea issued a stark warning to the US: If you attack us, we will retaliate with nuclear weapons.
Several American cities, including New York, San Francisco, and Honolulu, have response plans for terrorist attacks, including so-called “dirty bombs” containing radioactive material. But few have publicized plans to deal with a real nuclear explosion.
One exception is Ventura County, a suburb about 60 miles northwest of Los Angeles. In 2003, the local government launched a PSA campaign called Readythat aims to educate Americans how to survive a nuclear attack. The goal, according to the campaign site, is to “increase the level of basic preparedness across the nation.”
One of the more recent PSA videos is the one below, published in 2014. It opens with a short message from Ventura County public health officer Dr. Robert Levin, then cuts to a little girl with an ominous expression around the one-minute mark.
“Mom, I know you care about me,” she says. “When I was five, you taught me how to stop, drop, and roll … But what if something bigger happens?” The video then flashes to the girl walking down empty streets alone.
The Ventura County Health Care Agency has published several guides on what to do in the event of a nuclear bomb hitting the area. As the girl says in the video above, the agency’s focus is to “go in, stay in, tune in.”
The scenario assumes a terrorist-caused nuclear blast of about 10 kilotons’ worth of TNT or less. Few people would survive within the immediate damage zone, which may extend up to one or two miles wide, but those outside would have a chance.
Brooke Buddemeier, a health physicist and radiation expert at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, previously told Business Insider that he likes Ventura County’s PSAs because they’re simple and easy to remember. “There is a ton of guidance and information out there,” he said, but “it’s kind of too hard to digest quickly.”
Buddemeier said you’d have about 15 minutes – maybe a little bit longer, depending on how far away you are from the blast site – to get to the center of a building to avoid devastating exposure to radioactive fallout. Going below-ground is even better.
“Stay in, 12 to 24 hours, and tune in – try to use whatever communication tools you have. We’re getting better about being able to broadcast messages to cell phones, certainly the hand-cranked radio is a good idea – your car radio, if you’re in a parking garage with your car,” he said.
The protection factor that various buildings, and locations within them, offer from the radioactive fallout of a nuclear blast. The higher the number, the greater the protection.Brooke Buddemeier/Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Buddemeier adds, however, that you shouldn’t try to drive away or stay in your car for very long, because it can’t really protect you. Today’s vehicles are made of glass and very light metals, and offer almost no shielding from damaging radiation.
In large cities, hundreds of thousands of people would be at risk of potentially deadly exposure. But fallout casualties are preventable, Buddemeier said.
“All of those hundreds of thousands of people could prevent that exposure that would make them sick by sheltering. So, this has a huge impact: Knowing what to do after an event like this can literally save hundreds of thousands of people from radiation illness or fatalities,” he said.

The Next 911 Will Be a Nuclear Attack at the Port of Long Beach (Rev 14)

