I would finish the workout - maybe even doing an extra rep or two - while contemplating the amusing symmetry that my existence will end toiling away on a track some decades after scientists performed the first successful nuclear reactions at a track stadium.
just kidding. Unless I’m having the workout of my life, it would be a nice excuse to cut a difficult session short. Plus then I have a great excuse to sit in my basement and watch my collection of Seinfeld DVDs!
Nineteen-sixties through 1980's, U.S. Army generals war gamed scenarios of all out conventional war versus then East Germany & then Soviet Union. In order for U.S. to prevail required U.S. to use battlefield nukes. U.S. Army generals discussed this openly from 1960's through 1980's.
This era is a bit different. U.S. is no longer relying on m-60 tanks. M-1 tanks are better. Russia today is not a combination of East Germany & Soviet Union. Many global citizens have become numb. Many global citizens believe Russia will allow Ukraine, U.S. and the other N.A.T.O. nations to punch Russia in the face without Russia fighting back.
If an intruder broken into your home and continued to punch you in the head, how many punches would you take before you picked up your firearms and fought like the last 20 minutes in 1969 film, Wild Bunch? Do you trust Biden/McCarthy/Schumer/McConnell to make good decisions? They have been gambling.
If nuclear war happened, you'd be a fool to not immediately take steps to try to survive it.
First thing, if you're in LA, is gtfo of LA because all those secret labs like JPL and Lawrence LIvermore are there. Like that one poster keeps going on about. Those will get blown up.
Go somewhere rural, on the west coast, with no target west of it, and find a way to hunker down underground or at least in a valley somewhere.
Dangerous radioactive waste has a short half-life. The longer it lasts, the lower its energy and less dangerous. Once levels are reasonably safe, go to a country that didn't fetch itself a nuke attack.
If nuclear war happened, you'd be a fool to not immediately take steps to try to survive it.
First thing, if you're in LA, is gtfo of LA because all those secret labs like JPL and Lawrence LIvermore are there. Like that one poster keeps going on about. Those will get blown up.
Go somewhere rural, on the west coast, with no target west of it, and find a way to hunker down underground or at least in a valley somewhere.
Dangerous radioactive waste has a short half-life. The longer it lasts, the lower its energy and less dangerous. Once levels are reasonably safe, go to a country that didn't fetch itself a nuke attack.
This post is poorly thought out. At the minimum, you have never heard of ‘nuclear winter’, or MAD?
You seem to be avoiding my question, by deflecting to a ‘concern’ with WWIII. Did Russia invade (“intrude”, your term) into Ukraine or not? If so, is that act primarily responsible for raising your ‘concern’?
Those that think that once one nuke is launched all nukes will be launched are wrong. There are many types of nukes. A misunderstanding is easily conceivable where Russia thinks USA launched a nuke against XYZ target in Russia. They would not immediately launch all nukes against the US. They would very likely perform a tit for tat response. A single strike against a comparable target.
It would be extremely important for the response strike to not be intercepted. They would use one of their mach 12 ramjet propelled missiles armed with a nuclear payload launched from a fighter just outside of US territorial waters or from space directly above. Time to target would be a few minutes at most.
Or they would sneak a nuke across the southern border, put it in a lead-lined U-haul and drive it up to its target.
Or possibly they have some kind of DARPA style advanced weapons that can microwave solid matter from space by “crossing the waves” from 3 satellites?
Point is, you wouldn’t have warning and there’d be plenty of time to finish your workout. So stop trying to find excuses.
If nuclear war happened, you'd be a fool to not immediately take steps to try to survive it.
First thing, if you're in LA, is gtfo of LA because all those secret labs like JPL and Lawrence LIvermore are there. Like that one poster keeps going on about. Those will get blown up.
Go somewhere rural, on the west coast, with no target west of it, and find a way to hunker down underground or at least in a valley somewhere.
Dangerous radioactive waste has a short half-life. The longer it lasts, the lower its energy and less dangerous. Once levels are reasonably safe, go to a country that didn't fetch itself a nuke attack.
This post is poorly thought out. At the minimum, you have never heard of ‘nuclear winter’, or MAD?
The "assured destruction" is about unacceptable losses to infrastructure and population. It means the country is screwed, but doesn't mean absolutely everyone dies.
In the early years of the cold war they gamed and calculated and strategized under the assumption that one side could win if the balance of "megadeaths" was favorable. The famous band is named after that.
I guess these are things only people over 40 know. Watch the Day After, a fairly accurate description of the aftermath of a nuclear exchange, to people in an urbanized area. You need to dodge the fallout long enough for the energy to dissipate.
And just so OP understands this isn't off topic, this means you finish your workout with a LONG TEMPO RUN to get out of the urbanized LA area ASAP. Or into a subway. Do they have a subway?
This post was edited 10 minutes after it was posted.
