If a nuke was launched at you because WW3 started. What would you do with your final hours of life?

[Refraction75]

Interesting. I've been thinking about what will cause the power grid to go out in this country.

I think that if this happens in Ukraine or in Taiwan this year, Then the grid out scenario is almost certainly going to happen in this country from those same hands. That's what I think FWIW

It was reported that Russia hackers attacked simultaneously while sending in their troops. Is this the only thing they reportedly attacked was the power grid? Seems like the internet and phone system still work....

[kittycat51]

If time permitted, pray and ask God for forgiveness one last time, and eat everything I’m not allowed to because of health issues. Gathering my children would be tough because we deal with in-laws. Who’s to say they would rather be with us instead of their spouses families? But I would certainly call if possible telling them I love them. Perhaps I would play “Kool and the Gangs” Celebrate. This is a joke of course. I’ve often told my spouse and kids that when I die and they are following behind my casket, as they walk up the aisles of the church I wanted “Celebrate” to be played. They were to dance up the aisles instead of being sad sacks.

[NeveR]

Interesting. I've been thinking about what will cause the power grid to go out in this country.

I think that if this happens in Ukraine or in Taiwan this year, Then the grid out scenario is almost certainly going to happen in this country from those same hands. That's what I think FWIW

It was reported that Russia hackers attacked simultaneously while sending in their troops. Is this the only thing they reportedly attacked was the power grid? Seems like the internet and phone system still work....

Tons of stuff us getting reported. How much is true in anyone's guess. Could be as low as none.

[LateOutOfBed]

Hey I admit I have no actual clue how long it would take for a nuclear strike to arrive. Thanks for correcting me and sharing your information.

Do you believe our government can intercept most nuclear missles if launched?

I honestly haven't been in the missile career field, and haven't been involved with our intercepting capabilities from the military side of things and I'm unable to answer that question with accuracy. I did, however, work at a company called Orbital Sciences after leaving active duty and was on a program called Kinetic Energy Interceptors which was a small light weight rocket designed to take out ICBMs in boost phase. My understanding is that once the ICBMs are super sonic speeds it's extremely hard to intercept. But this tech would have to be deployed fairly close to the launch site (so, may work to thwart sub-launched attacks?)... thus, unless we have this kind of tech close, I do believe it would be difficult to intercept every rocket fired if there were a significant number launched. Perhaps that is why Obama era created the "absorb first strike" doctrine? (i.e. don't shoot it down, take one first before retaliating with everything? - seems folly approach to me).

-- Geoff

[EmmaLee]

Hey I admit I have no actual clue how long it would take for a nuclear strike to arrive. Thanks for correcting me and sharing your information.

Do you believe our government can intercept most nuclear missles if launched?

I honestly haven't been in the missile career field, and haven't been involved with our intercepting capabilities from the military side of things and I'm unable to answer that question with accuracy. I did, however, work at a company called Orbital Sciences after leaving active duty and was on a program called Kinetic Energy Interceptors which was a small light weight rocket designed to take out ICBMs in boost phase. My understanding is that once the ICBMs are super sonic speeds it's extremely hard to intercept. But this tech would have to be deployed fairly close to the launch site (so, may work to thwart sub-launched attacks?)... thus, unless we have this kind of tech close, I do believe it would be difficult to intercept every rocket fired if there were a significant number launched. Perhaps that is why Obama era created the "absorb first strike" doctrine? (i.e. don't shoot it down, take one first before retaliating with everything? - seems folly approach to me).

-- Geoff

As horrific as Obama is, it was the equally horrific Bill Clinton who created this "absorb a first strike" PDD in 1997.

[LateOutOfBed]

As horrific as Obama is, it was Bill Clinton who created this "absorb a first strike" PDD in 1997.

I stand corrected, you are absolutely correct. Don't know why I temporarily thought it was Obama. Thanks!

[iWriteStuff]

These are hypersonic weapons capable of traveling thousands of miles an hour now... so likely it would hit before you knew it was even fired.

https://missiledefenseadvocacy.org/miss ... -missiles/

[Subcomandante]

I would be like, "Now why would anyone waste a bomb on Mexico?"

