DarkRange55
Enlightened
- Oct 15, 2023
- 1,493
I know for many of you, you would not opt for shelter… but food for thought!
Some of the US governments big bunkers are in: Blue Ridge Mountains (Mt. Weather, Raven Rock), Colorado Springs, (NORAD), Omaha (Nebraska), Groom Lake (Area 51), ect.
Massive government bunkers on the west coast might be easier to hit from sea-launched attacks. The West Coast is easier for submarines to get close to, so there is less warning than for a bunker in the inland mountains. The West Coast is less busy, with the traffic concentrated at a few ports and going straight in and out, rather than along the coast. Closer proximity to Russia and China. For the East Coast I guess the Russian Federation would have to deploy through the GIUK Gap which has been continuously monitored by a chain of underwater listenings posts. And then sale across some of the world's busiest seaways.
The comment on the West Coast was relative to inland, not relative to the East Coast. The coasts are all vulnerable to submarine-based attacks with little warning and little chance to intercept.
Missouri is not ideal, but how off depends on which doomsdaythreat. The Ozarks region has a lot of tunnel networks, but I was just thinking that they are very prone to harsh weather - Missouri isn't remote enough for a nuclear apocalypse no, also near big 1811 earthquake.
- oroville has better prevailing winds, and a nice lake to enjoy when not in the bunker.
Destroyed land-launched missile debris would tend to fall in northern Canada (although much of it continues on close to its original trajectory until it reenters the atmosphere). However, the materials in a bomb are not that radioactive until the bomb has gone off, so the amount of fallout in northern Canada would tend to be small (compared to downwind from an actual nuclear explosion)
Bouvet Island is in a very stormy part of the world's oceans, so you need a good sailing team. Plus you need good facilities on the mainland.
60 miles north of Aruba is a reasonable place. The two biggest hazards would be pirates, and Mega Tsunami (either from asteroid impact, or from a landslide in the Canary Islands).
While in ordinary life a hurricane is a much more likely disaster than an asteroid strike, a doomsday shelter could be hurricane-proof.
Ireland is probably the best place in Europe – reasonable climate for growing food as well as upwind from all reasonable targets.
Switzerland would get fallout and is not as good for growing food.
British Columbia has sime very nice region on the coast, including Vancouver Island – good growing territory without a huge population.
Brazil is either nasty jungle or crowded, and the nice areas of Africa have people in them.
West Virginia has some nice sheltered valleys, some which have enough streamflow for hydropower. But it is a little close to the Washington DC Metro area, and it is more crowded than some of the Western areas. But it is pretty good as East Coast areas go.
In the dryer parts of South America and Africa, most water sources are already claimed by people that might not want to share. South America east of the Andes is steaming jungle, and west of the Andes it is very dry until you get to quite high altitude. Upland Peru is very high altitude – the train to Cusco goes through a pass in the low range of mountains that is higher than the top of mount Rainier. Further south in South America are some quite nice areas. I really like the lakes region of Chile and Argentina. I was thinking specifically of the area around Bariloche, which is indeed on the mountainous border. The southern tip of South America is pretty safe, but is not a pleasant place to live – cold, rainy and windy, and not an easy place to grow food.
In the southern hemisphere, I would want a decent amount of rainfall. I would want wind across a big ocean like the Pacific rather than from a likely to be bombed landmass. Ocean currents are less important than wind, but fish will be cleaner when the current carries the water a long way from the nearest contaminated shore.
Northern cal near oregon border – enough inland to be free from tsunamis, but not as far inland as the volcanoes. Yes to no major targets and favorable wind patterns. The climate is a bit gloomy in the winter but not bad and not cold, there is plenty of wood for heating and plenty of water for growing food (there are occasional floods but the landscape is built to take them)..
Volcanoes in southern Oregon/Northern California are potential problem, but the wind usually blows to from the west, so the land of the West volcanoes is generally safe.
Northeastern Washington would not be safe if Hanford were attacked. Northeast Washington would be likely to receive follow-up from an attack on Puget Sound, which is why I would prefer areas that are further south and closer to the coast and just inland far enough to avoid tsunami risk. Northeastern Washington is good, as long as you are north and not west of Hannaford. Lakefront in Oroville would be pretty hard to beat - mellow climate, and easy access to water. Farther east in Washington gets colder.
Rocky Mountains have snowstorms and avalanches and flash floods.