Trump’s Budget Would Leave U.S. Ports Open to Nuclear Threat
The administration is putting money toward a border wall, but giving short shrift to America’s other borders.
President Donald Trump’s proposed budget would pour money into a wall on the southern border — while stripping funding from protecting ports against the threat of nuclear attack.The administration’s proposed 2018 budget would halve funding for key counterterrorism programs at another kind of border: The 361 ports dotted across America’s 95,000 miles of coastline. The proposed cuts, leaving just $48 million in grant funding, have alarmed port operators, senators from both sides of the aisle, and counterterrorism experts alike.“I’m seriously concerned that these budget cuts will weaken our ability to detect, prevent, and respond to future attacks,” said Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Missouri), the ranking member on the Senate Homeland Security Committee, last month.After the September 11, 2001 attacks, one of security experts’ greatest fears was that terrorists would acquire nuclear or radiological weapons and use them against the United States. Analysts determined that if a weapon of mass destruction were to be deployed, it would likely be delivered in one of the 12 million shipping containers arriving in ports every year — a flood of cargo seemingly too big to search without disrupting global trade.Determining that ports were “susceptible to large scale acts of terrorism,” Congress established the Port Security Grant Program in October 2002 to fund radiation detection scanners, security systems and maintenance, and training at maritime ports. But even today, worries about port security persist. Former Secretary of Defense William Perry said last month at an event at the Hoover Institute that North Korea may not need the long-range missiles it is currently developing in order to deliver a nuclear payload to American shores. Pyongyang, he said, “might even be able to do terrible damage to the United States by delivering [nuclear weapons] in freighters.”The Trump budget doesn’t just take aim at port security funding — it also would slash the U.S. Coast Guard budget, which provides layers of protection by tracking incoming vessels, scanning for illicit weapons, and making sure foreign ports have adequate security, Additionally, a pair of crack Coast Guard units — the Maritime Safety and Security Teams and the Maritime Security Response Teams — could lose their funding entirely, according to documents obtained by the Associated Press in February. The Response Teams are the Coast Guard’s ace in the hole against terrorists, said Cmdr. Paul Frantz, of the Coast Guard’s Office of Deployable Specialized Forces, “designed to respond to the threat or event of a terrorist attack.” This spring, nearly two dozen senators sent Trump’s budget director a letter warning against dismantling the Coast Guard units, warning that it would be “negligent and detrimental to our national security.”When the September 11 attacks occurred, U.S. ports were wide open to possible risks. Years of funding have built up the capabilities of ports around the country to detect potentially nefarious activity, including any smuggled nuclear bombs. According to testimony submitted to a June 2014 Senate homeland security committee hearing, in 2001 Customs and Border Patrol had none of the big scanners — known as radiation portal monitors — that spot radiological hazards. By 2014, it had 1,387 at ports across the country, able to screen 99 percent of incoming cargo, essentially meeting the post-9/11 Congressional mandate that 100 percent of incoming shipping containers be scanned.But these scanners require expensive maintenance and have a lifespan of 10 to 13 years, meaning those deployed after 9/11 will soon need to be replaced. Many ports don’t have the cash. “There’s a lot about the border wall, but we’re borders as well,” said April Danos, director of information technology at the Greater Lafourche Port Commission in Louisiana. The grants enable ports like Lafourche to install pricey security systems they wouldn’t have been able to afford, and to perform costly maintenance to keep systems operational. “Those budget cuts would impact us greatly,” said Danos. “We would not be able to maintain these systems.”The possible gutting of the grant program has port operators around the country up in arms. On June 12, the American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA) sent a letter calling on eight leading lawmakers to fully fund the grant program, highlighting that it is crucial in “helping seaports harden security and protect these vital transportation hubs and maritime borders.”Congress needs to be reminded that “ports are international borders,” said John Young, director of freight and surface transportation policy at the AAPA, in a phone interview with Foreign Policy. Used in collaboration with local law enforcement, said Young, port security grants “can do anything from fencing to cyber security assessments, to installing cyber equipment to purchasing equipment to help secure ports.”Without the grant money, it’s not clear how ports and operators will be able to fully address ongoing vulnerabilities or identify new ones.“It’s a big deal for us,” said Danos. “The gaps are going to be left wide open.”Chris Hondros/Getty Images

Surviving the Inevitable Nuclear War (Rev 15)

nuclear bomb explosion blast city shutterstock_639638614
An illustration of a nuclear bomb exploding in a city. Shutterstock

  • A small nuclear bomb set off by a terrorist is one of 15 disaster scenarios the US government plans for.
  • Such a blast would create radioactive fallout, which can kill or hurt people many miles away.
  • If you survive a nuclear attack, take shelter indoors, stay put, and listen to a radio for instructions.
  • Sheltering from fallout could save hundreds of thousands of lives in a city.

