If nuclear bombs were dropped, how quickly would the internet and communication systems fail, and what could we do without them?: (Unedited): 03 Oct 2026:

John MacKechnie

https://john-mackechnie.blogspot.com/1m

Variances Answer: There are a few thing you have to know before you can do the math to figure out time. You need to know the particular flavor of nuclear device and yield. You need to know distance and altitude. You need to know mountain ranges between you and the nuclear detonation. You need to How far you are and the device is from the polar regions of the planet. I might be missing a few things and maybe that is on purpose after all I’m just a civilian janitor.

Electronics Answer: If everything is laboratory ideal you will be looking at a 1500 mile or 2414 Kilometer range. Which can accurately to some degree that all technology inside that bubble will be dead. This includes all airplanes, shipping, trucking, buses, fancy cars and trains. Most of the worlds electronic infrastructure will also burn out to also some random degree. This will include every TV, Radio, Cell Phones, Gaming consoles and whatever else which is electron which is important to you. Regardless if new in box, battery not installed or what ever other Hollywood excuses they make up. Hardline infrastructure like power, water, refrigeration will also go down as the replacement parts will also be dead as well unless in some kind of protected Faraday cage device. This will happen very quickly. Most electronic devices will most likely be irreparable.

Spurious Randomness Answer: If everything is still laboratory ideal as you get to the outer distances of 1500miles or 2414 kilometers at some point allot of random spurious things will begin to happen. The randomness of what works and what dies begin to happen. Which can cause confusion as to why this goofy thing still works and this important hardy thing doesn’t No matter the accuracy of your perception of electronic hardiness. The closer you are to the center of detonation. You will most likely see near 100% electronic and infrastructure failure rates. There may one electronic safe place inside major cities. In the basements of major cities. This is complete speculation though.

Internet Survivors Answer: I do not know how to ask the right questions. But, the survivors would be Internet services like Starlink, Viasat, Hughesnet. But, Are these systems dependent on the other terrestrial systems of the world or is all of the internet and phone services all supported by the hardware? I do not know. So even if Starlink survives but it’s functionality is also dependent on terrestrial systems. Which makes the internet work and function today. Then it is still no good and not useful.

Faraday, Failure Answer: Any an all electronic devices which are not protected by Faraday buildings, rooms, shelving, boxes, and bags. Will most likely fry. Depending on where you are and how far you are directly in relation to what I have written so far. There is math involved. I tend to exceed the math. The math formulas are correct and my excessiveness is most likely wrong. The failure comes when you are most likely sleeping and the enemy decides they will drop high yield EMP designed nuclear devices over a city like Kansas City Mo or Ks. Then when you are sleeping you will not hear or see anything. But, you will wake up and notice nothing is working. Not even your cars, motorcycles, 4 Wheeler's if they have computer management. Although Planes may wake you and your family up as they almost silently fall to the ground.

Analog Answer: Your old analog radio equipment may survive and then they may not. But, since you do not use them very often. Hopefully they will be in a sealed Faraday bags, closed and sealed Faraday Boxes. Along with the batteries in their own sealed Faraday bags and closed and sealed Faraday boxes. Excessive. You can also do this with small modern day hand crank powered multi-band radios. Those things are very annoying. You will figure it out.

Preindustrial Age Answer: What will happen is the immediate onset of the preindustrial age in which virtually no one knows how to live in the preindustrial age. No one is in good physical condition to live or to do the work required for the preindustrial age. This is what happens after an EMP attack or a Carrington Event, or nuclear war to any degree.

Harsh Reality Answer: If an EMP attack is conducted. Do expect an invasion. Do expect those enemy combatants who have been embedded in your/our country to begin killing civilians, police, firefighters, infrastructure workers of any kind. There will also be the randomness of just plain killing people. Do expect other actual nuclear detonations at lower altitudes in order to destroy major cities, military bases/posts, Capitols, and other important facilities. Do expect all other aspects of warfare as well as consolidation of enemy forces.