Great American Southwest: fewer earthquakes but deserts have droughts and heat, and it is much harder to hack cooling than to hack heating. Rattlesnakes and scorpions.
Israel might be ground zero for nuclear weapons.
For a doomsday scenario, it is much easier to stockpile ammunition than to set up a big factory to make it. Making ammunition might be useful if the war is still going on...
Northern Michigan and Maine would be reasonable places to wait out the worst while subsisting on hunting, gathering and potatoes, but then migrate south.
The oceans would be much less affected because the depth of the oceans dilutes the fallout to a very great extent. A deep cave, however, would have very higher pressure if under the ocean.
Even a few hundred meters of water will give you very good protection. Although the initial shockwave might crush a submarine if it were right under a detonation .
Air Force One would be fine if the blasts are on the far side of the earth, but if you're flying right over a blast you are doomed.
"What is the best defense against a punch? Be somewhere else when punch is thrown". No earth-based shelter that I know of would survive a planet-killer asteroid strike, although perhaps one could survive one the size that wiped out the dinosaurs… So let's get some space colonies established!
A commercial reverse osmosis system would do pretty well at removing pollution. It would not, however, remove radioactive tritium from the water, so the reference to "all forms" is not quite true.
In the southern hemisphere, I would want a decent amount of rainfall.
I would want wind across a big ocean like the Pacific rather than from a likely to be bombed landmass. Ocean currents are less important than wind, but fish will be cleaner when the current carries the water a long way from the nearest contaminated shore.
Mountain range would provide modest protection from a blast, but the wind determines fallout patterns.
Modern nuclear power plant can't explode like a nuclear bomb, but it can have a steam explosion or hydrogen explosion which can scatter radioactive debris. A nuclear bomb on a nuclear plant would be one heck of a radioactive mess, but it doesn't take a nuclear bomb. While the reactor itself is well protected by a thick concrete dome, the spent fuel pools are usually relatively unprotected and have more total radioactivity, and an ordinary explosion in them could spread the radioactivity widely.
It is a lot harder to be self-sufficient in a colder climate like Scotland (and if the Gulfstream stops, those glacial valleys in Scotland will have glaciers in them again). The South Pacific would tend to be very safe, but not a great place to restart an entire civilization (although New Zealand is probably big enough).
Both biological and nuclear warfare could be humanity-ending, but nuclear warfare is at least likely to leave pockets of people alive. Biological warfare is more likely to be controlled, but if it gets totally out of hand it could be game over.
Undersea I worry about pressure (each 10 m adds one atmosphere) and I worry about getting back to the surface if something goes wrong.
Mines are generally more stable in earthquakes. There is not a whole lot of data on subterranean structures in relation to stability under earthquakes.
Nuclear winter is a question of degree – from what I have read, an exchange between India and Pakistan could produce a significant nuclear winter.
Probably not an Ice Age, but a few years of nuclear winter would be worldwide.
The 2011 Japanese earthquake released roughly 100 times as much energy as all explosives of World War II. (Several hundred megatons versus a few megatons). Yes, that makes it very difficult to make an earthquake proof bunker for bigger earthquakes. The problem is not the bunker itself, but access to the surface from the bunker.
I don't know of any place that is completely free of earthquakes, and an asteroid can strike you wherever you are.
The Cheyenne Mountain Complex would not survive a massive comet or asteroid impact that hit anything close near directly. Probably anything bigger than 100 m would take it out.