The Cold War may have ended in 1991, but the looming threat of nuclear attack lives on with more than 14,900 nuclear weapons wielded by nine nations.
A terrorist-caused nuclear detonation is one of 15 disasters scenarios that the federal government continues to plan for with state and city governments — just in case.
“National planning scenario number-one is a 10-kiloton nuclear detonation in a modern US city,” Brooke Buddemeier, a health physicist and radiation expert at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), told Business Insider. “A 10-kiloton nuclear detonation is equivalent to 5,000 Oklahoma City bombings. Though we call it ‘low-yield,’ it’s a pretty darn big explosion.”
nuclear bomb explosion blast city shutterstock_528910063
An artist’s depiction of a nuclear explosion. Shutterstock
Buddemeier could not estimate the likelihood of such a terrorist attack, stating “it’s one of these things that changes with time.”
However, it’s not an unfounded concern with the proliferation of fissile nuclear material and kiloton-class weapons in stockpiles.
If a nuclear detonation were to occur, and you somehow avoided the searing-bright flash, crushing blast wave, and incendiary fireball, Buddemeier says there is one simple thing that could increase your odds of survival.
“Shelter, shelter, shelter,” he says. “The same place you would go to protect yourself from a tornado is a great place to go.”
What you’d be hiding from is sandy, deadly, and arrives just minutes.

The threat of radioactive fallout

A fearsome after-effect of nuclear blasts is called fallout, which is a complex mixture of fission products (or radioisotopes) created by splitting atoms.
Many of these fission products decay rapidly and emit gamma radiation — an invisible yet highly energetic form of light. Exposure to too much of this radiation in a short time can damage the body’s cells and its ability to fix itself, which is a condition called acute radiation sickness.
“It also affects the immune system and your ability to fight infections,” Buddemeier says.
Only very dense and thick materials, like many feet of dirt or inches of lead, can reliably stop the gamma radiation emitted by fallout.
“The fireball from a 10-kiloton explosion is so hot, it actually shoots up into the atmosphere at over 100 miles per hour,” Buddemeier says. “These fission products mix in with the dirt and debris that’s drawn up into the atmosphere from the fireball. … What we’re talking about is 8,000 tons of dirt and debris being drawn up into this cloud.”
The gamma-shooting fallout can loft more than five miles into the air. Larger chunks and pieces quickly rain back down, but the lighter particles can be sprinkled over distant areas.
“Close into the [blast] site, they may be a bit larger than golf-ball-size, but really what we’re talking about are things like salt- or sand-size particles,” Buddemeier says, adding that fallout doesn’t really resemble “snow” or dust, as movies often depict. “It’s the penetrating gamma radiation coming off of those particles that’s the hazard.”
A car is the least-ideal place to shelter for a variety of reasons, says Buddemeier. For one, “your ability to know where the fallout’s gonna go, and outrun it, are — well, it’s very unlikely,” he says. Fallout is carried by high-altitude winds that are “often booking along at 100 miles per hour,” he adds, so you’d be very unlikely to out-run or out-drive the fallout.
Plus, streets would probably be full of erratic drivers, accidents, and debris. Some vehicles may also not work due a strange effect called electromagnetic pulse, or EMP.
But most importantly, you shouldn’t “assume that the glass and metal of a vehicle can protect you” from fallout, says Buddemeier. “Modern vehicles are made of glass and very light metals, and they offer almost no protection. You’re just going to sit on a road someplace” and be exposed.
A much better shelter is likely within a quick walk or run of wherever you may be, Buddemeier says, and “the timing is important.”

