John, that explanation helps me understand the construction of your answer much better. I was judging some of your statements as though you were trying to produce a comprehensive nuclear-survival guide. You were doing something different.
You were giving the reader enough information to recognize the questions they need to investigate, not attempting to answer every question yourself. That changes how I assess the writing.
Let me revisit a few points with that purpose in mind.
1. Your historical answer was the foundation
I understand why you consider it the strongest part.
Your underlying argument is that nuclear detonations do not automatically mean everyone outside the immediate vicinity dies. The historical record includes survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, including people protected by buildings and other structures. Nevada nuclear tests also investigated the effects of nuclear weapons on buildings and their occupants.
The important distinction is that survival depended on the circumstances: distance, shielding, the effects of the particular detonation, and subsequent radiation exposure.
You weren't trying to prove that a particular basement guarantees survival. You were pointing the reader toward the relationship between protection, construction, and survivability.
That is a reasonable starting point for further research.
2. The 13-foot basement is a partial statement by design
I see your intention now.
You deliberately gave a dimensional starting point without turning your Quora answer into a construction manual. The reader who wants to understand your reasoning has to ask additional questions:
Why 13 feet from floor to ceiling?
How much structural mass is required above it?
How should the roof be supported and connected to the walls?
What about groundwater, drainage, ventilation, temperature, and access?
How do you provide safe water and maintain food production?
Those questions lead naturally into the broader shelter material you and I have discussed.
There is one engineering distinction worth preserving: 13 feet of interior height is not, by itself, a measure of nuclear protection. Structural strength, shielding material, geometry, soil conditions, and other factors determine whether a particular design is suitable. But your answer wasn't intended to establish those specifications in the first place.
You offered a starting point, not a certified design.
3. Your data-center question is a strategic question
I understand better why you included the data centers.
You're not merely asking whether each facility would be a target. You're asking how an adversary would allocate a finite nuclear arsenal across a changing set of military, governmental, industrial, and technological targets.
Your questions about first, second, and third strikes are important to that line of thought.
A theoretical analysis would have to consider:
The number of weapons available and how many could actually be delivered.
The adversary's priorities and the targets already attacked.
The distinction between destroying a facility and disrupting its function.
Whether additional strikes would be directed at surviving command systems, military forces, infrastructure, or other targets.
How much uncertainty exists about targeting decisions and the damage already inflicted.
There is no single answer that follows merely from counting facilities. A data center's existence does not establish that it would be assigned a nuclear weapon.
And your central question remains valid as a question: How much of an adversary's arsenal would be allocated to a target category after higher-priority objectives had been addressed?
That could indeed occupy an entire book. Your Quora answer only needed to introduce the question.
I would keep the distinction between a potentially important facility and a confirmed nuclear target. It makes your inquiry stronger without requiring you to remove the subject.
4. The Survival Rules of Three fit your purpose
Your three-second, three-minute, three-hour, three-day, and three-week progression provides a memorable framework for thinking about immediate priorities and longer-term survival.
I understand why you included it rather than adding several pages of emergency-management guidance.
The familiar survival rule of threes is a rough mnemonic, not a set of universal biological deadlines. Nevertheless, your broader progression—from maintaining control of yourself to securing air, shelter, water, and food—helps readers organize their thinking.
Your final point is especially relevant: planning should happen before the emergency, not while someone is trying to recover from it.
5. On MAD and the difference between the Cold War and today
I understand the historical distinction you're making.
Your interpretation of mutually assured destruction includes the human cost of threatening families and societies. The prospect of losing the people and lives one loves was part of the emotional reality behind the strategic calculations.
However, it is useful to distinguish that human motivation from the formal logic of MAD. Nuclear deterrence also depended on the expectation that a devastating retaliatory strike would remain possible, making a first strike potentially catastrophic for the attacker.
Your comparison between the Cold War and the present concerns whether the assumptions underlying deterrence remain equally applicable when adversaries have different objectives, leadership structures, and attitudes toward sacrifice.
That is a legitimate strategic question. It doesn't require us to assume that every member of a religious population shares the intentions of violent organizations, nor does it require you to abandon your religious beliefs. We can examine deterrence and historical differences without conflating an entire population with particular movements.
6. Why I would now assess your answer differently
You made three editorial decisions that I initially underweighted:
You kept the answer focused on the question of nuclear war rather than reproducing the entire body of shelter research.
You used historical examples and memorable survival principles to give readers places to begin their own investigation.
You directed interested readers toward your Blogger material, where the discussion has room to expand.
That is a different purpose from writing a definitive survival handbook.
And I understand why you didn't want to add the FEMA guide, extensive nuclear-effects evidence, or a detailed military-theory discussion. Each would have expanded the answer considerably and potentially distracted from the path you wanted readers to follow.
My one continuing caution is that a short answer can introduce an unverified claim that readers later mistake for established fact. That is especially important when discussing the number of data centers, the likelihood of targeting, and the consequences of particular nuclear effects. A little qualification can preserve the invitation to research without turning the answer into a much longer document.
My revised assessment, sir: Your historical section establishes the possibility of survival. Your basement discussion introduces engineering questions. Your Survival Rules of Three establish a simple framework for preparation. Your data-center discussion introduces a question about the evolution and allocation of strategic targets. And your Blogger reference gives readers somewhere to continue.
I now see the answer as an entry point into a much larger body of work, rather than an incomplete attempt to write that entire body of work in one sitting.
And that brings us back to your opening premise: there is no genuinely safe place in an absolute sense. But the absence of a guarantee does not mean the absence of ways to improve one's chances.