Off-shore oil platform in nuclear war:
Some rigs are as far as 270 miles from the closest land mass. They generate their own power from turbines that are piped into natural gas lines. Most platforms have a food supply to handle 40+ operators for 2-3 weeks at a time. Fishing is plentiful since fish tend to hang around platforms that have become part of the ecosystem throughout the years. Plus if something goes wrong there are fast rescue boats that hold enough fuel to travel to an adjacent platform. It's not practiced in the Gulf as far as I know, but some platforms around Israel have defense systems mounted to deter terrorist attacks. Power source = water source. I'd imagine they have desalinization capabilities. True, radiation would have an effect on sea life, but the Gulf has a few things going for it (I have absolutely no idea if these would be a benefit). There is a pretty heavy loop current that rings around the outer limits of the Gulf of Mexico. This prevents items from floating out to the middle of the water body. If you were to drop something off the coast of Florida, it would most likely end up around Corpus Christi, TX. In theory, this seems like it would help contain the contaminated water in a loop. (Again, this may be idiotic thinking on my part). Combine this with being 270 miles from the closest land mass (even further from viable bombing options) and 8,000' of water, then the risk of contamination would seem lower. Rigs are designed to withstand heavy current and high waves. If they weren't, they would never survive hurricane season or the rip current in the Gulf of Mexico. When Rita and Gustav rolled through in 2008, the wave radar on our platform recorded 75' waves before the sensors faulted. BP's platform "Thunderhorse" took a direct hit from Hurricane Dennis in 2005. It listed to a 20 degree angle, but did not sink. It was discovered that the list was due to a construction error, rather than the storm itself. It took a direct hit from Katrina 6 weeks later and sustained no damage. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunder_Horse_Oil_Field
Energy infrastructure is a probable target. It doesn't seem likely that deep water platforms would be viable targets. They require 25+ people that understand the operations to maintain production. It would serve no purpose to maintain them if the land facilities were not in production, so destruction for the sake of collateral damage wouldn't really serve a purpose. Plus there are over 3,000 platforms in the gulf. That would make it difficult for an army to take over platforms to man for production at a later date. Especially since the sub-sea flow lines are like a road map that require other platforms to be online to allow flow. They may or may not not be targeted by nuclear weapons but they would potentially be targets for naval ships and conventional weapons. There's also quite a few factors that would deter the destruction of every rig. Ownership is a big one. Not every platform in the GoM is owned by the U.S. You start blowing up other countries assets, they are going to retaliate. Not everyone has nuclear capabilities, but there's going to be a hornets nest of countries with conventional means of retaliation.
Location is another factor. You want to send your Navy to the North Sea to wipe out non military assets that give you no tactical advantage? Go right ahead. Another is the Navy itself. The top 5 Navy's in the world are 1. United States 2. China 3. Russia 4. United Kingdom 5. Japan. If it's a US/Russia WWIII, this wouldn't be a smart ploy for them.
A good temporary days to a few months) haven, but would quickly seem cramped.
So now you have to run an oil well in one of the roughest territories on earth as well as hydroponics powered by artificial light in the winter. It might be a safe place to write out the worst of a short-term situation, but for long term, no, it is best to live in a place that you would want to live in.
Some of the US governments big bunkers are in: Blue Ridge Mountains (Mt. Weather, Raven Rock), Colorado Springs, (NORAD), Omaha (Nebraska), Groom Lake (Area 51), ect.
Massive government bunkers on the west coast might be easier to hit from sea-launched attacks. The West Coast is easier for submarines to get close to, so there is less warning than for a bunker in the inland mountains. The West Coast is less busy, with the traffic concentrated at a few ports and going straight in and out, rather than along the coast. Closer proximity to Russia and China. For the East Coast I guess the Russian Federation would have to deploy through the GIUK Gap which has been continuously monitored by a chain of underwater listenings posts. And then sale across some of the world's busiest seaways.
The comment on the West Coast was relative to inland, not relative to the East Coast. The coasts are all vulnerable to submarine-based attacks with little warning and little chance to intercept.
Missouri is not ideal, but how off depends on which doomsdaythreat. The Ozarks region has a lot of tunnel networks, but I was just thinking that they are very prone to harsh weather - Missouri isn't remote enough for a nuclear apocalypse no, also near big 1811 earthquake.
- oroville has better prevailing winds, and a nice lake to enjoy when not in the bunker.
Destroyed land-launched missile debris would tend to fall in northern Canada (although much of it continues on close to its original trajectory until it reenters the atmosphere). However, the materials in a bomb are not that radioactive until the bomb has gone off, so the amount of fallout in northern Canada would tend to be small (compared to downwind from an actual nuclear explosion)
Bouvet Island is in a very stormy part of the world's oceans, so you need a good sailing team. Plus you need good facilities on the mainland.
60 miles north of Aruba is a reasonable place. The two biggest hazards would be pirates, and Mega Tsunami (either from asteroid impact, or from a landslide in the Canary Islands).
While in ordinary life a hurricane is a much more likely disaster than an asteroid strike, a doomsday shelter could be hurricane-proof.
Ireland is probably the best place in Europe – reasonable climate for growing food as well as upwind from all reasonable targets.
Switzerland would get fallout and is not as good for growing food.
British Columbia has sime very nice region on the coast, including Vancouver Island – good growing territory without a huge population.
