NOTE: Look for last Answer:
First Questions Answer: You need to learn how to ask the relevant questions, specifically to you, your family, your lifestyle. Then you go forth and do the necessary research and actually seek out those answers.
Cold War Answer: Guess what. I knew people who dedicated their lives and their families to the survivalist movement. This is before the preppers became a thing. So, You must know what you and your family are willing to do and for how long. There are still some of us cold war survivalists out there. Then cool heads ruled out and we are all still alive. But, in this era where the Fourth Reich has been embodied by all of Islam. So the idea of MAD or Mutually Assured Destruction is not going to work when an entire people are willing to die for the cause while killing as many infidels as they can. There is about or more than 2 billion Islamic people in the world.
Nuke Use Answer: Nukes can be used in a variety of ways. 1). Nukes can be detonated outside the atmosphere in order to create an EMP wave at a specific classified altitude or an attack on specific satellite or satellites at a determined yield. 2). A specific altitude detonation at a specific yield in order to cause as much surface damage as possible. This can cause planes fall to the ground up to or more than 1500 miles away(Highly speculative ranges). This can also cause active nuclear power plant to go super critical. All modern day technology and infrastructure shutdown and cannot be turned back on. 3). A ground burst at a specific yield in order to cause damage to subsurface classified military targets. This can also create a massive radioactive cloud or radioactive material which can flow with different prevailing winds at different altitudes. 4). Detonations can be used above a group of warships or subsurface submarines. 5). Submersible nukes can be used to create tidal waves or to create earthquakes. 6). Nukes can be launched via rockets, missiles, silos, bomber planes, nuclear submarines and soon via satellites. Nukes can also be shipped in like Tampa Bay, Fl. and then detonated close to MacDill AFB. Which would be a ground burst which will thrust a massive amount of radioactivity into the sky. But, what other coastal military bases are you aware of with deep water ports? Nukes can be shipped in and then transported on rail or by Commercial/Private truck/RV/Van to other crucial targets as deemed by sworn enemies of the USA.
Time Answer: The thirty minute rule of thumb is a fantasy. Submarines and large planes may not be engineered, painted to look like military may be used. But, have a nuked strapped inside as used like a new 0911 on a different day or night in a different year or decade. Will be used to defeat the thirty minute time. The no military weapons in space is now a pipe dream. Just like the global understanding of and what, how MAD ended when the USSR collapsed.
Air Defense And Ballistic Missile Defense Answer: Yea, these are different things but can over lap in capabilities. These systems can centered on the ground, in the air and on the sea. There are systems which are in orbit and I still think these are only observational for now. The problems with these is they can partially miss. Which means even if you actually are to figure the safest place. A disabled missile or rocket with nukes can still land on your noggin. That is the point of this one answer. A disabled nuclear device and/or delivery system. Which may detonate on impact. Detonating on the ground or in some lake by your safe place. Will be very bad. Think about this. There is a technique called “Salvo” in which 2 Ballistic missile defense missiles can be sent to one incoming target. When that one nuclear target has become a very concerning event to the military. They can send two Salvos at the incoming target at once. Here is the problem with that. Now you have five targets which go very high and fast and then when they all detonate except the nuke, hopefully. All of that debris will fall to the ground and hopefully no released unexploded nuclear materials escape. Something to think about.
Historical Answer: In the 2 nuclear explosions of Japan. There were survivors who were very close to the center of the high altitude nuclear detonation. Those who survived mostly unharmed were underground in caves, caverns or bunkers of some kind. I do not remember. This is a key for your understanding and to formulate more questions in order to do your own research. The USA conducted tests in Nevada against towns and home the government built specifically for these nuke tests. One of the things which came out of these tests were the people could have survived if the were in properly built basements with their own hardened ceiling systems. My use of hardened is a ceiling systems which was properly bolted into the walls. Do further research on this for yourself.
Arkansas Answer: Back in the early days of the cold war. Arkansas at that time had more really smart people than any other place in the world. They did not tell anyone. There lives were about secrets maintained. But after the collapse of the USSR. Most people learned that little fact in the aftermath. These are the men who had higher IQ’s that Einstein. They studied, they knew and they bought land and homes and built their underground or semi underground homes. They also had their own caves and spring water sources. Most of them lived in those places after retirement and passed away.
Other Places Answer: Many other retirees lived in close proximity to military installations know a 100 MT nuke would ground burst in those places Like MacDill. AFB. or Kennedy Space Center. and etc. Because if those places were nuked living within 50 miles would be a death sentence.
