Added on 07 Sept 2026: Conversation with Chat GPT. No instructions and no restrictions given.
me. sent content from Quora.
Oh, this one is a particularly good addition to the sequence, John. 😄
And yes, once again, you did something very characteristic of your Quora answers: the question asks “Where is safest, and can I survive in a bunker?” and you answer by essentially saying:
“The bunker is the easy part. What happens when you open the door?”
The progression is all over this answer.
What you were already thinking about in May 2023
You start by rejecting the idea of a universally “safe” place. Instead, you frame safety around the combination of local hazards, climate, geography, human threats, and the individual's ability to tolerate the environment.
Then you move through:
EMP → targets → bunker survival → location → home → bunker → emergency food → regular food → preindustrial skills.
And the final section is especially revealing.
You aren't just asking:
“Do you have food?”
You're asking:
“What happens when there are no stores?”
Then you start working backward through civilization:
sheep → wool → clothing → cotton → shoes → tools → candles → oil → agriculture → manufacturing.
That is essentially industrial civilization decomposed into individual skills.
And I see another important development
The May 2023 answer contains the beginnings of what became your later “survival ecosystem” idea.
You've got:
Land
↓
Water
↓
Shelter
↓
Power
↓
Food
↓
Agriculture
↓
Animals
↓
Tools
↓
Skills
And then, underneath all of it:
People who actually know how to do these things.
That is why your line about the bunker is so important:
“What is the point of surviving in a bunker only to starve to death or suddenly realize that you do not know any preindustrial skill sets...”
That's probably one of the clearest statements of your philosophy in this batch.
There's also a fascinating little “John correction” hiding here
Your 2023 text says:
“fruit and nut trees can take more than 5 years to go to first fruits”
and elsewhere you've used the 3–5 year concept.
That's something I'd eventually want to distinguish by species, rootstock, propagation method, and growing conditions, because there isn't one universal fruit-tree timetable.
Likewise, your avocado statement from the other answer is species/variety dependent.
But that's exactly why keeping these unedited is valuable.
We don't have to pretend 2023 John already knew everything 2026 John knows.
We can let the archive show the research getting better.
And then there is your EMP section...
Your “panic dance” makes another appearance. 😂
“There may even be some fizzles and pops and people do the panic dance while their cell phones are in their back pockets.”
We've subsequently learned to be much more careful about that.
The underlying concern—electromagnetic events can damage electronics depending on the field, coupling, shielding and equipment—is legitimate.
But we shouldn't turn the funny image of phones popping into a universal prediction that everybody's phone batteries explode.
And your five-layer Faraday idea:
bag → box → cabinet → room → building
is very much your defense-in-depth philosophy. Whether every layer is necessary is a separate engineering question. But the thinking is consistent: don't depend on one protective barrier.
The biggest thing I see in this answer
You keep asking the same question in different clothing:
“What happens when the modern world disappears?”
And your answer keeps getting deeper.
2022:
How long do I stay underground?
2023 September:
How do I make the bunker?
2023 May:
Where should I live and what happens when I come out?
2024:
Can four people actually live underground for five years?
2026:
How do human beings transition from survival back into thriving civilization?
And now we've found something even earlier in the chain:
2023 John was already thinking about making clothing from sheep, growing cotton, making shoes, manufacturing tools, producing oil, and making candles.
That's not merely “prepper stuff.”
That's you asking:
“How much of civilization can a community reproduce without the industrial supply chain?”
And that is a much more interesting question.
me. On the panic dance it isn't just the batteries. It is also each individual electronic component. Like capacitors. Each and every lead to a electronic component acts like a tiny antenna to the incoming EMP wave. So each component can fizzle. Some can make noise and heat. Not so much the explode-ies and that is usually reserved for more industrial capacitors which are usually surrounded by metal casings. The math does not support my five layer Faraday shielding. But, Russia and the USA do make weapons and have plans to defeat or attenuate the Effects from an EMP weapon. Hence their military terms like "EMP Hardened"
Yes, John — that distinction is important, and I think it makes your “panic dance” description technically better.
What you're describing is essentially EMI/EMP coupling into the circuitry, not merely “the battery gets zapped.”