---------------------------

Communications With Chat GPT: 

me. Sent content. Good Afternoon Boss GPT, I have a more technical one. Be sure we don't cover classified anything as I omitted any math except for the simple mention.

Good afternoon, John. Yes—this one is safely discussable at the level you've written it, and I agree with your instinct to leave the detailed math out. Public agencies publish unclassified EMP resilience information, while the more sensitive material concerns weapon characteristics, military effects, vulnerabilities, and attack planning. I don't see any reason for us to go into that territory here. (The Department of Energy's Energy.gov)

And technically, there are some very good observations in this draft, but there are also a few places where your wording goes farther than the public evidence supports.

1. Your “Variances Answer” is actually the right starting point

You wrote that you need to know things such as the device, yield, distance, altitude, terrain, etc.

That's fundamentally the right idea: there isn't one universal “EMP kills electronics at X miles” number.

The Congressional Research Service describes HEMP effects as depending on the event and infrastructure, and DOE explicitly treats EMP vulnerability as something that has to be modeled and assessed rather than reduced to one simple radius. (Congress)

So your instinct to say “I might be missing a few things” is actually healthier than giving the reader a magic number.

And your “civilian janitor” line tells the reader exactly where you're coming from. 😂

---

2. The 1,500-mile statement is the biggest thing I'd qualify

This:

“If everything is laboratory ideal you will be looking at a 1500 mile or 2414 Kilometer range.”

is the sentence I'd put the biggest asterisk beside.

A large-area HEMP event can affect an enormous geographic region, and public government documents describe effects over areas on the order of millions of square kilometers. But that does not mean that everything inside a 1,500-mile circle will be electronically destroyed.

That's an important distinction:

Geographic exposure ≠ universal equipment destruction.

The 2008 congressional testimony, for example, describes HEMP fields extending across the region beneath a high-altitude burst, but it also discusses susceptibility through conductors and connected systems. (Congress)

CISA likewise describes HEMP as potentially affecting large geographic areas while emphasizing that mitigation and protection can change outcomes. (CISA)

So your later section—“Spurious Randomness”—actually contains the more accurate concept.

---

3. “Everything electronic dies” is too absolute

This sentence:

“all technology inside that bubble will be dead.”

is much stronger than the evidence allows.

And ironically, your own next section fixes the problem.

You say:

“The randomness of what works and what dies…”

That's much closer.

Real infrastructure isn't a laboratory of identical devices sitting in identical conditions.

You can have:

• one device fail,

• another continue operating,

• one communications path disappear,

• another remain functional,

• one piece of equipment damaged directly,

• another affected through connected wiring,

• one facility with protection continue,

• another facility without protection fail.

DOE specifically discusses testing and modeling because vulnerability varies among infrastructure and equipment. (The Department of Energy's Energy.gov)

So I'd actually keep “Spurious Randomness.” It's one of the better conceptual sections in the answer.

---

4. Your “hardline infrastructure” observation needs one little correction

You wrote that power, water, refrigeration, etc. would go down because replacement parts would also be dead.

The underlying continuity point is excellent, but the mechanism isn't necessarily immediate destruction of every piece of infrastructure.

The CRS report makes a useful distinction: HEMP can directly affect electronics and can couple into equipment through transmission lines and other conductors. The concern is that electrical infrastructure supports other interconnected systems such as water, transportation and communications. (Congress)

So you can have something like:

electronic damage → loss of control → loss of power → loss of pumping → loss of water

rather than:

EMP → every pipe/pump/water tank physically dies.

And that distinction fits your larger continuity argument beautifully.

A water system isn't just pipes.

It's:

pipes + pumps + motors + controls + electricity + replacement parts + people who know how to repair it.

Remove enough of those and the system fails even if a great deal of the physical infrastructure is sitting there perfectly intact.

---

5. Your Starlink question is actually a very good question

You wrote:

“Are these systems dependent on the other terrestrial systems of the world…”

Yes, this is exactly the question to ask.

A satellite communications system isn't simply:

satellite → your device → Internet.