After asking that question, yes, stop whatever it is that I am doing and then huddle up with my family and pray together that the survivors will be able to be wiser than we had been.

Dodgy guidance systems maybe? Places like San Diego and LA are near enough to Mexico that anything aimed at there could go potentially cross the border.

If I lived in Tijuana or perhaps even Mexicali, that could be a potential problem. But close to Mexico City?

[dreamtheater76]

So would I. Get out the E.L. Fudge and pull a whole milk out of the fridge. Forget the Top Ramen and all the dehydrated junk.

[larsenb]

Final hours?
Apparently we would only get a 4 minute warning here.
Just enough time to send a WhatsApp message out to all of my children.

That's about right. Very little of the UK which would be safe to be in. Maybe some parts of the Highlands, but even then... about a quarter to a third of the Highlands will be in the fall out zone for Glasgow and Faslane nuclear sub base. Aberdeen, possibly Inverness, and a string of RAF installations may also be attacked.

The other "remote" areas are all too near targets -Plymouth and Bristol will affect the West Country, rural Wales is near Milford Haven and the Midlands. Most of northern England and southern Scotland is near enough major settlements/facilities to be in trouble. Southern England will be a wasteland. Belfast will likely be a target too affecting south west Scotland and much of NI.

We'd both be toast where we are. Best thing we can do is be right with God.

I'm w/Joel Skousen on the idea that any nuclear attack (from Russia, at least) would focus on military and similar targets, not population centers. Why destroy so much infrastructure?

[XEmilyX]

I would airbend the nuke back at them.

[HereWeGo]

"Final Hours"? How long do you think it takes an ICBM to get to your place? When I was a young Lieutenant, I worked at Cheyenne Mountain Air Force Station with NORAD. I can't say how long they expect it to take for ICBMs to travel from Russia/China to the US mainland... but hours is an exaggeration. Now if it's a sea launch, it's even shorter. So, the moment I hear a nuke is heading my way, I'll quietly thank the Lord in prayer for the time I've had here and await my demise.

-- Geoff

Edit: I was a Crew Commander that managed and monitored the systems that tracked the Early Warning Missile/Air/Space defense mission capabilities. Whenever any missile launch went off anywhere in the world, I knew VERY quickly when and where it took place, and was on the NORAD Command Center calls that would "analyze" trajectory and threat and timing of impact. Was a pretty cool assignment.

Geoff, with your experience, do you think that the government would really alert the citizens? I have the feeling they would remain silent.

[harakim]

We have a member locally who says he has a friend in "intelligence" - who in turn said the following: Last week there was a Russian Submarine with nuclear weapons which our country cannot track if it is deeply submerged. (Is that part true?)
This sub surfaced in the Gulf of Mexico for long enough to be seen visually, then it re-submerged and its location was lost.

Is this feasible - or nonsense?

Someone who has obtain a security clearance is not going to go blabbing about things. They would be more likely to advise you, ex "You have until March 28 to live" than pass on raw-ish intelligence "Russian ICBMs are moving to Belarus".

[LateOutOfBed]

Geoff, with your experience, do you think that the government would really alert the citizens? I have the feeling they would remain silent.

I honestly don't know, even if they did alert the citenzry it wouldn't be in enough time to react to do much of anything before bright flashes and mushroom clouds are seen. Maybe go outside and watch for plumes? They do have the national emergency system they could use, however, that's assuming it isn't taken out by a High Altitude EMP hit first. I think an attempt would be made, but won't help much.

[LateOutOfBed]

I'm w/Joel Skousen on the idea that any nuclear attack (from Russia, at least) would focus on military and similar targets, not population centers. Why destroy so much infrastructure?