Where you should shelter from fallout

Your best shot at survival after a nuclear disaster is to immediately get into a “robust structure” and stay there. Buddemeier is a fan of the mantra “go in, stay in, tune in.”
“Get inside … and get to the center of that building. If you happen to have access to below-ground areas, getting below ground is great,” he says.
Besides cars, the poorest shelters are made of wood, plaster, and other materials that don’t shield much radiation (about 20% of houses fall into this category). Better shelters, such as schools and offices, are made of bricks or concrete and have few or no windows.
Soil is a great shield from radiation, says Buddemeier, so ducking into a home with a half basement is better than going into a place with no basement at all.
apartment building house radioactive fallout shelter protection quality level llnl bruce buddemeier
The protection factor that various buildings, and locations within them, offer from the radioactive fallout of a nuclear blast. The higher the number, the greater the protection. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Next, “stay in 12 to 24 hours,” he says.
The reason to wait is that levels of gamma and other radiation fall off exponentially after a nuclear blast as “hot” radioisotopes decay into more stable atoms. This slowly shrinks the dangerous fallout zone — the area where high-altitude winds have dropped the most radioactive fission products.
nuclear explosion fallout radiation danger zones decay bruce buddemeier llnl
The dangerous fallout zone (dark purple) shrinks quickly, while the much less dangerous hot zone (faint purple) grows for about 24 hours before shrinking back. Bruce Buddemeier/Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
A recent study by Michael B. Dillon, a colleague of Buddemeier’s at LLNL, suggests that moving to a stronger shelter or basement may not be a bad idea if you initially ducked into a flimsy one. But whatever structure you’re moving to should be less than five minutes away. (Though if you’re very close to the blast site, stay put in whatever you can find.)
Finally, tune in.
“Try to use whatever communication tools you have,” Buddemeier says, adding that a hand-cranked radio is a good object to keep at work and home, since emergency providers would be broadcasting instructions, tracking the fallout cloud, and identifying where any safe corridors for escape could be.
Despite the fearsome power of a nuclear EMP, which has the potential to damage electronics, Buddemeier says “there is a good chance that there will be plenty of functioning radios even within a few miles of the event” that can provide “information on the safest strategy to keep you and your family safe.”
Buddemeier says he hopes no one will ever have to act on his advice. But if people can find good shelters, he says the blow of an unthinkable catastrophe could be softened.
“We may not be able to do much about the blast casualties, because where you were were is where you were, and you can’t really change that. But fallout casualties are entirely preventable,” he says. “In a large city … knowing what to do after an event like this can literally save hundreds of thousands of people from radiation illness or fatalities.”

Preparing For The Nuclear War (Revelation 6)

Image source: Bing / About Site R
Daniel Jennings

WASHINGTON — America’s leaders have made elaborate preparations to survive a nuclear war while everyone else apparently dies.
The plans go back decades and only cover top government officials, according to a new book.
“In the early 1950s, the government really hoped and believed it would be able to save most Americans,” writer Garrett M. Graff told The Washington Post. But “plans and ambitions gradually shrunk until, realistically, the best they could hope to do is save the senior leadership.”
Graff describes the elaborate plan in the book “Raven Rock: The Story of the U.S. Government’s Secret Plan to Save Itself – While the Rest of Us Die.”
Graff discovered that the federal government maintains several huge secret underground fortresses where officials, officers and politicians — but not average citizens — would survive nuclear war in relative luxury. One of them, Raven Rock near the Pennsylvania/Maryland state line, contains several freestanding multi-story buildings with 900,000 square feet of office space.
Raven Rock is where government leaders and top brass from the Pentagon would flee in the case of an attack on Washington D.C., Graff revealed. Former Vice President Dick Cheney hid there briefly after the 2001 terrorist attacks.
The Declaration of Independence Would Be Stored, Too
Another underground complex, Mount Weather in Virginia, once was where the Supreme Court, the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and paintings from the National Gallery of Art would be kept safe. That still might be the case, The Post reported.
The exact details of the bunkers and evacuation plans are unknown because they are classified. Graff was able to learn some details of the plans by sifting through declassified documents.
Graff became interested in the federal government’s survival plans when a coworker found a misplaced government ID and gave it to Graff.
“The back of the ID had these evacuation instructions on it,” Graff told The Post. “And so I got on Google Maps and followed the instructions and they led to a road that very clearly went into the side of a mountain, and you can see on the Google satellite view big concrete bunker doors.”
Some tidbits about those plans include:

Uncle Sam, it seems, is a prepper.

Californians Prepare for Nuclear War (Revelation 15)

Inside of bomb shelter being sold by Atlas Survivor Shelters in Montebello, California

LOS ANGELES — The world is on edge, as the threat of a nuclear attack seems more real than it’s been in decades, notes CBS Los Angeles.

Earlier this week, North Korea showed off its new missile, which arced over 1,000 miles into space before splashing down into the Sea of Japan.
As North Korea moves closer to nuclear attack capability, Californians may also be moving closer to the realization of a nuclear strike, as highlighted in Pyongyang’s latest propaganda video.
And Californians are beginning to take action.
Ventura County released a series of public service announcements to help people prepare for the unthinkable.