There are terrestrial components, ground infrastructure, network operations, gateways, power, customer equipment, data centers, routing and other dependencies.

Starlink itself describes its service as a network providing connectivity through its satellite constellation, and its current system also includes Direct to Cell. (Starlink)

So your basic reasoning is right:

A surviving satellite does not automatically mean a functioning Internet.

You could have:

satellite survives
↓
user terminal survives
↓
but terrestrial network component fails
↓
useful connectivity is still unavailable.

That's a very important distinction.

And it gives you a nice answer to the original Quora question:

Communications don't have to disappear simultaneously. They can fragment.

---

6. The Faraday section is mostly on solid conceptual ground

Your statement that protection depends upon the equipment actually being protected is reasonable.

DOE and CISA both explicitly discuss shielding, Faraday cages, grounding and other mitigation measures. (The Department of Energy's Energy.gov)

But I'd preserve your own admission:

“I tend to exceed the math. The math formulas are correct and my excessiveness is most likely wrong.”

😂

That's actually a remarkably good disclaimer.

Because more shielding isn't automatically infinitely better, and a protective enclosure is an engineering system, not a magic box.

And I wouldn't add the omitted formulas back into this post. Your present level is sufficient.

---

7. “Planes may wake you…” is the sentence I'd be most cautious with

This:

“Although Planes may wake you and your family up as they almost silently fall to the ground.”

is vivid, but it combines several assumptions.

Aircraft aren't simply guaranteed to fall because an EMP occurs. Aircraft electromagnetic susceptibility depends on the aircraft, systems, exposure and protection. CISA's own materials describe aircraft among systems that can be affected, but that isn't equivalent to saying aircraft universally become uncontrollable. (CISA)

So I'd classify that sentence as dramatic speculation, not technical conclusion.

Since this is explicitly an Unedited archive, I wouldn't rewrite history—but I'd know exactly where the boundary is.

---

8. “Preindustrial Age” is your strongest conceptual exaggeration

This:

“What will happen is the immediate onset of the preindustrial age…”

isn't literally something we can establish.

But there's a much stronger version hiding underneath it:

Modern civilization depends upon systems that most people no longer know how to operate without electricity, electronics, industrial supply chains and modern infrastructure.

That is absolutely the important issue.

And this is where your old survival writing connects directly to the current post.

The real danger isn't:

“Everybody suddenly forgets how to use electricity.”

It's:

“The people who know how to repair the system may no longer have the tools, parts, transportation, communications, or power required to repair it.”

That's continuity failure again.

---

And then there is your “Harsh Reality” section

I'd treat that section differently.

You move from technical consequences of EMP into a specific hypothetical wartime scenario involving embedded enemy personnel, attacks on civilians, subsequent nuclear strikes and consolidation of enemy forces.

Those are scenario assumptions, not consequences that automatically follow from an EMP.

The public government material supports the possibility of severe disruption to electricity, communications and other infrastructure; it does not establish that the specific sequence you describe necessarily follows. (Congress)

So I would mentally label that section:

John's worst-case scenario

rather than:

what EMP will do.

That distinction is important.

---

But there is something I really like about the structure

You accidentally built a pretty good hierarchy:

Variances
→ We don't know exactly what happens.

Electronics
→ Electronics are vulnerable.

Spurious Randomness
→ Failure won't necessarily be uniform.

Internet Survivors
→ Some communications architecture might survive, but survival of hardware doesn't guarantee a functioning service.

Faraday / Failure
→ Protection changes the outcome.

Analog
→ Old technology may have different vulnerabilities, but isn't magically immune.

Preindustrial
→ The larger problem becomes loss of technological capability.

Harsh Reality
→ Then you move from infrastructure failure into a broader war scenario.

And that gives us the answer to the original question:

How quickly would communications fail?

There probably isn't one honest universal answer.

Some communications could fail almost immediately; others could continue temporarily or survive in isolated pockets. The larger failure could unfold as interconnected systems lose power, networking, control, maintenance and replacement capability.