I believe you are correct. Isiaiah supports this saying that after the cleansing the cities are repopulated. Can't repopulate a barren, nuclear wasteland. Well, I guess you could because of God and all, but then why would Isaiah say they'd refill the barren cities? Also, watching the developments in Ukraine, Putin is fighting VERY differently than America fights wars. America goes in "shock and awe" kills anything that fights back, gains air superiority very rapidly, destroys a lot of key infrastructure and plans to "rebuild" it all. Putin isn't doing that... he's fighting a long game here, and actually looking like a modern day "siege". Keep the infrastructure, starve the people until they are willing to quit figthing. If this develops into WWIII, I think China will have a bigger role (via NK as a proxy). Now, NK may throw a few wild nukes out and destroy Hawaii and/or Guam, allowing China to get close to the West Coast more easily... dunno. Sure is interesting to watch this play out.

[762X545]

"Final Hours"? How long do you think it takes an ICBM to get to your place? When I was a young Lieutenant, I worked at Cheyenne Mountain Air Force Station with NORAD. I can't say how long they expect it to take for ICBMs to travel from Russia/China to the US mainland... but hours is an exaggeration. Now if it's a sea launch, it's even shorter. So, the moment I hear a nuke is heading my way, I'll quietly thank the Lord in prayer for the time I've had here and await my demise.

-- Geoff

Edit: I was a Crew Commander that managed and monitored the systems that tracked the Early Warning Missile/Air/Space defense mission capabilities. Whenever any missile launch went off anywhere in the world, I knew VERY quickly when and where it took place, and was on the NORAD Command Center calls that would "analyze" trajectory and threat and timing of impact. Was a pretty cool assignment.

We have a member locally who says he has a friend in "intelligence" - who in turn said the following: Last week there was a Russian Submarine with nuclear weapons which our country cannot track if it is deeply submerged. (Is that part true?)
This sub surfaced in the Gulf of Mexico for long enough to be seen visually, then it re-submerged and its location was lost.

Is this feasible - or nonsense?

I was an engineer in the AF and was able to "inspect," a lot of the Soviet aircraft after the fall of the USSR. For the most part Russian aircraft are overbuilt compared to US aircraft. US planes are built with a scalpel and can't handle much damage. Soviet aircraft were built with sledge hammers and are amazingly rugged. That being said they are decades behind American technology except...their submarines. While I don't know crap about submarines I did develop a good friendship with a former Soviet engineer who often stated how "Russian aircraft are absolute garbage. Our ships are even worse. But our submarines we're well beyond what you (the US) has." It's a matter of priorities. The US is a huge believer in airpower. The Russians viewed airpower as a necessary evil yet submarines were viewed as a deep and beloved tradition and symbol of Russia's power.

[Refraction75]

"Final Hours"? How long do you think it takes an ICBM to get to your place? When I was a young Lieutenant, I worked at Cheyenne Mountain Air Force Station with NORAD. I can't say how long they expect it to take for ICBMs to travel from Russia/China to the US mainland... but hours is an exaggeration. Now if it's a sea launch, it's even shorter. So, the moment I hear a nuke is heading my way, I'll quietly thank the Lord in prayer for the time I've had here and await my demise.

-- Geoff

Edit: I was a Crew Commander that managed and monitored the systems that tracked the Early Warning Missile/Air/Space defense mission capabilities. Whenever any missile launch went off anywhere in the world, I knew VERY quickly when and where it took place, and was on the NORAD Command Center calls that would "analyze" trajectory and threat and timing of impact. Was a pretty cool assignment.

We have a member locally who says he has a friend in "intelligence" - who in turn said the following: Last week there was a Russian Submarine with nuclear weapons which our country cannot track if it is deeply submerged. (Is that part true?)
This sub surfaced in the Gulf of Mexico for long enough to be seen visually, then it re-submerged and its location was lost.

Is this feasible - or nonsense?