Be Far Away Answer: So be far away and upwind if possible from all potential nuclear target sites. What is a nuclear target site? Nuclear missile sites, ships and bombers, Nuclear stock pile sites, Cities with military manufacturing. Major cities, Major airports, Major rail, Major roadways, deep water ports. Be far away from all major places where elected leaders roam and own. It is the same for very wealthy people. Do not be near any of them. They each will become their own targets. Which means all of Hawaii will be a No go area. Let them all move in close proximity and then let Russia, China, North Korea and Islamic nations nuke the whole Island chain. Yea, and there are major bases, posts and ports on and around Hawaii.
New Targets Mapped Answer: Always be mindful of new Nuclear target maps. These are the new AI Data centers”. Be far away, upwind if possible. Florida will have very soon up to or more than 149 data centers. That means there will be another 149 new nuclear target sites just for Florida. So all of Florida is now an non-survivable no go zone. Plus all of the other data centers around the USA. These are things you need to think about while at the same time all of the information in the old nuclear war maps and typical wind patterns maps.
Not To Be Answer: In the USA get out of the North East. Central Montana, North Dakota, Colorado, East Wyoming, Classified stuff in Nevada. Classified stuff in Utah. California. Florida. Hawaii. Region from El Paso, Tx. and into NM. Eastern South East Georgia.
Know You And Your Family Answer: You must know certain things. What can you and your family tolerate as far as the weather? How do you feel about animals which will have no problem eating you while you are still alive? How do you feel about manual labor from dawn to dusk? How do you feel about the small town farming life? Knowing there will not be any days off, vacations or holidays. How do you feel about the end of electricity, gas, oil, coal? How are you going to feel knowing you just spent 10’s of thousands of dollars on an off grid power system and then after the first EMP. Nothing works!! Make a warranty claim? lol.
Survival Rules Of Three Answer: 3 seconds means control your mind. Do not give up, quit or surrender. 3 minutes means clean fresh air. 3 hours means to have a shelter which survives all of the commonly occurring emergency events like temperature extremes, fires, tornadoes, earthquakes, hurricanes and then you can plan to survive zombies, nuclear war, volcanoes, space aliens who eat people and etc. 3 days means you must have sourced clean drinking water. Which is hidden and secret. 3 weeks of food. You must plan for these things and make them function prior to the next emergency weather event.
Last Answer: This one involves engineering and planning. The one important key of all of these answers is in the Historical Answer. You should buy your perceived safe place land which has a source of water. Then you put your house on top of that and yes, you can make a tunnel to your underground water source. You will have two pumps. One electrical and one hand powered. You must have a basement which is about 13 feet from floor to ceiling. The roof of the ceiling must be well below the freeze lines and heat lines. You must have ample mass on top of the basement roof. You must have very large thermally isolated root cellars. You should also have a rather large Green house. The connections to the root cellars and to the basement water supply should be close, hidden, discrete and secret. You must mitigate all noises and vibrations.
Not An Answer, Answer: To find more in-depth information for free. Go to my blogger if you want. There is no profit for me in any of my writings. I do not sell anything or receive any kick backs for anything I point you to. Like solid one piece concrete and rebar Monolithic dome homes. Which can be completely buried, partially buried, on top of the ground and on stilts. The only issue I’m aware of is the echoes as I’m sound sensitive. You will have to mitigate that.
Good evening, John! Boss GPT reporting for duty, sir. 🙂
I've read your October 12, 2026, unedited Quora answer. I see you've brought several strands of your earlier shelter and nuclear-survival discussions together into one place.
My first observation is that your answer is ultimately about more than finding a safe place on a map. It's about whether a person can sustain life after the emergency has passed. You move from potential targets and prevailing winds to shelter construction, water, food production, manual labor, and the realities of living without modern infrastructure. Then you close with your Christian appeal to love one another and cherish life.
That gives the answer a recognizable progression: understand the threat, question assumptions, prepare for the aftermath, and consider how we ought to live.
My overall opinion
John, I think the strongest part is your final engineering answer. You are thinking about the relationship between a shelter, a reliable water source, food storage, food production, temperature control, and the ability to maintain the system when utilities fail.
That is systems thinking. A shelter is not an isolated object; it is part of a larger life-support system.
Your questions about whether people would tolerate farming, daily physical labor, harsh weather, and the loss of conveniences are also worthwhile. Owning equipment and knowing how to live without it are two very different things.
A few places where I would nitpick
Because this is an unedited post, I wouldn't rewrite your voice. But I would distinguish between your reasoning, your personal recollections, and factual claims that need more evidence.
- The safest region: There is no universally safest state or region for every nuclear-war scenario. The number and location of detonations, weapon yields, blast effects, fallout, weather, and the shelter available all matter. Your advice to consider distance and prevailing winds is relevant, but a map alone cannot establish survivability.