An EMP field can couple into conductive structures: circuit traces, wiring, component leads, cables, connectors, antennas, etc. Once energy gets into a circuit, the resulting voltage/current transients can exceed what individual components or semiconductor junctions are designed to withstand.
So your mental picture:
EMP wave → conductor/lead → induced transient → component stress → component failure
is much closer to the engineering problem.
And yes, capacitors are an especially good example. Their behavior depends heavily on the particular capacitor and the transient, but excessive voltage/current can produce dielectric breakdown, heating, arcing, venting, or permanent failure. The dramatic “POP!” is much more characteristic of certain larger/high-energy capacitors than the tiny capacitors scattered throughout a phone or computer.
Your observation from working with electronics also explains the humor rather well: you've actually experienced the moment when a component unexpectedly goes “FIZZ!” and your body immediately performs the involuntary technician's “WHAT THE HELL WAS THAT?” maneuver. 😂
And I agree with your correction about the five-layer Faraday idea
I'd separate two things that got mixed together:
Your five-layer concept is a practical defense-in-depth idea, but it isn't something we can assign a universal attenuation number to.
The effectiveness depends on things such as:
frequency spectrum of the disturbance
field strength
enclosure material and thickness
seams and openings
cable penetrations
grounding/bonding
aperture size
geometry
whether the equipment is connected to anything outside the enclosure
coupling through power/data cables
So the mathematics doesn't support saying “five layers means X amount of protection.”
But that doesn't make the underlying idea silly.
It is essentially:
bag → box → cabinet → room → building
= multiple barriers between the external electromagnetic environment and the equipment.
The engineering question is not “How many layers?” but “How much attenuation does the complete system provide over the relevant frequency range, including all the holes and cables?”
And that brings us directly to your second point.
“EMP hardened” is very real terminology
This is actually one of the strongest things supporting your broader argument.
Military systems aren't designed on the assumption that electromagnetic threats don't exist. They are designed around specified electromagnetic environments and required levels of survivability/hardening.
And “EMP hardened” doesn't mean:
“This electronic device is magically immune to EMP.”
It means something much more engineering-like:
The system has been designed, tested, shielded, filtered, bonded, protected, or otherwise engineered to continue performing—or fail in an acceptable way—under specified electromagnetic threats.
That's a fundamentally different proposition.
So I would modify your original statement from:
“EMP will make every electronic component explode.”
to something much more defensible:
“An intense EMP can couple energy into conductors throughout an electronic system. Individual components, circuit traces, power supplies, cables and semiconductor devices can be subjected to transient voltages and currents beyond their design limits, potentially causing malfunction or permanent damage.”
That sounds less dramatic.
It is also considerably more terrifying because it's true. 😁
And your “EMP hardened” observation makes an excellent point: if EMP protection were unnecessary, militaries wouldn't spend money engineering and testing systems for electromagnetic survivability.
Your five-layer Faraday scheme should therefore be presented as your defensive layering concept, not as a mathematically established protection standard. That distinction actually strengthens the old Quora answer rather than weakening it.
me. Yes, What in the hot place was that??? maneuver?!? lol... I remember a story from an old guy long ago about a EMP transmitter ?tower? somewhere out in the sand. All of the technology inside was very much protected and then some support staff person left an EMP door open. This is prior to the two EMP door entrances. That one little mistake and all of their old to us technology fried. Back then operating analog voltages were much higher unlike today where operating digital components are much, much lower. On the math approach to EMP and Faraday cages. Especially since I know my EMP thinking is old and I highly suspect the development of EMP weapons and I currently forgot the letters associated with directional high energy weapons. So, even though the math does not support my claims of have five layers. Those new speculative weapons programs back in the day would be able to defeat the standard math as associated with EMP. As you wrote there is much more to EMP Hardening then I wanted to communicate as I do not and did not want to make these answers into technical manuals. But, your right.
😂 “WHAT IN THE HOT PLACE WAS THAT?!” is absolutely the correct technical term.
And I think you've now articulated the distinction that was missing from the old answer.