Robert Levin, public health officer for Ventura County, says you can survive a limited nuclear blast by remembering one simple message: “Get inside, stay inside, stay tuned.”
During the Cold War, Americans were instructed to duck and cover in the event of a nuclear explosion, and that advice still holds true today.
“First you duck, and then you cover,” said Levin. “It’s just really important to know what to do.”
He says after a blast, you should try to get as close to the center of a building as you can and stay inside to avoid nuclear fallout.
If you do get covered in fallout; don’t panic, immediately remove any contaminated clothing, and rinse your body using soap and shampoo.
“Once they wash and shampoo out of the shower, they’re 99 percent free of any fallout,” said Levin.
Some are taking precautions to a different level.
Brian Fowler, with Atlas Survivor Shelters in Montebello, says he’s never been busier selling underground bomb shelters to people all over the world.
The steel shelters are installed 20 feet below ground and range in price from $19,000 to $165,000, and can have features as luxurious as showers, couches and big-screen TVs.
“You want to make sure you’re prepared today for what’s going to happen tomorrow,” Fowler said.
So who’s buying them?
“You never know what’s going to happen in the future, so we want one to be secure,” said one woman who did not want her identity revealed to keep her shelter a secret.

Seattle Planning for Nuclear Attack

Planning for nuclear attack: Lawmakers want to undo 1984 ban on ‘preparing for the worst’
By Evan Bush
Seattle Times enterprise reporter
Lawmakers are considering striking from Washington state law a 1984 provision that bars emergency planners from crafting a plan to specifically address a nuclear attack.
With Seattle considered a logical target if North Korea were to launch a nuclear strike on the U.S., a bipartisan group of Washington lawmakers wants to nix a 1984 provision disallowing state emergency planners from crafting a plan to specifically address such an attack.
State law requires emergency planners to prepare a comprehensive, all-hazard emergency plan, but under the 1984 law, that plan “may not include preparation for emergency evacuation or relocation of residents in anticipation of nuclear attack.”
The proposed bill, which was introduced last week by Republican Sen. Mark Miloscia and Sen. David Frockt, a Democrat, would strike that language from state law.
Is Seattle a target for a North Korean nuclear attack? Well, not quite yet, insiders say
North Korea, experts say, is likely a few years away from developing a missile that could put Seattle in range. The country has successfully tested nuclear weapons.
A nuclear strike in Seattle would kill thousands, but experts think it’s unlikely North Korea would target the city because the U.S. could wipe out the nation with its own prodigious arsenal.
Still, the attention to the issue from legislators represents a shift in perception of nuclear threats.
In 1984, when the legislation took effect, U.S. tensions with the former Soviet Union were easing, said Dick Nelson, a former state representative from Seattle.
“Anything that was a prescription for more concern, like civil-defense exercise, was felt to be nonproductive,” he said. “People didn’t want to be in any sort of posture that people were anticipating more (nuclear) threats. We wanted to reduce the threat.”
At the time, some lawmakers felt that people had little chance of surviving a nuclear attack and that the state was better off planning for other disasters.
Lawmakers in office now said they don’t fear a North Korean nuclear strike, but said they didn’t want the 1984 law to prevent preparation.
“To see that there was an actual prohibition about this, to me it didn’t make common sense,” Miloscia said. “The region is completely different from it was back then [1984]. We’re more sophisticated at emergency planning. To throw your hands up and say, ‘Everyone’s going to be destroyed,’ I think that’s silly.”
State Sen. Guy Palumbo, D-Maltby, who is also a sponsor of the bill, said he was surprised to read about the 1984 law in The Seattle Times.
“I said, ‘Are you kidding me? We have a law that prevents emergency planning?’ ” Palumbo said. “We (legislators) were dumbfounded we wouldn’t have contingency plans for any kind of harmful nightmare like that.”
Palumbo said he’s been following interactions between the Trump administration and North Korea.
“Given the saber-rattling, it’s prudent to make sure we’re not preventing emergency services and the National Guard from preparing for the worst,” he said.
Nelson, the former legislator, said he thought his bill was worthy of new discussion.
“It’s appropriate to raise the issue, given the … political climate internationally,” he said.
Karina Shagren, a spokeswoman for the Washington State Emergency Management Division, said that the agency hasn’t taken a stance on the measure, but noted that they “have very limited resources.”
“We have to put people on what the greatest threat is. And in Washington, that’s an earthquake,” she said.
Miloscia said he thinks the state should plan for both.
“Radiation, burn victims — there are massive emergency needs you have to meet, and that’s different from an earthquake,” he said.
The bill has been referred to a committee that is headed by Miloscia, but Miloscia said he hasn’t decided whether to give it a hearing this year. Lawmakers are in the midst of a special session to address education funding as part of an overall two-year state operating budget that must be in place before the end of June.
Miloscia said he wanted to start the conversation before the 2018 legislative session.

