New York City's video on how to survive a nuclear attack.

[Anomalocaris]

If you want to survive the nuke attack, then you better buy one of these apartments

a luxury armageddon refuge with interior space for rock climbing amusement for use at a time when millions of lives would undoubted be hanging on a thread is sufficiently perverse such that I would make a point of finding killing the such slim on the bottom of human gene pool after they emerge were I to also survive the nuclear holocaust.

[Anomalocaris]

Aside from anything else, the shock wave will follow the path of least resistance and flow along the surface of the ground. Any penetration will only occur under the blast itself, and even so the overcharge will remain largely atmospheric because earth is thicker than air, and energy seeks the easiest outlet.

Penetrator warheads are a thing, but they're not wasted on cities, they're spent on first-strike silos or underground C³I facilities.

The Russians have shown that they have no qualms about attacking and murdering innocent civilians.  Any thermonuclear weapons that they would decide to use would almost certainly be denoted 2 to 3 thousand feet above ground.  The hypersonic shockwave will be line-of-sight (how could it be otherwise?) which will directly impact buildings from the air but also impact them a second time an instant after reflecting off the ground.  

No doubt being on the ground would be an utterly horrible place to be, but being in any building within 10 km of detonation would almost certainly mean that the building one is in is going to collapse or be caught-up in the hellish firestorm that will soon follow.

As a side-note, I have faced some criticism in starting this thread, but I have read interviews of United States government scientists with PhDs in physics working in nuclear weapons research who openly speak of "how fulfilling & meaningful" their work is and "how much they love their jobs".  As for me, I think that nuclear weapons are absolutely horrible and should be forever banned by all nations, and would never accept any job supporting them, no matter how much it paid.  But, complete nuclear disarmament not yet being "practical" it's good to be prepared if we should be caught-up in the collective insanity of other human beings.

Finally, I think that the NYC emergency management video is not good advice; in my opinion, they should have never made it.

regarding having no qualms about attacking innocent civilians, the SIOP, single integrated operational plan, the plan, which governs how the United States would conduct itself in the case of a nuclear war, called for, in 1998, eight years after the end of the Cold War, hitting just central Moscow alone with over 150 nuclear warhead.   the outskirts of moscow would be hit by another 150 nuclear warheads, in the case of a nuclear war.    The 150 aimed at moscow outskirts is separate from another ~150 warheads aimed at a specific spot in moscow outskirts where the large director radar for the moscow ballistic missile defence, permitted under 1973 ABM treaty, is located.    

to summarize,  that is over 450 nuclear warhead on one single city in Russia.   150 aimed at a terminal ballistic missile defence system that is permitted only 100 interceptors, and over 300 aimed at the rest of the city.  if these 300 hits were distributed uniformly over moscow, no part of moscow will be more than 1 mile away from the nearest nuclear hypocenter. 

It looks like united states wishes to not only attack innocent civilians, but  to ensure no innocent civilians in moscow, however well hidden, had any significant chances of survival even by accident.

[Jehanne]

regarding having no qualms about attacking innocent civilians, the SIOP, single integrated operational plan, the plan, which governs how the United States would conduct itself in the case of a nuclear war, called for, in 1998, eight years after the end of the Cold War, to hit the just central part of Moscow alone with over 150 nuclear warhead.   the outskirts of moscow would be hit by another 150 nuclear warheads, in the case of a nuclear war.  that is over 300 nuclear warhead on one single city in Russia.   if these hits were distributed uniformly over moscow, no part of moscow will be more than 1 mile away from the nearest nuclear hypocenter. 

It looks like united states wishes to not only attack innocent civilians, but  to ensure no innocent civilians, however well hidden, had any significant chances of survival even by accident.

Absolutely and utterly despicable; in fact, pure evil. Does not matter if such is the "product" of Western democracy.

[Anomalocaris]

regarding having no qualms about attacking innocent civilians, the SIOP, single integrated operational plan, the plan, which governs how the United States would conduct itself in the case of a nuclear war, called for, in 1998, eight years after the end of the Cold War, to hit the just central part of Moscow alone with over 150 nuclear warhead.   the outskirts of moscow would be hit by another 150 nuclear warheads, in the case of a nuclear war.  that is over 300 nuclear warhead on one single city in Russia.   if these hits were distributed uniformly over moscow, no part of moscow will be more than 1 mile away from the nearest nuclear hypocenter. 

It looks like united states wishes to not only attack innocent civilians, but  to ensure no innocent civilians, however well hidden, had any significant chances of survival even by accident.

Absolutely and utterly despicable; in fact, pure evil.  Does not matter if such is the "product" of Western democracy.

Democracy is not intrinsically significantly inclined towards greater morality in collective behavior, by any definition of morality other than the vapid equating of morality to democracy itself.    it just more effectively eliminate any single figurehead to blame for the collective immorality it affects.

[Thumpalumpacus]

It has nothing to do with democracy at all.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

It has nothing to do with democracy at all.

Well, ensuring that all citizens of Moscow would be incinerated equally, with no favouritism regarding ethnicity, social status, or economic position, it seems pretty goddam democratic to me.

Boru

[Thumpalumpacus]

It has nothing to do with democracy at all.

Well, ensuring that all citizens of Moscow would be incinerated equally, with no favouritism regarding ethnicity, social status, or economic position, it seems pretty goddam democratic to me.

Boru

That's egalitarian.

[Jehanne]

Well, ensuring that all citizens of Moscow would be incinerated equally, with no favouritism regarding ethnicity, social status, or economic position, it seems pretty goddam democratic to me.

Boru

That's egalitarian.

Even the Nazis did not go that far, sparing some Jews so that they could at least labor for the Reich under miserable conditions.

[Anomalocaris]

nazis absolutely meant to go that far, but lacked time and ability.   and they didn’t mean to go that far with only the jews, gypsies and slavs were also to be eradicated, but there were way more slavs than jews.   So they had a fully worked out, 20 year step by step plan to deal with the larger problem called Generalplan Ost.

[Angrboda]

It has nothing to do with democracy at all.

Well, ensuring that all citizens of Moscow would be incinerated equally, with no favouritism regarding ethnicity, social status, or economic position, it seems pretty goddam democratic to me.

Boru