Yup, that's what I was getting at. A terrorist attack/smaller exchange/accident is totally survivable, just nothing apocalyptic. It would be a real shame for us to all kick it cos we didn't prep for something that was survivable- figure that's the whole point of prepping!yorkshirewolf wrote: Based on what i know of nuclear weapons- todays hydrogen bombs as opposed to the low yield A-bombs, radiation sickness and exposure, the wonderful old Mutually Assured Destruction doctrine- so once one starts using nukes, all the others who have them would follow, and the probability of multiple nuclear strikes on most of the populated countries in the world, i seriously doubt there'd be much left!
Of course prepping for a one-off nuclear event, perhaps a terrorist attack rather than the superpowers going at it, is very sensible and something i prep for. and if people want to prep for a 'world' nuclear war, i say good luck to them.
You'll be relieved to hear that MAD is no longer an official doctrine (though probably shouldn't take their word on that lol) and despite the developments made with weapon yields the trend has been more towards efficiency (cost and damage). Most nukes are now cluster types that contain many smaller warheads (MIRVs) directed at specific targets -each around half a megaton. Enough to take out a missile silo or airfield without destroying the entire countries infrastructure (gotta leave something to nick afterwards)
;
Most of the people who have survived extreme situations have said it was willpower and belief that got them out of it- if you give up you're already dead