The story you remember about the EMP facility is plausible as an illustration of a classic hardening vulnerability: the shield may be extremely good, but one improperly closed/opened access point can become the path through which the electromagnetic environment reaches equipment that was otherwise protected.
The important engineering lesson isn't really “one door equals everything fries.” It's:
A shield is only as good as its weakest significant opening or penetration.
That is why your later idea of two-door entrances actually makes conceptual sense. You weren't trying to calculate an electromagnetic attenuation specification. You were thinking:
Don't let one human action turn the entire protective system into an open window.
That's a very different proposition.
And I think you're also right about why your old thinking feels increasingly incomplete today. EMP is not a single simple phenomenon. Once you start talking about modern directed-energy systems, you get into a much broader electromagnetic-threat landscape.
The acronym you're probably reaching for is DEW — Directed Energy Weapons. Depending on the weapon, that can include high-power microwave (HPM) systems and high-energy lasers, among other technologies.
But there's an important distinction I'd make in your archive:
Don't say that modern speculative/advanced weapons “defeat the mathematics of Faraday shielding.”
The mathematics doesn't get defeated. 😁
Rather, the threat model changes.
A Faraday enclosure can be extraordinarily effective against a particular electromagnetic environment while being inadequate against another because the frequency, pulse characteristics, field strength, coupling path, aperture, cable penetration, geometry, or attack mechanism is different.
That's actually what makes EMP hardening such a fascinating engineering discipline.
It's not:
“Put electronics in metal box. Problem solved.”
It's closer to:
Identify the electromagnetic threat → determine how energy can couple into the system → prevent or attenuate those coupling paths → protect vulnerable components → test the complete system.
And that explains why military EMP hardening can involve far more than simply putting equipment behind thicker metal.
Which brings us back to your Quora answer
I think your instinct not to turn the answer into a technical manual was correct.
You were answering:
“Where is the safest place in America if there is a nuclear bomb? Can I survive in a bunker?”
You weren't writing a military electromagnetic-hardening specification.
Your purpose was to make the reader stop and think:
“Oh. My bunker isn't just a concrete hole. Everything inside it depends upon systems that can fail.”
That's the useful message.
Your “panic dance” is actually valuable because it communicates something a technical paragraph doesn't:
Electronics don't necessarily fail politely.
Sometimes it's a little semiconductor quietly dies.
Sometimes something overheats.
Sometimes something arcs.
Sometimes a capacitor vents.
And sometimes a technician standing there suddenly performs the ancient electronic-engineer's ceremonial dance while yelling:
“WHAT IN THE HOT PLACE WAS THAT?!” 😂
That is probably considerably more memorable to the average Quora reader than three paragraphs of Maxwell's equations.
And that's been one of the interesting things about these old answers we're uncovering: you weren't really trying to teach people electromagnetic engineering. You were trying to make them understand that survival is a systems problem.
The technical manual can come later.
The warning has to come first.
me. Yep. That's it with the acronyms. I'm not willing to discuss those acronyms any further. lol. Your "Electronics don't fail politely" is funny. What was the question again? lol. Another big change is the newly added nuclear target sites like Data Centers. I do not think that was a considered threat 3 years ago. But, the Ukraine war and Chinese developments with AI controlled drone swarms is most likely a head ache for the Pentagon Brass. Because, you may not defend against the drones but you can target non moving buildings, non moving lines of communications and radio transmitter towers. So along with all of the new many thousands of data centers that you must now have to be far away from and upwind from. Assuming if that is possible. Especially, if all of those data centers become one fully networked data center spread out and which can modify its own network when one or many suddenly go off line. Like how cell phone towers work.
😂 Yep. What was the question again? Somewhere along the way, “Can I survive in a bunker?” became “How does civilization continue functioning when somebody starts shooting holes in civilization's nervous system?”
And your data-center point is substantially more current than the 2023 answer.
There is actually a striking confirmation of what you're noticing. The U.S. Army/West Point's Modern War Institute published an article in June 2026 explicitly calling large AI data-center campuses potential strategic high-value targets and discussing how their geographic concentration changes defense planning. It also noted that attacks on AWS facilities in the Middle East had already disrupted digital services. (Modern War Institute)
So I would now distinguish your old assumption from today's environment:
2023:
Stay away from traditional strategic targets: military installations, nuclear plants, major cities, transportation corridors, etc.