Brazil is either nasty jungle or crowded, and the nice areas of Africa have people in them.
West Virginia has some nice sheltered valleys, some which have enough streamflow for hydropower. But it is a little close to the Washington DC Metro area, and it is more crowded than some of the Western areas. But it is pretty good as East Coast areas go.
In the dryer parts of South America and Africa, most water sources are already claimed by people that might not want to share. South America east of the Andes is steaming jungle, and west of the Andes it is very dry until you get to quite high altitude. Upland Peru is very high altitude – the train to Cusco goes through a pass in the low range of mountains that is higher than the top of mount Rainier. Further south in South America are some quite nice areas. I really like the lakes region of Chile and Argentina. I was thinking specifically of the area around Bariloche, which is indeed on the mountainous border. The southern tip of South America is pretty safe, but is not a pleasant place to live – cold, rainy and windy, and not an easy place to grow food.
In the southern hemisphere, I would want a decent amount of rainfall. I would want wind across a big ocean like the Pacific rather than from a likely to be bombed landmass. Ocean currents are less important than wind, but fish will be cleaner when the current carries the water a long way from the nearest contaminated shore.
Northern cal near oregon border – enough inland to be free from tsunamis, but not as far inland as the volcanoes. Yes to no major targets and favorable wind patterns. The climate is a bit gloomy in the winter but not bad and not cold, there is plenty of wood for heating and plenty of water for growing food (there are occasional floods but the landscape is built to take them)..
Volcanoes in southern Oregon/Northern California are potential problem, but the wind usually blows to from the west, so the land of the West volcanoes is generally safe.
Northeastern Washington would not be safe if Hanford were attacked. Northeast Washington would be likely to receive follow-up from an attack on Puget Sound, which is why I would prefer areas that are further south and closer to the coast and just inland far enough to avoid tsunami risk. Northeastern Washington is good, as long as you are north and not west of Hannaford. Lakefront in Oroville would be pretty hard to beat - mellow climate, and easy access to water. Farther east in Washington gets colder.
Rocky Mountains have snowstorms and avalanches and flash floods.
Great American Southwest: fewer earthquakes but deserts have droughts and heat, and it is much harder to hack cooling than to hack heating. Rattlesnakes and scorpions.
Israel might be ground zero for nuclear weapons.
For a doomsday scenario, it is much easier to stockpile ammunition than to set up a big factory to make it. Making ammunition might be useful if the war is still going on...
Northern Michigan and Maine would be reasonable places to wait out the worst while subsisting on hunting, gathering and potatoes, but then migrate south.
The oceans would be much less affected because the depth of the oceans dilutes the fallout to a very great extent. A deep cave, however, would have very higher pressure if under the ocean.
Even a few hundred meters of water will give you very good protection. Although the initial shockwave might crush a submarine if it were right under a detonation .
Air Force One would be fine if the blasts are on the far side of the earth, but if you're flying right over a blast you are doomed.
"What is the best defense against a punch? Be somewhere else when punch is thrown". No earth-based shelter that I know of would survive a planet-killer asteroid strike, although perhaps one could survive one the size that wiped out the dinosaurs… So let's get some space colonies established!
A commercial reverse osmosis system would do pretty well at removing pollution. It would not, however, remove radioactive tritium from the water, so the reference to "all forms" is not quite true.
In the southern hemisphere, I would want a decent amount of rainfall.
I would want wind across a big ocean like the Pacific rather than from a likely to be bombed landmass. Ocean currents are less important than wind, but fish will be cleaner when the current carries the water a long way from the nearest contaminated shore.
Mountain range would provide modest protection from a blast, but the wind determines fallout patterns.
Modern nuclear power plant can't explode like a nuclear bomb, but it can have a steam explosion or hydrogen explosion which can scatter radioactive debris. A nuclear bomb on a nuclear plant would be one heck of a radioactive mess, but it doesn't take a nuclear bomb. While the reactor itself is well protected by a thick concrete dome, the spent fuel pools are usually relatively unprotected and have more total radioactivity, and an ordinary explosion in them could spread the radioactivity widely.
It is a lot harder to be self-sufficient in a colder climate like Scotland (and if the Gulfstream stops, those glacial valleys in Scotland will have glaciers in them again). The South Pacific would tend to be very safe, but not a great place to restart an entire civilization (although New Zealand is probably big enough).
