nuclear bomb?

Question

has anybody thought about how we could help ourselves in the event of a nuclear war as the government will only look after them that matter

Answer 1

hide under ya bed and kiss ya @ss good bye

Answer 2

The detonation of one nuclear bomb would be bad, but it wouldn't be the end of civilization, hence the government would assist those in need and attempt to bring order out of chaos. On the other hand, a full-scale nuclear exchange amongst countries with massive nuclear armament would kill off most life on the planet. Indeed, those who survived being obliterated by the nuclear blasts, would either succumb to radiation poisoning or the nuclear winter that would ensue shortly thereafter.

Answer 3

Well all local authorities have emergency planning officers and information is freely available ( and has been in the past ) as to how to minimise the risks. However, we are talking about something that is probably too horrible to even consider. I live in East Sussex some ten miles from the firework factory that exploded two weeks ago .... it felt like my house had been hit by a car. Just think what a nuclear blast would do ..... and unless you have a very deep and expensive bunker prepared, what can you do to help yourself? I vaguely remember literature being issued telling us to tape all our windows and doors and sit under a table. Is that really going to help?

Answer 4

even however nuclear bombs are fairly effective , a single bomb say dropped on birmingham could purely wreck the centre of birmingham with the preliminary blast, and then the increasing marvel wave and finished out would reason extra injury out into the suburbs, with a proscribing blast area of numerous sq. miles. in spite of the undeniable fact that if a hydrogen bomb have been for use the the blast area could be numerous circumstances larger nonetheless . I look to undergo in techniques analyzing a protection rigidity assessment of purely what number nuclear bombs it may take to totally wreck the full uk,, it grew to become out the the russians thought that a mix of fifty hydrogen bombs and easy nuclear bombs could be greater advantageous than adequate to instruct the full uk in to a burning cinder.

Answer 5

In the event of a total Nuclear war who the hell wants to survive. What is there to survive for. The resulting environmental climate that would remain makes me wish for instantaneous death. Its less painful, sudden and complete. No lingering painful death on a stretcher or being dried out by what is left of mother nature.

On news of an impending attack open all the windows and let the rays in

Answer 6

the whole point of nuclear war is that you don't survive.

not even the government will, they can survive the blasts in their underground bases, but the world above will be uninhabitable by humans for possibly thousands of years depending on the scale of the war.

Their bunkers have food, but not a thousand years of it!

Answer 7

Can you spell Global Suicide. The only safe spots are isolated canyons, Madagascar, isolated Pacific Islands away from the tradewinds and deep silos with enough provisions and water to last two years. Which means for the average man, your goose is cooked (no pun intended).

Answer 8

Radiation sickness is a terrible way to die, I'd rather be vaporised than try to hang on in some home made bunker, running out of food and water.

Answer 9

Yes: pray! Some christians think that'll be the day of Rapture so I want among those illuminated ones who rise with the Lord.

Answer 10

Dont think a Nuclear bomb chooses who it kills

Answer 11

Watch a programme called Threads from the 1980's

Nothing has changed!