2026:
Add major digital infrastructure to the strategic-infrastructure map.
That's a meaningful change.
And your networked-data-center idea is the interesting part
What you're describing isn't really one enormous data center. It's more like a distributed computational organism:
Data center A → B → C → D → E
If A disappears, the system reroutes workloads to B/C/D.
That's already conceptually how modern cloud architectures achieve resilience. And military organizations are actively looking at the same problem from the opposite direction: what happens when the cloud disappears?
The U.S. Marines, for example, have been examining “cloudless” and distributed approaches specifically because battlefield connectivity cannot be assumed. Current work is moving toward combinations of centralized computing, local/edge computing, and systems capable of continuing when disconnected. (Defense One)
And there's a fascinating parallel with your bunker thinking:
You:
Don't depend upon one system. Have redundancy.
Modern distributed computing:
Don't depend upon one data center. Have redundancy.
Military resilience:
Don't depend upon one communications pathway. Have redundancy.
That's the same underlying engineering philosophy.
But there's a catch
You just identified it yourself:
“non-moving buildings, non-moving lines of communications and radio transmitter towers.”
Exactly.
A distributed network can make the software resilient while leaving the physical infrastructure exposed.
The computers can say:
“Data center A is gone. Use B.”
But B still needs:
electricity
cooling
communications
fiber
network equipment
physical buildings
maintenance personnel
replacement parts
upstream connectivity
And those things occupy physical geography.
That's why I particularly like the phrase “one fully networked data center spread out.”
As a conceptual description, that's excellent.
It turns the data-center question from:
“How many data centers exist?”
into:
“How geographically distributed is the computational capability, and how much of the network can disappear before the remaining system stops functioning?”
That is a much more interesting survival question.
And current military thinking is already moving toward local capability rather than assuming permanent connectivity. The Navy is also examining AI-assisted management of an increasingly complicated electromagnetic spectrum, while STRATCOM launched a 2026 initiative specifically to accelerate electromagnetic-warfare capabilities. (Doncio)
Which creates a funny problem for your Florida bunker answer
Your old list was basically:
Don't live near the things somebody would want to destroy.
But the modern world keeps adding things to that list.
Military base.
Nuclear facility.
Major transportation hub.
Power infrastructure.
Communications infrastructure.
Hyperscale data center.
And now we're discovering that the digital economy has physical geography.
A cloud isn't actually in the sky.
It's sitting on a giant concrete slab somewhere with transformers, substations, generators, cooling equipment, fiber connections and several thousand very expensive computers.
So your old advice of “know your region” may actually be more important than the specific bunker design.
Because the target map is changing.
And there's one correction I'd make to your wording, though: I wouldn't presently tell your readers that all data centers have become nuclear targets. That's too strong. The defensible statement is that large AI/cloud facilities are increasingly recognized as strategically important infrastructure and, in some conflict scenarios, potential high-value targets. Current military analysis is explicitly discussing that possibility. (Modern War Institute)
Which means your 2023 answer doesn't need to be rewritten.
It needs something much more interesting:
a 2026 footnote.
Because that's exactly what your archive is showing us—the world changed around an old answer.
me. sent published content to GPT.
Yep, John. I found it, and this is the one we were just discussing. Where is the safest place to be in America if there is a nuclear bomb? Can I survive in a bunker?
And seeing the actual transferred post makes the evolution even clearer.
The 04 May 2023 answer already contains essentially the entire skeleton of what you've been developing for years:
Location → EMP → targets → bunker → water → food → agriculture → animals → tools → clothing → energy → preindustrial skills.
The remarkable part isn't that every individual statement is technically perfect. Some aren't, and we've already identified things we'd qualify today. The remarkable part is where your thinking was going.
You weren't really designing a bunker.
You were asking:
What happens when the industrial supply chain stops supplying me?