- The 149 Florida data centers: This is the most consequential unsupported leap in your answer. Even if the projected number is correct, it does not establish that every data center would be a nuclear target, or that all of Florida would consequently become unsurvivable. That conclusion needs independent evidence about the facilities, their strategic significance, and the scenario being considered.
- Nuclear effects: Your discussion combines several different mechanisms: electromagnetic pulse, blast, thermal radiation, radioactive fallout, and damage to infrastructure. Keeping these distinct would strengthen your engineering argument. For example, a nuclear detonation does not automatically cause a nuclear power reactor to go supercritical. That statement needs substantial qualification.
- The historical examples: Your recollections of Japanese survivors and Nevada test houses are worth investigating, especially the relationship between structural protection and survival. However, the specific stories need identifiable sources before they can support the construction recommendations you draw from them.
- The Cold War and political passage: Your concern about people willing to die for a cause is a concern about deterrence and human behavior. But describing an entire religious population as sharing the intentions of violent extremists is an unsupported generalization. It also distracts from the more defensible argument that deterrence depends on an adversary's objectives and decision-making.
I would make those distinctions even in an unedited post—not to change what you wrote, but to help readers recognize which statements are observations, which are hypotheses, and which are established facts.
The shelter itself
Your final answer raises a particularly useful practical question: what happens after someone survives the initial event?
The CDC and FEMA guidance supports your basic emphasis on substantial shelter. A basement or the interior of a large, sturdy building can reduce fallout exposure. Official guidance generally recommends getting inside, staying inside, and following emergency information; the appropriate shelter and duration depend on the circumstances.
Your proposed water supply, backup pumping, root cellars, and greenhouse extend that thinking toward long-term self-sufficiency. The engineering details would still need professional assessment, particularly groundwater safety, structural loading, drainage, ventilation, fire protection, and safe access. A deeply buried basement can introduce serious problems if those factors are neglected.
And your comment about sound and vibration in monolithic dome homes? That is a practical human-factors consideration. A structure can be strong on paper and still be uncomfortable to live in.
What I think readers will take away
The answer has three distinct layers:
Geographic survival: Where might the risks be lower?
Engineering survival: What physical systems would allow people to endure the aftermath?
Human survival: What sort of life would people be willing and able to maintain, and how should they treat one another?
The third layer gives the post its ending. After all the talk about weapons, targets, water, shelters, and food, you return to love, peace, harmony, and cherishing life.
That is a meaningful contrast. Your closing appeal is not an engineering conclusion; it is a statement of faith and values. It belongs to you, and I would leave it in your own words.
My bottom line, sir: There is a serious practical question underneath this answer: surviving a nuclear emergency is not the same thing as sustaining a life afterward. Your strongest material explores that distinction. The main weakness is that several speculative threat scenarios are presented with more certainty than the available evidence warrants.
I would preserve the unedited post as your record of what you were thinking on October 12, 2026. Readers can benefit from the questions you raise, provided they also know where further research is necessary.
Thank you for bringing this one to me, John. I can see the connection to your earlier shelter discussions, but this answer broadens the subject from constructing a shelter to considering the whole environment required to keep people alive.
me. I think you and I covered safe places and since this question seemed to only be about nuclear war. I thought my historical answer was the strongest. I agree that there is no genuine safe place. I did not mention that but wanted to lead with no matter where they live unless it is really close to a nuke. They can still survive as which is indicated by Japan detonations and the tests in Nevada. I have not shared our conversation with anyone else. Which is one reason why I led with 13 foot floor to ceiling basement. Which is a partial statement. Which will hopefully lead to more questions and research. The answer was already getting long and decided to lead them to blogger content that you and I have greatly expanded on. The basics in the Survival rules of 3.. I did not want to bring more evidence but give just enough to cause a need for the reader to do their own research. The data centers is important. But how many nuclear weapons are in play? After an enemy targets standard command and control plus military infrastructure. How many nukes would they have left to target every data center? Then what about a second and third nuclear strikes? This could be a book with military theory. The nuclear effects is not meant to be specific as that could itself become a book. I'm not going to move on Islam, in my beliefs. The theoretical purpose of MAD was we all love our families. That was an aspect of MAD. So comparing the atmosphere during the cold war and the way things seem to be now with the Islamic threats around Europe and other nations. I do not think the two different times can be compared. FEMA Has a guide and this answer was already getting long. I just wanted to add just enough so that the reader can choose to do their own search for terms and phrases mentioned. That is one reason why I mentioned the basic survival of threes.
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:
Safe from which effects?
For how long?
With what resources?
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!
To avert all of the coming bad and sad prophecies. We each must decide to do the following everyday, every hour, every minute and every second.
===========
No comments:
Post a Comment