How Do You Prepare For Nuclear Terrorism? (Revelation 14)

Dress Rehearsal for Armageddon: How Cities Plan for a Nuclear Attack

By Andrew Karam
Then everyone takes their turn talking. The police will discuss how they intend to secure the city, getting people to safety, keeping them out of areas that are dangerously radioactive, and trying to maintain civil order. The fire department is going to have fires to put out, people to rescue, and will begin setting up decontamination stations.
Simple illustration of nuclear attack area and plume.
But the nature of nuclear attacks makes these daunting tasks even more difficult. For example, the Health Department might need to figure out exactly where the winds have taken the plume, so it won’t be safe for anyone to be outside, including first responders. If you’re caught in the plume’s centerline, the area where the fallout is most dangerous, you’re going to get a fatal dose of radiation in a matter of minutes. So now both Fire and Police know that they can’t immediately spring into action. Instead, they have to wait for the plume to settle out before they can start the evacuation.
The initial plume is only a small part of the problem. In close proximity to a 5 kT bomb, virtually every building within about a half-mile radius will collapse, shattered by the force of the explosion, and create rubble as much as 100 feet deep. Meanwhile, many areas will be remain engulfed in flame. In Hiroshima, this ensuing mass fire was as deadly as the radiation.
So during the TTX, those around the table will go through the plans to see how their agency can respond – and to see if they can help to make things better (or at least help keep them from getting worse). They look for holes in the plans – what do we need to do that hasn’t been address? What have we been assigned that we just can’t do? Do we have the equipment, personnel, and training to carry out our responsibilities? And are we doing everything we can to keep the public and the emergency responders safe?
The result of these exercises is usually a lot of sober faces sitting around a table. Knowing that in real life these decisions could affect the lives of millions of people. It’s a sobering experience, and when talking with others, you quickly learn that they feel the same way.

The Execution

Once the local, state and federal representatives step in, and the plan is analyzed from every conceivable angle, it’s time for the last step—boots-on-the-ground exercises.
Every so often you’ll hear about nuclear terrorism exercises in Virginia Beach or New York City. Although conspiracy theorists may dream up more sinister motives, these tests are absolutely necessary. Until this moment, all the experts have really done is to write and talk by people who haven’t been in the field for years. Now is the time to put workers into their protective clothing, give them radiation meters, set up decon stations, and do everything else we can to prepare for the worst.
This is the penultimate test—with the ultimate test being something you hope you never have to do. Field personnel make sure they can find their equipment, operate it under realistic conditions, and answer minuscule but deadly important questions like if the switches on a radiation meter are too small to operate in protective gear and if we can really set up a decon tent in only 2 hours.
If everything goes smoothly, then the next step is making the plan better, faster, and as flexible as possible. If the opposite is true, then it’s back to the step one, this time armed with many lessons learned.
All this seems like a flurry of planning that can come together over a few weeks, but sometimes this process can take years to accomplish. One plan I personally worked on took over five years to hash out, another two years to set up a series of TTX exercises, and few more to revise the plan. After all, these agencies do lots of other important things every day, but nuclear preparedness scenarios continue to be conducted across the country