I was an engineer in the AF and was able to "inspect," a lot of the Soviet aircraft after the fall of the USSR. For the most part Russian aircraft are overbuilt compared to US aircraft. US planes are built with a scalpel and can't handle much damage. Soviet aircraft were built with sledge hammers and are amazingly rugged. That being said they are decades behind American technology except...their submarines. While I don't know crap about submarines I did develop a good friendship with a former Soviet engineer who often stated how "Russian aircraft are absolute garbage. Our ships are even worse. But our submarines we're well beyond what you (the US) has." It's a matter of priorities. The US is a huge believer in airpower. The Russians viewed airpower as a necessary evil yet submarines were viewed as a deep and beloved tradition and symbol of Russia's power.

Yeah it's the submarines that are scary because they can carry the nuclear warhead payloads.

[Refraction75]

Geoff, with your experience, do you think that the government would really alert the citizens? I have the feeling they would remain silent.

I honestly don't know, even if they did alert the citenzry it wouldn't be in enough time to react to do much of anything before bright flashes and mushroom clouds are seen. Maybe go outside and watch for plumes? They do have the national emergency system they could use, however, that's assuming it isn't taken out by a High Altitude EMP hit first. I think an attempt would be made, but won't help much.

I would hope that our national government would report a nuclear attack. I realize though if it is being launched by submarines. There probably wouldn't be much of any notification time... let alone guessing the target area.

[TheDuke]

If a nuke attack was launched, it would be wise to get away. The (old SIOP anyway) was layered and some targets his within minutes by subs, then more a bit later with ICBMs, then hours or next day with bombers. Depending on the retaliation they may or may not get to the later rounds, and most of their nukes would likely miss and get the folks in the rural areas anyway, they don't maintain them all that well (didn't anyway). So, I'd act like I had time to get and go some where away from as much as possible and pray in the car I guess.

But, I don't think anyone would launch a major nuke attack. Not saying a small one might happen some time. But, the retaliation is too great, and likely those with the triggers wouldn't press them unless things were desperate back home before the call came in. I spent a while in missile silos, and I don't think even our best and brightest would launch without confirmed and long and hostile lead up to it. People are more like Denzel than Gene Hackman (Crimson Tide) in my experience and I'd bet with the Russians as well.

With ICBM's you launch, you get hit, you wait, maybe nothing comes back. If you're in a tanker, fly to Fiji and let the bombers sort it out for themselves if your base gets hit, you remarry, if not you come home later. If you're in a bomber, by the time you get there, everyone is pissed, so fly to Fiji instead, throw the nukes in the sea, and assume the ICBM's did the trick. If in doubt about what to do just fly to Fiji. At least that was the plan of everyone I knew that was trained in flying nukes. (not really, some wanted other remote islands, ever crewmember cannot live on Fiji).

[I Dont Know...]

...without trying to sound too deluded ( an almost impossible task)...I would put on some soul music...blow up some balloons, pop some party poppers, pray with my family and give thanks to the Lord for all this life, has provided me with...and hope the bomb falls directly onto my house...

While I am not afraid of death, or even how it comes...I am however concerned with the fear and panic and the emotional turmoil it would cause to my family...so for their sake I would pray for a swift end...

Sounds a little dramatic...but not to me...

...bearing in mind this is just a bit of conjecture and banter at this point...

[Niemand]

"Final Hours"? How long do you think it takes an ICBM to get to your place? When I was a young Lieutenant, I worked at Cheyenne Mountain Air Force Station with NORAD. I can't say how long they expect it to take for ICBMs to travel from Russia/China to the US mainland... but hours is an exaggeration. Now if it's a sea launch, it's even shorter. So, the moment I hear a nuke is heading my way, I'll quietly thank the Lord in prayer for the time I've had here and await my demise.

-- Geoff

Edit: I was a Crew Commander that managed and monitored the systems that tracked the Early Warning Missile/Air/Space defense mission capabilities. Whenever any missile launch went off anywhere in the world, I knew VERY quickly when and where it took place, and was on the NORAD Command Center calls that would "analyze" trajectory and threat and timing of impact. Was a pretty cool assignment.

We have a member locally who says he has a friend in "intelligence" - who in turn said the following: Last week there was a Russian Submarine with nuclear weapons which our country cannot track if it is deeply submerged. (Is that part true?)
This sub surfaced in the Gulf of Mexico for long enough to be seen visually, then it re-submerged and its location was lost.