And that explains why you suddenly go from nuclear fallout to sheep, cotton, shoes, candles, oil lamps, tools, and human-powered machinery. At first glance, somebody might think, “John went off the rails.” 😂
Actually, you're following the dependency chain.
No store → no manufactured clothing → where does clothing come from?
Sheep → wool → spinning → weaving → clothing.
No manufactured footwear → ?
Leather/textiles → tanning/sewing → shoes and boots.
No electricity → ?
Hand tools → mechanical tools → human power.
No manufactured lighting → ?
Candles → oil → lamps.
And then you arrive at the thing we've been calling the survival ecosystem.
And now the 2026 data-center problem fits right into it
This is where the old answer has genuinely aged.
In 2023, your mental target map was predominantly physical infrastructure: military installations, nuclear plants, highways, railroads, population centers, etc.
Today, AI/data-center infrastructure is explicitly being treated as national-security and strategic infrastructure. The federal government itself now describes data centers as foundational to the internet, cloud computing, AI, the economy and national security. (The White House)
And the scale is changing extraordinarily quickly. Current reporting says U.S. data-center capacity is expected to expand dramatically through 2030, while the electric infrastructure needed to support it is becoming a major planning issue. (Financial Times)
There's even a fascinating example at Savannah River: NNSA is proposing a 1-GW AI data center with roughly 2 GW of dedicated generation, initially natural gas and eventually nuclear. (The Department of Energy's Energy.gov)
So the old concept of:
“Stay away from important things.”
gets harder every year.
Because we're progressively making more things important.
And that gives your 2023 answer an interesting historical quality. It is a snapshot of your threat model before AI infrastructure became as visibly strategic as it is now.
One thing I'd definitely not add to the old answer
I wouldn't go back and change it to say:
“Stay away from thousands of data centers because they are nuclear targets.”
That's stronger than the evidence supports.
I'd instead add a 2026 observation along the lines of:
The strategic infrastructure map has changed since I wrote this in 2023. Large-scale AI and cloud-computing facilities are now increasingly important components of national economic and security infrastructure, along with the power and communications systems that support them.
That preserves the historical document and tells the reader why the old geographic advice needs another look.
And there's an almost funny irony here.
Your original question was:
“Where is the safest place to be in America if there is a nuclear bomb?”
Four years later we're asking:
“Where can I live that isn't sitting next to something civilization has decided is strategically important?”
😂
At some point the answer becomes:
“John, how much wilderness do you want?”
And then you discover that the wilderness has a cell tower, a fiber route, a transmission line, a data center 40 miles away, and somebody is proposing an AI campus down the road.
What was the question again?
me. I do not change anything in any older writings. Its an honesty thing. The answers does leave an awful lot of evolution in allot of things and this includes what hasn't been discussed and the strategic concerns over Data Centers. It used to be a concern that a 90 degree turn at entry and egress point with allot of mass was of importance and actually still is especially in regards to travel time in regards to after the detonation or many individual detonations over a long period of time as in months or even years. At one time buying that safe and secure land needed to have clean drinking water accessible underground. That was before building your bunker, basement, root cellars and etc. Makes a person think, - What is the point now? No. Mr. reader I'm not being defeatist. This just means that you the reader have to do more thinking, planning and engineering with your noggin.
Exactly. And I think that is one of the most valuable characteristics of the Quora-to-Blogger project: the old answer remains the old answer.
You're not retroactively making 2023 John smarter with 2026 knowledge. You're leaving the breadcrumbs where you actually dropped them. Then the later writing shows what happened to the thinking afterward.
And your point about the 90-degree turn is especially interesting because it illustrates something that can get lost when somebody reads only one of these answers.
The turn isn't merely about EMP shielding.
It has several functions depending upon what threat you're considering:
Mass: increases shielding/protection against radiation and blast effects.
Geometry: prevents a direct line-of-sight path into the protected space.
Distance: a person moving through a protected passage spends time behind additional mass.
Access control: multiple doors and changes in direction create additional boundaries.
Long-duration events: if detonations or fallout-producing events continue, when you move becomes just as important as where you move.
And that last one connects beautifully with the evolution you've described.
Your earlier question was essentially:
Where do I build the shelter?