The Survival Strategy

It goes without saying that a nuclear attack is a horrific circumstance, but it can be survived at distances of less than a mile from ground zero, depending on the strength of the explosion. Of course, there are a lots of variables, but you shouldn’t assume that a nuclear attack means instant and unavoidable death.
Strangely, fleeing also isn’t necessarily your best option. If you see a bright flash and mushroom cloud and turn to run the other way, half an hour later you might sustain a lethal dose of radiation—all depending on which way the wind is blowing.
The very best thing you can do is go into the nearest stable building and stay there until you’re told it’s safe to leave. That might be in a few hours (if the plume went in another direction) or it might not be for a few days. But unless you’re a radiation safety professional with your own instruments, you have no way of knowing if it’s safe to go outside or even know which direction to evacuate. Remember, vehicles offer no protection, so you’ve got to be in a building—the larger the better.
a higher number means better protection.
Once inside, stay toward the center of the building because fallout can still expose through walls. So the further from the exterior walls you’re staying, the lower the radiation dose will be. Stay on a lower floor or in the basement, and fallout that would kill you in a matter of hours can be easily survived if you find the right shelter.
You’re also going to be in dire need of uncontaminated food and water. You can fill the bathtub (if you think of it), take water from the toilet tank, drink whatever you have in your refrigerator as well as any bottled liquids you might have in the basement or garage. But most people can survive for a few days without drinking at all, and even longer on a relatively minimal amount of water. So you don’t need to keep a month of water on hand at all times.
The Navy has a saying that “failing to plan is planning to fail.” Although a nuclear attack remains unlikely, it’s a deadly serious possibility where the right information can save your life. It’s a plan you hope to never have to use, but one that’s undeniably necessary.

Russia Threatens to Wipe UK Off the Face of the Earth

The United Kingdom would be “wiped off the face of the earth” if the country elects to pre-emptively use nuclear weapons against Russia, a senior Russian politician said Monday, highlighting the unmistakeable tension between Russia and western governments.
Responding to a British defense minister’s suggestion that proactively using nuclear weapons against Russia could be an option, Russia’s Frants Klintsevich said the U.K. would be “literally wiped off the face of the Earth by a counter-strike.”
Klintsevich heads the defense and security committee in Moscow’s upper house of parliament.
Klintsevich was responding to comments made by British Defense Minister Michael Fallon, who told a radio show that the U.K. could consider the strike amid recent heightened tensions between Russia and western governments.
Fallon said: “In the most extreme circumstances, we’ve made it very clear that you can’t rule out the use of nuclear weapons as a first strike.”
“The whole point about the deterrent,” he added, “is that you have got to leave uncertainty in the mind of anybody who might be thinking of using weapons against this country.”
Fallon said that the U.K.’s military would use its Trident nuclear program only in extenuating circumstances, although those scenarios were not specified.
“In the best case this statement can be seen as a form of psychological warfare, which in this context is particularly disgusting,” Klintsevich said in response, according to Newsweek.
Western military alliance NATO and Russia have recently accused one another of military provocations as they continue to participate in parallel arms escalations.

Russians Try To Intimidate Americans

Between Tuesday and Friday, Russia nightly flew warplanes, including a pair of nuclear-capable Tu-95 Bear bombers, into the U.S. air defense identification zone (ADIZ). On Wednesday night, Russia flew two IL-38 anti-submarine planes into the U.S. ADIZ. On the other three nights, Russia flew the bombers. In response, U.S. and Canadian fighters intercepted the bombers on two of those nights. Russia is likely trying to intimidate President Trump and the American people on a number of issues.

In this U.S. Navy handout, a F/A-18 Hornet strike fighter intercepts one of two Russian Tu-95 Bear long rang bomber aircraft as it approached the U.S. Navy aircraft carrier USS Nimitz February 9, 2008 south of Japan. Credit: U.S. Navy via Getty Images

Earlier this month, Trump ordered a cruise missile attack on Russia’s ally, Syria, for its alleged use of chemical weapons. Trump is also threatening Russia’s ally North Korea for its nuclear weapons development. On the back-burner is the Trump Administration’s criticism of Russia’s ally China, including China’s aggressive actions on the South China Sea, East China Sea, Himalayas, Taiwan, and in support of North Korean missile development.
The Carl Vinson Carrier Strike Group, including an aircraft carrier, two destroyers and a guided missile cruiser, is currently past Indonesia and moving toward the Korean Peninsula. Some experts think Trump could launch an attack on the North’s nuclear and missile development sites if North Korea fails to make dramatic moves toward denuclearization.