Is this feasible - or nonsense?

I was an engineer in the AF and was able to "inspect," a lot of the Soviet aircraft after the fall of the USSR. For the most part Russian aircraft are overbuilt compared to US aircraft. US planes are built with a scalpel and can't handle much damage. Soviet aircraft were built with sledge hammers and are amazingly rugged. That being said they are decades behind American technology except...their submarines. While I don't know crap about submarines I did develop a good friendship with a former Soviet engineer who often stated how "Russian aircraft are absolute garbage. Our ships are even worse. But our submarines we're well beyond what you (the US) has." It's a matter of priorities. The US is a huge believer in airpower. The Russians viewed airpower as a necessary evil yet submarines were viewed as a deep and beloved tradition and symbol of Russia's power.

There are a couple of good reasons for that from their point of view. The first obvious one is that Russia (and the USSR) may have been the biggest country in the world, but it was effectively landlocked, with its long northern coast mostly frozen, and apart from the far east, its other coasts are on inland seas - the Baltic, Black Sea and Caspian. Submarines work well under frozen seas.

They inherited some of this tech from the Germans, who suffered from the same military disadvantage of few ports and short (useful) coasts so concentrated on developing U-boats.

[Niemand]

"Final Hours"? How long do you think it takes an ICBM to get to your place? When I was a young Lieutenant, I worked at Cheyenne Mountain Air Force Station with NORAD. I can't say how long they expect it to take for ICBMs to travel from Russia/China to the US mainland... but hours is an exaggeration. Now if it's a sea launch, it's even shorter. So, the moment I hear a nuke is heading my way, I'll quietly thank the Lord in prayer for the time I've had here and await my demise.

-- Geoff

Edit: I was a Crew Commander that managed and monitored the systems that tracked the Early Warning Missile/Air/Space defense mission capabilities. Whenever any missile launch went off anywhere in the world, I knew VERY quickly when and where it took place, and was on the NORAD Command Center calls that would "analyze" trajectory and threat and timing of impact. Was a pretty cool assignment.

We have a member locally who says he has a friend in "intelligence" - who in turn said the following: Last week there was a Russian Submarine with nuclear weapons which our country cannot track if it is deeply submerged. (Is that part true?)
This sub surfaced in the Gulf of Mexico for long enough to be seen visually, then it re-submerged and its location was lost.

Is this feasible - or nonsense?

I was an engineer in the AF and was able to "inspect," a lot of the Soviet aircraft after the fall of the USSR. For the most part Russian aircraft are overbuilt compared to US aircraft. US planes are built with a scalpel and can't handle much damage. Soviet aircraft were built with sledge hammers and are amazingly rugged. That being said they are decades behind American technology except...their submarines. While I don't know crap about submarines I did develop a good friendship with a former Soviet engineer who often stated how "Russian aircraft are absolute garbage. Our ships are even worse. But our submarines we're well beyond what you (the US) has." It's a matter of priorities. The US is a huge believer in airpower. The Russians viewed airpower as a necessary evil yet submarines were viewed as a deep and beloved tradition and symbol of Russia's power.

Saw an interesting documentary years ago about the Vietnam War and one of the advantages the Viet Cong had was using AK47s. AK47's can be built easily and churned out of Soviet factories- or third world ones. Some of them were hidden under water or oil for six months and then retrieved, they could take being bashed about etc, yet supposedly the AK47 was more primitive and had been developed towards the end of WW2. The AK47 was the guerillas' weapon of choice.

The Americans' M16 was better engineered supposedly, and was developed almost twenty years after the AK47. But apparently, it overheated and jammed regularly and broke far more easily.

So the AK47 was supposedly the cheaper and more primitive version, but was more effective. A similar issue happened with German vs Soviet tanks in WW2 - the Soviet ones broke down more regularly, but could be repaired easily. The German ones supposedly had a superior design but were overengineered. The Soviet ones were being churned out of former tractor factories... guess who won the tank battles?