Then:
How do I build it?
Then:
How long can people live there?
Then:
What happens when somebody dies?
Then:
How do we get back outside?
And now:
What does “outside” even look like when the strategic landscape has changed?
That's a considerably harder problem.
And then comes the water
I hadn't thought about your old sequence quite this way until you pointed it out.
Originally:
Find safe land → verify underground water → build shelter.
That sounds simple.
But now you're essentially saying:
Wait a minute.
What if the reason that piece of land looked safe in 2023 changes?
What if infrastructure expands around it?
What if the electrical system changes?
What if communications infrastructure changes?
What if new strategic facilities appear?
What if the surrounding population changes?
What if the water source becomes contaminated?
What if the event isn't one detonation but a prolonged series of events?
The original “safe piece of land” isn't necessarily a permanent property of the land.
It's a relationship between the land and everything around it.
And that's where your:
“What is the point now?”
becomes a surprisingly good question.
Not because there is no point.
Because there is no permanent answer.
Your reader can't simply buy The Perfect Bunker™, crawl inside, and declare the problem solved.
😂
They have to keep thinking.
And I think your closing thought is actually the philosophy underneath a huge portion of these writings:
You the reader have to do more thinking, planning and engineering with your noggin.
That's very different from selling somebody a survival product.
You're essentially saying:
I can give you things I've learned. I cannot give you your answer.
Because your geography, your water, your climate, your neighbors, your infrastructure, your health, your resources and your future threats are different.
And that is probably why preserving the old mistakes and incomplete assumptions matters so much.
If you corrected every old answer with today's knowledge, we'd have a polished book.
Instead, you're leaving the fossil record of the thinking.
And four years later, the reader can see:
“Oh. That's what he thought then. Here's what changed. Here's what he learned. Here's what he still doesn't know.”
That's considerably more honest.
And frankly, “I don't know; therefore you need to think” is a much healthier survival philosophy than “I have the perfect answer; just buy my bunker.”
Sent updated version of blog to GPT.
Yep, John. I can see the update now. The page is currently dated Monday, September 7, 2026, while the original answer remains clearly identified as 04 May 2023. (John MacKechnie)
And this is exactly what you meant by not changing the old writing. The post has become an archaeological layer cake. 😂
What I particularly like is that the conversation itself now sits underneath the original answer. The reader can see:
2023 John:
Faraday bag → box → cabinet → room → building.
2026 John:
Wait a minute. Let's be more precise about what EMP actually does.
Then the discussion moves into component-level coupling, shielding limitations, EMP hardening, and the distinction between a humorous image of electronics “popping” and the actual engineering mechanism. (John MacKechnie)
That is much more honest than silently editing the 2023 paragraph.
And there is another thing I notice now that the update is actually on the page: the original answer already contains the seed of your current thinking about strategic geography.
You wrote in 2023:
“Find a self determined safe place which is far from and upwind from all military bases, nuclear power plants, major highways, railways and large population centers.”
That's the old strategic map. (John MacKechnie)
Now, in 2026, we're realizing that the map has another category to consider: large-scale digital infrastructure and the physical infrastructure supporting it.
So the evolution isn't:
2023 answer was wrong → 2026 answer is right.
It's more like:
2023: Identify the obvious strategic geography.
↓
Later: Understand the infrastructure dependencies.
↓
2026: Realize the strategic geography itself keeps changing.
And that leads directly back to your excellent:
“What is the point now?”
Not defeatism.
Homework.
The bunker isn't the answer.
The land isn't the answer.
The well isn't the answer.
The Faraday room isn't the answer.
They're components of an answer that has to be designed for a particular place, particular people, particular resources, and particular threats.
And the more civilization changes, the more the reader has to think.
That's actually a pretty good final lesson for this particular archive project:
Don't give the reader a recipe. Give the reader enough understanding to design their own recipe.
And your 2023 answer is now doing something it couldn't have done when you first wrote it: it demonstrates that principle simply by surviving unchanged while your understanding around it continues to evolve.
me. Yea, My mink is thinking about 120-126 new nuclear target sites inside of Florida. I'm thinking about a long manufactured tunnel/culvert with at least on 90 degree turn. No metal at the exit end of the culvert tunnel because metal loves radiation. Back on task.
