Author Topic: Dodge the fallout v. benefit from the dieback - a nuclear dilemma  (Read 945 times)

Offline boomer_sooner

  • Prepper
  • **
  • Posts: 30
  • Karma: 3
So I was discussing this issue with a friend last week and thought I'd see what the TSP community thinks about it.  I don't think there's an obvious answer and a lot of this depends on your taste for underground living and your view of the aftermath of a nuclear war.

Obviously, a full scale nuclear war is not the most likely disaster to confront us.  But it is possible and is worth thinking about at least in passing in our survival preps.  I also want to emphasize that this is not the first issue I'm considering as I pay down my debt and prepare to shift to a more rural lifestyle, but it's something that's on the long term radar.

My friend argues that a retreat location should never be in a position to receive massive fallout from ICBM/strategic bomber fields - for example, anywhere in the Dakotas, most if not all of Nebraska, a lot of Kansas, eastern Wyoming, etc.  His argument is that the radiation in those areas would be extremely difficult to deal with and would likely impact your preps for years to come, to say nothing of the possibility of sitting under a hot spot that your shelter is unable to protect against.

My position is that if you're otherwise willing or inclined to be in that location, it's easier to deal with the radiation than the people.  Radiation is horrible, but you can protect against nearly any rate in a fallout scenario if you're prepared well ahead of time - of course, your preps would probably have to include a well in the ground of the shelter or massive water storage.  You'd be underground for a long time if you're downwind of Cheyenne on gameday.  On the other hand, there are few areas of the US that could totally escape fallout and on any given day, we don't really know for sure where those will be.  In a place like western Nebraska, the only people alive are going to be preppers, so you really limit your human risk in the aftermath of the disaster.  By contrast, if you're in rural Georgia, anyone who survives the destruction of those metro areas is a potential problem.

Which would you choose?  Again, I totally see both positions and I wouldn't make this the dominant consideration in establishing a retreat location, but worth thinking about.  Assume radiation vs. human threat is the only meaningful difference between the two retreat locations (an unlikely assumption, I admit).