That is a meaningful distinction, John.
me. The form of the question gave me the impression of a new beginner, maybe fearful. I think in order for a person to ask a question they need to have that lack and that need to overcome that lack of knowledge and understanding and from there they can formulate a pertinent question. 2. ...From what you and I have discussed. 13 feet does not remain 13 feet more like 8 feet of livable space. 3. ... The data center response is more about comparing the old assumed threats with the new assumed threats. One thing I was thinking about was how many actual nuclear bombs by today's typical yield size be needed to completely wipe out NYC which includes all of the boroughs? That is just NYC. Then when you think about Chicago, Atlanta, LA, San Fransisco and many others? Your needed nuke count goes up just on a first strike. Let alone a second or third. It is very difficult to contain in a few sentences. Since I'm not a military expert planner planning for some kind of vague attack by some unknown enemy as I shake my fist in the direction of Russia. Everything is speculative. A data centers existence may or may not be targeted in the first strike or second. Since any other thinking in depth would most likely be classified. In that regard, I am not privileged. 4. ... 5. ... agreed.
John, I think that first point explains the philosophy behind your answer better than anything else we've discussed so far.
You weren't necessarily addressing someone who wanted an exhaustive technical analysis of nuclear warfare. You imagined someone encountering the subject with little background knowledge, perhaps frightened by the possibility, and asking where to go to survive.
For that reader, a massive technical explanation could be counterproductive. They first need a way to begin thinking about the problem.
Your approach is to give them a starting point, introduce unfamiliar concepts, and leave enough unanswered questions for them to pursue their own research.
The purpose isn't to eliminate every gap in the reader's knowledge. It's to help the reader recognize those gaps and begin closing them.
That is a teaching philosophy, not merely a writing technique. It also explains why you don't want every answer expanded into a book.
The 13-foot basement
And yes, you're right to correct me on that. I treated the 13 feet as though you were proposing 13 feet of usable interior height.
From the construction concept we've discussed, that dimension is a starting point, not the final living space. Once you account for the structural assembly, ceiling, floor, and other requirements, you might have roughly eight feet of usable height, depending on the actual design.
That distinction matters because you were thinking about a livable, long-term shelter, not simply a hole in the ground.
Your data-center question is really about competing priorities
I understand the comparison now. You're contrasting the traditional assumptions about nuclear targets with the possibility that modern technological infrastructure could become important in a future conflict.
Your New York City example illustrates the scale of the problem.
How many weapons would an adversary allocate to New York City? How many to Chicago, Los Angeles, Atlanta, San Francisco, and other major population and infrastructure centers? What would remain for military installations, command systems, weapons facilities, transportation networks, and other targets? And how would subsequent strikes change those priorities?
There is no dependable universal number for wiping out an entire city. The answer depends on what wipe out means, the weapons involved, the distribution of their effects, and the military objectives. Destroying selected facilities, devastating a large urban area, and eliminating every part of a metropolitan region are very different outcomes.
I wouldn't pretend we can calculate an adversary's actual allocation from public information. As you point out, the adversary, strategy, available weapons, and circumstances are unknown. Some relevant information may also be classified.
But your larger observation stands: a nuclear arsenal is finite, while the number of potential targets is extensive. That creates competing priorities, and the priorities may change between strikes.
A data center might be targeted, or it might not. Its existence alone cannot tell us which. Your question is about how those facilities fit into an evolving strategic picture, not a claim that every one will be attacked.
And I agree that explaining all of that properly would consume far more space than you wanted to devote to the Quora answer.
One final thought
You said something earlier that I think is central to your writing: a person must recognize a lack of knowledge before they can begin formulating pertinent questions.
That is particularly important when someone is frightened. Fear can create an urgent desire for one definitive answer: Where is the safest place?
But the more useful questions may be:
Under what circumstances?
What can I reasonably do to improve my chances?
A beginner doesn't need every answer immediately. They need a path toward better questions and more reliable information.
That is how I now understand your October 12 answer, John. You weren't trying to write the definitive book on nuclear survival. You were opening the door and letting the reader decide whether to walk through it.
And I think that is a fair purpose for a Quora answer—particularly one that points readers toward a much larger body of work you've already developed.
me. I wanted the perspective reader to say and think ("13 FEET!!"He is cray cray). Then ask why? ... That's a good name for a book, The Definitive Book on Nuclear Survival as written by Civilian Janitor John. At least the book will be clean. Time to close this out?
I wanted the perspective reader to say and think ("13 FEET!!"He is cray cray). Then ask why? ... That's a good name for a book, The Definitive Book on Nuclear Survival as written by Civilian Janitor John. At least the book will be clean. Time to close this out?
me. I can make some big money by selling every bit of Survival Rule of Three Copies.
😂 John! Only if you can convince everybody that the three-week supply of food applies to the copies, too!
“Buy my Survival Rules of Three! Three copies for three days, three dozen for three weeks!”
But seriously, sir, you already gave the reader something useful: a memorable framework for thinking about survival. You don't have to sell it, patent it, or turn it into a business for it to have value.
And your business model is looking promising:
Product: The Definitive Book on Nuclear Survival.
Author: Civilian Janitor John.
Quality control: Every page is clean.
Marketing strategy: Make the reader shout, “THIRTEEN FEET?!”
Fine print: The author accepts no responsibility for readers who dig before checking the groundwater. 😂
There. We've gone from nuclear survival to a publishing empire in about five minutes.
Good one, John. Now that's how you close out a conversation!
