[Serious] Nuclear war survival guide.

[Anomalocaris]

In most cases, the ideal use of a nuclear weapon for maximum destruction involves an air burst, which has a lot less fall out, but a wider radius of destruction, depending on the altitude. People who don't live near a military base, missile silo, or major city would likely be in no immediate danger from the burst or fallout (unless the air currents have it out for them). It could be impossible to sustain a nationwide government in the aftermath of 10% or more of the population dying and massive infrastructure damage in a very short timeframe.

unfortunately a limited nuclear counterforce strike will likely consist primarily of ground bursts against hardened targets such as missile silos and underground command posts, which are targets that can not be destroyed by an air burst and which tend to be located well away from population centers.   So a limited nuclear war will likely kill civilians primarily by fall out.


But looking forward in time, US withdraw from the anti ballistic missile test and deployment of ballistic missile defence driven Russian and Chinese interest  in unorthodox delivery methods originally considered in the 1950s which remains almost impossible to intercept but which have no ability to access strategic weapon sites deep inland in enemy territory.   so these weapon would return focus to counter value against coastal urban targets.    They use enhanced fallout as its primary means of inflicting damage inland, not as byproduct of ground burst against targets on the coast,.   One example is russian deployment of nuclear powered unmanned miniature submarine that carried a massive 50-100MT warhead.  the submarine’s size abs low speed means it is all but impossible to detect.    it is meant to sail near enemy coast and detonate underwater, throwing up enormous cloud of radioactive water that will disperse down wind leaving a 1000 mile long lethal fallout tail.   if such a weapon is denoted off new york, the area of leath al fallout will reach miami.

So we may see a return from counterforce doctrine that focus nuclear attacks on military targets that the the US and USSR adopted in 1970s and which remain central to their doctrine, to the earlier counter value doctrine that focus on attack against civilian population areas prevalent in 1950s and 1960.    So it is reasonable to suppose by the end of this decade, the mix of threats from nuclear weapons faced by Americans will change.    Major costal population centers, such as New York and Los Angeles will not much more likely be directly attacked by very high yield warheads delivered by unmanned suicide submarines.  Blast would well return as a major civilian killer.     Such weapons can’t go inland, so they are designed to deliver massive fallout against inland largest beyond their blast range, because they are counter value and not counter force.   So outside of the coastal areas, areas that previously would have largely been free from threat of fallout due to their relative position with respect to missile silos and other targets that would have received a counter force attack, will now also be susceptible to to fallout from weapons that deteonate in different locations off the coast and designed to deliver enhanced fallout. 

I think we are seeing America’s ballistic missile defence, as well as american led afford to nullify the credibility of existing Russian nuclear deterrence, which led to the current conflict in Ukraine, is now clearly on track to making nuclear war both more likely and more lethal for the US.