Russian President Vladimir Putin (R) shakes hands with his Syrian counterpart Bashar al-Assad (L) during their meeting at the Kremlin in Moscow on October 20, 2015. Syria’s embattled President Bashar al-Assad made a surprise visit to Moscow on October 20 for talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin, his first foreign trip since the conflict erupted in 2011. Credit: ALEXEY DRUZHININ/AFP/Getty Images

The White House and Russia’s embassy in Washington sought to downplay the Russian flights. Nevertheless, they act as rare veiled nuclear threats, a form of nuclear brinkmanship last utilized by Russia against the U.S. in 2015.
Any nuclear threat must be taken seriously. The Russian flights are, above all, indicators of Russian intentions. That Russia would threaten the U.S. with nuclear weapons is a tragedy. That Russia would do so to prop up authoritarian leaders as morally bankrupt as Assad or Kim Jong Un is telling. The flights prove a lack of coordination between President Putin of Russia, and President Trump. Any hope that President Trump might have been warming to Russia to better deter China is now dashed.
Unfortunately, the nuclear-capable flights confirm that Putin cannot be trusted. As long as Russia is an autocratic country, it should never be seen as a reliable ally, even against Islamic State or China . And, Russia should be told unequivocally that America will never be intimidated. Hopefully the U.S. and allied fighter jets sent up against the Russian bombers conveyed that message.

The First Nuclear Attack Will Be In LA (Revelation 14)

Effect of Nuclear Blast at Port Would Be National

August 16, 2006|Greg Krikorian | Times Staff Writer
Two years in the making, the detailed analysis by the Rand Corp.’s Center for Terrorism Risk Management Policy paints a terrifying picture not only of the possibility of such an attack but of its immediate and long-term effects on Southern California, the nation and the global economy.
“It would be bad enough if a terrorist organization were ever able to get a nuclear device inside the boundaries of the United States,” said Michael A. Wermuth, director of Rand’s homeland security research. “But this report shows that an attack of this scale can have far-reaching implications beyond the actual point of the attack itself.”
The study examined the effects of terrorists concealing a 10-kiloton nuclear bomb in a shipping container and having the weapon explode shortly after it was unloaded onto a pier at the Port of Long Beach.
Within the first 72 hours, according to the study, the blast would “devastate a vast portion of the Los Angeles metropolitan area.”
In addition to the human casualties, the report says, the blast and subsequent fires might destroy the infrastructure and all ships in the Port of Long Beach and adjoining Port of Los Angeles, which combined comprise the nation’s busiest port of entry and handle about one-third of the nation’s imports.
If the attack led to the closure of all U.S. ports as a security measure, the report says, the ripple effect would be global since the value of imports and exports from American ports represents about 7.5% of world trade activity.
Additionally, the study says, 2 million to 3 million people might need to relocate because the nuclear fallout would contaminate a wide swath of the region. And the destruction of port area refineries, responsible for a third of the gas west of the Rockies, could create critical shortages of gasoline.
“It would take years to recover economically” from such an attack, Wermuth said. “It would take any number of years before some of the area close to ground zero could be rebuilt, and some of it would not be habitable for 20 years.”
The report is the latest to address concerns about the vulnerability of the nation’s ports nearly five years after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
Wermuth emphasized, however, that the study was not meant to predict that such an attack was likely.
Rather, he said, it was to analyze the potential consequences of a terrorist event “so all the various entities, both government and private, can see how dependent the broader economy is on a geographically specific part of the economy.”
Rep. Jane Harman (D-Venice) echoed Wermuth’s comments about the scenario.
“The report does not estimate the likelihood of such an attack,” said Harman, the ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee and a member of the Committee on Homeland Security.
But it does underscore “the need to radically improve security at our ports,” Harman said, calling the ports “a gaping hole in American security for years.”