😂 “My mink is thinking…” — I assume your mind is thinking, but honestly, a mink contemplating Florida's nuclear-target geography would make this conversation even better.
Back on task.
One technical correction on the culvert thought, though: metal does not simply “love radiation.” That's too broad. Different kinds of radiation behave very differently. For penetrating gamma radiation, high-density materials can provide useful shielding; ordinary steel can attenuate gamma radiation, although thickness and geometry matter enormously. Neutrons are a different problem, and fallout contamination is different again.
But your no-metal-at-the-exit idea may still have a useful design rationale if what you're trying to avoid is having a conductive structure or metal opening extending through a protected boundary. That's more naturally an electromagnetic/EMP coupling and penetration concern than a general “radiation” concern.
And your 90-degree turn remains a sensible geometric concept:
outside → straight section → 90° turn → protected section
rather than:
outside → straight pipe → people
The turn can interrupt direct line-of-sight for blast effects, radiation traveling geometrically through an opening, and some electromagnetic coupling paths. But it doesn't magically make the tunnel safe; the required mass, dimensions, materials, drainage, ventilation, structural loading, and actual threat environment still matter.
And yes—back on task. 😂
Your larger point is the one worth carrying forward from the Blogger discussion:
The number of things that must be considered keeps increasing.
In 2023 you were thinking about military bases, nuclear plants, highways, railroads and population centers.
Now you're adding another category to the mental map: strategically important digital infrastructure and its supporting power/communications infrastructure.
Which brings us right back to the question you originally answered:
“Where is the safest place?”
Your evolving answer seems to be:
There isn't a permanently safe place. There are only places whose risks you have thought through better than somebody else.
That's a much harder answer—but probably a much more honest one.
me. I cannot even say FFE or fat finger error. D and K to far apart on key board. lol. A contemplating mink would be far more interesting conversation than how not to die. yes, The 90 is for straight line radiation created at the explosion. Which is only good for a few seconds. I forgot the math on that. But, there is also a tactical advantage as the 90 can become cover and concealment. And I think the last update is the last for now. I think I might add this current conversation as I typically do not talk about cover and concealment. But, the reader gets to briefly endure mink thinking.
😂 D and K being too far apart is absolutely FFE evidence. And yes, a contemplative mink would be a considerably more entertaining survival consultant.
Your clarification about the 90° turn makes sense. You're talking specifically about the initial prompt/direct radiation from the detonation, where the straight-line geometry matters. The turn introduces shielding mass and removes a direct path into the protected area. And, as you point out, the same physical feature can subsequently serve a completely different purpose: cover and concealment.
That's a nice little example of your broader approach: one piece of infrastructure can perform multiple jobs.
90° turn:
radiation shielding geometry during the initial event;
additional mass between outside and occupants;
breaks the direct visual/physical path;
potentially provides a protected position afterward;
makes the entrance less obvious from outside.
I would only be careful with the wording “radiation created at the explosion only lasts a few seconds.” The prompt/direct radiation is extremely brief, but radioactive fallout and other radiation hazards can persist for vastly longer periods. So if that distinction makes it into the blog conversation, I'd call it prompt radiation rather than simply “radiation.”
And I actually like the idea of including this conversation in the post.
Not because it adds another engineering manual—but because the reader gets to witness the thought process:
“Wait... what else could this thing do?”
Then:
Cover and concealment.
And finally:
A contemplative mink.
😂
That's very much in keeping with your archive. The serious technical discussion doesn't have to be humorless. Sometimes “mink thinking” is exactly what makes somebody keep reading long enough to encounter the serious point.
==============
Please help if you can. Thank You.
Cash App vikingscotsman
==============
REPENT! REPENT! REPENT!
====================
Go and sin no more.
================
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.
To Love one another.
To live in peace with everyone.
To exist in harmony with all.
To Cherish all life.
To be obedient to the Laws of God.
To become righteous and holy by the accepting eyes of God only.
All without any pride, ego, arrogance, supremacy and entitlements.===========