Reason provided:
first you need to go underground, and when you come out, go to high ground.
not quite the same of course, but the perceived imminent strike on hawaii showed quite a bit about human psychology
so i can tell you this: the amount of letsrun'ers that would finish the workout is higher than most probably suspect
my boss on our construction crew told us we were free to leave if we needed to, and he meant it, but he also said he was going to keep working because what else could he do? most of us stayed and kept working too. it's really difficult to describe the altered state of mind everyone was functioning in.
If nuclear war happened, you'd be a fool to not immediately take steps to try to survive it.
First thing, if you're in LA, is gtfo of LA because all those secret labs like JPL and Lawrence LIvermore are there. Like that one poster keeps going on about. Those will get blown up.
Go somewhere rural, on the west coast, with no target west of it, and find a way to hunker down underground or at least in a valley somewhere.
Dangerous radioactive waste has a short half-life. The longer it lasts, the lower its energy and less dangerous. Once levels are reasonably safe, go to a country that didn't fetch itself a nuke attack.
This post is poorly thought out. At the minimum, you have never heard of ‘nuclear winter’, or MAD?
It is surprising how many people would potentially survive a nuclear war, especially those who are far enough away from where any NB would strike. We tend to think of the whole world as being laid to waste, but the reality is that some people would survive. The question really is whether you would want to. Either way, if you don't plan on killing yourself fairly quickly it would be wise to take steps to get as far away as possible or failing that to get underground. The way radiation decays is fascinating (I'm sure a lot of people on here will know more about this than me, we have advanced professors in Physics on here with decades of work behind them from what I recall).
There was a good explanation on one site about making decisions regarding whether to travel or get underground. It's time to hit vs distance in a way. If you think you have less than a fairly short amount of time you're often better staying. Either is risky IMO.
The should I stay or should I go dilemma is to me quite complex and based on a lot of factors. Annoyingly the really good pdf I found seems to have disappeared from the internet! I think it is the Mike Dillon calculation referred to at the bottom of this article:
I liked it because it had diagrams of tonnes of different buildings and the rad exposure, which room would be best etc.
The best advice for surviving a nuclear bomb is to be somewhere else when it goes off. If that doesn't work out for you, though, a recent study carried out at the US Department of Energy's (DOE's) Lawrence Livermore National...
If I was less than a third into the workout I would pivot and try to run some kind of time trial. Maybe one last hard mile before the apocalypse, a pre apocalypse PR attempt.
This post is poorly thought out. At the minimum, you have never heard of ‘nuclear winter’, or MAD?
The "assured destruction" is about unacceptable losses to infrastructure and population. It means the country is screwed, but doesn't mean absolutely everyone dies.
In the early years of the cold war they gamed and calculated and strategized under the assumption that one side could win if the balance of "megadeaths" was favorable. The famous band is named after that.
I guess these are things only people over 40 know. Watch the Day After, a fairly accurate description of the aftermath of a nuclear exchange, to people in an urbanized area. You need to dodge the fallout long enough for the energy to dissipate.
And just so OP understands this isn't off topic, this means you finish your workout with a LONG TEMPO RUN to get out of the urbanized LA area ASAP. Or into a subway. Do they have a subway?
Nothing of what you said disputes what I said. If anything, it confirms onr possibility of imminent annihilation of many, including those in the LA area, and, citing “The Day After”, throws water on your idea that any survivors will eventually be physically okay after an all-out exchange.
if a nuclear strike were performed in DC against the US, and you were in someplace likeLA, would you finish your track workout if you still had reps left?
How would you even know? Unless you're a fat old hobbyjogger with a iphone max strapped to your arm
or literally anyone who has their phone in their bag on the side of the track.....
Remastered in 1080p HD from the Prelinger Archive's print of "Duck and Cover" (Ca. 1951). This film is in the Public Domain, as are all official publications...
Saying that there would be some survivors, at least in the short term, in a nuclear war is not newsworthy. Trying to debate that any survivors will eventually be okay, even minimally, in some fashion, is a tenuous debate, to say the least. I won’t entertain such stupidity here any further.
Even though I'm a quasi-prepper, I haven't given this much thought recently. No significant target is to the windward side of my city for hundreds of miles so the risk of fallout is minimal. I'd head to Kroger's/Walmart and fill my car with nonperishable foods, salt, multivitamins, TP, etc. I'd buy way more tradeable goods than I needed... salt, rice, dried beans, TP. Many post Apocalypse books gloss over how many calories you need to survive for a year. It's a LOT, especially if you take in survivors with nothing but the clothes on their backs.
Then, I'd go to the nearest gun stores and buy 10,000 rounds of 5.56 and 9mm ammo... again, that's tradeable. After dumping that stuff at home, I'd buy a dozen gas cans and fill them. Again, tradeable.
The cost of these steps would be minimal. The food could be used over time or donated after the crisis is over. The ammo will hold its value for many years.
If you live in a big city, you'd better have a bug-out bag and bug-out plan. Many city dwellers have no plan and would just hunker down until help arrives, but if the grid goes down, help won't be coming. Looting and burning will start within 24 hours and when food runs out, gangs will go from house to house taking what they want. You need to be gone before that happens.