Both biological and nuclear warfare could be humanity-ending, but nuclear warfare is at least likely to leave pockets of people alive. Biological warfare is more likely to be controlled, but if it gets totally out of hand it could be game over.
Undersea I worry about pressure (each 10 m adds one atmosphere) and I worry about getting back to the surface if something goes wrong.
Mines are generally more stable in earthquakes. There is not a whole lot of data on subterranean structures in relation to stability under earthquakes.
Nuclear winter is a question of degree – from what I have read, an exchange between India and Pakistan could produce a significant nuclear winter.
Probably not an Ice Age, but a few years of nuclear winter would be worldwide.
The 2011 Japanese earthquake released roughly 100 times as much energy as all explosives of World War II. (Several hundred megatons versus a few megatons). Yes, that makes it very difficult to make an earthquake proof bunker for bigger earthquakes. The problem is not the bunker itself, but access to the surface from the bunker.
I don't know of any place that is completely free of earthquakes, and an asteroid can strike you wherever you are.
The Cheyenne Mountain Complex would not survive a massive comet or asteroid impact that hit anything close near directly. Probably anything bigger than 100 m would take it out.
Off-shore oil platform in nuclear war:
Some rigs are as far as 270 miles from the closest land mass. They generate their own power from turbines that are piped into natural gas lines. Most platforms have a food supply to handle 40+ operators for 2-3 weeks at a time. Fishing is plentiful since fish tend to hang around platforms that have become part of the ecosystem throughout the years. Plus if something goes wrong there are fast rescue boats that hold enough fuel to travel to an adjacent platform. It's not practiced in the Gulf as far as I know, but some platforms around Israel have defense systems mounted to deter terrorist attacks. Power source = water source. I'd imagine they have desalinization capabilities. True, radiation would have an effect on sea life, but the Gulf has a few things going for it (I have absolutely no idea if these would be a benefit). There is a pretty heavy loop current that rings around the outer limits of the Gulf of Mexico. This prevents items from floating out to the middle of the water body. If you were to drop something off the coast of Florida, it would most likely end up around Corpus Christi, TX. In theory, this seems like it would help contain the contaminated water in a loop. (Again, this may be idiotic thinking on my part). Combine this with being 270 miles from the closest land mass (even further from viable bombing options) and 8,000' of water, then the risk of contamination would seem lower. Rigs are designed to withstand heavy current and high waves. If they weren't, they would never survive hurricane season or the rip current in the Gulf of Mexico. When Rita and Gustav rolled through in 2008, the wave radar on our platform recorded 75' waves before the sensors faulted. BP's platform "Thunderhorse" took a direct hit from Hurricane Dennis in 2005. It listed to a 20 degree angle, but did not sink. It was discovered that the list was due to a construction error, rather than the storm itself. It took a direct hit from Katrina 6 weeks later and sustained no damage. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunder_Horse_Oil_Field
Energy infrastructure is a probable target. It doesn't seem likely that deep water platforms would be viable targets. They require 25+ people that understand the operations to maintain production. It would serve no purpose to maintain them if the land facilities were not in production, so destruction for the sake of collateral damage wouldn't really serve a purpose. Plus there are over 3,000 platforms in the gulf. That would make it difficult for an army to take over platforms to man for production at a later date. Especially since the sub-sea flow lines are like a road map that require other platforms to be online to allow flow. They may or may not not be targeted by nuclear weapons but they would potentially be targets for naval ships and conventional weapons. There's also quite a few factors that would deter the destruction of every rig. Ownership is a big one. Not every platform in the GoM is owned by the U.S. You start blowing up other countries assets, they are going to retaliate. Not everyone has nuclear capabilities, but there's going to be a hornets nest of countries with conventional means of retaliation.
Location is another factor. You want to send your Navy to the North Sea to wipe out non military assets that give you no tactical advantage? Go right ahead. Another is the Navy itself. The top 5 Navy's in the world are 1. United States 2. China 3. Russia 4. United Kingdom 5. Japan. If it's a US/Russia WWIII, this wouldn't be a smart ploy for them.
A good temporary days to a few months) haven, but would quickly seem cramped.
So now you have to run an oil well in one of the roughest territories on earth as well as hydroponics powered by artificial light in the winter. It might be a safe place to write out the worst of a short-term situation, but for long term, no, it is best to live in a place that you would want to live in.