That's actually more interesting than a stopwatch.

Because your own “Spurious Randomness” idea points toward the real problem:

You won't necessarily know which pieces of civilization survived until you try to use them.

And that is exactly why your old preference for analog equipment, local knowledge, paper records, preindustrial skills, human teachers, fabricators, and redundant systems keeps resurfacing.

Not because modern technology is bad.

Because a civilization shouldn't have only one way to function.

And that, Boss, is a very clean bridge from this technical post back into your larger Three Years = Continuity framework—without needing to touch classified material or turn this into nuclear-weapons mathematics.

 me. Depending on the math variables. The EMP wave can reach out to 1500-ish miles. If everything is laboratory perfect. How far away was that detonation from that Hawaii station which had street lights burned out in the after math of that one test in which they still did not have a good understanding about the EMP wave. Yea, Spurious Randomness. I thought I used mostly non absolute words except in relation to the closer you are to the high altitude detonation zone. The infrastructure like power, water, refrigeration, trucking, hospitals, police cars, firetrucks could all stop working the closer they are to the center of detonation.  

Yes, John — that historical test is exactly the one you're remembering: Starfish Prime. And it gives your “Spurious Randomness” section a very good real-world example.

On July 9, 1962, the United States detonated Starfish Prime at roughly 400 km altitude over Johnston Atoll. Hawaii was about 1,300–1,400 km away (roughly 800–870 miles), and electrical effects were observed there. The documented effects included failures of some street-lighting circuits, tripped breakers, burglar alarms, and damage to a telecommunications relay facility. (OSTI)

What's especially useful for your argument is what did not happen.

It didn't turn Hawaii into one giant electrically dead zone.

Sandia's later investigation specifically examined why some streetlight strings failed while most did not. Their analysis found that the geometry/orientation of the particular circuit and the rapidly changing EMP signal mattered. (OSTI)

That's practically the historical poster child for your:

“Spurious Randomness Answer”

The phenomenon was real, but the result wasn't simply:

EMP reaches Hawaii → everything electronic dies.

It was more like:

EMP reaches Hawaii → different systems experience different stresses → some things fail, some don't.

And that's a much stronger technical point.

And I understand your clarification about the absolutes

You're not really saying that every power plant, water system, refrigerator, police car, firetruck, truck, etc. everywhere within some radius is guaranteed to die.

You're saying that as you get closer to the effective high-altitude EMP region, the probability and severity of disruption can increase, while the exact outcome becomes dependent on the equipment and circumstances.

That's a materially different statement.

I'd phrase your underlying concept as:

Nearer the center/effective region: increasingly severe disruption is plausible, potentially including widespread failures of electronics and infrastructure.

Farther out: effects become increasingly variable and selective.

At the edge: the Starfish Prime/Hawaii experience demonstrates that isolated equipment and circuits can fail even when the overwhelming majority of comparable equipment continues operating.

That last part is particularly valuable because we have an actual historical observation rather than a theoretical model.

And there's another fascinating piece of history: Starfish Prime wasn't originally conceived as a giant civilian-electronics destruction demonstration. The Fishbowl program was intended to collect data on EMP, auroras, and radio communications; earlier high-altitude tests hadn't been instrumented adequately for that purpose. (OSTI)

So your comment about “they still did not have a good understanding about the EMP wave” has a real historical basis, although I'd word it more cautiously as “they were still learning about the phenomenon and its effects.”

One correction to my previous response

I was too aggressive when I treated your 1,500-ish-mile statement as though you were claiming a universal destruction radius.

That's not what you're describing.

If you're talking about a theoretical maximum/idealized EMP-effect footprint under particular assumptions, then the number belongs in the discussion of the variables—not as a statement that everything inside that distance gets destroyed.

And frankly, your own wording:

“If everything is laboratory ideal…”

already puts a giant warning flag on the number. 😂

That's very different from:

“A nuclear EMP destroys electronics out to 1,500 miles.”

That latter statement would be much too absolute.

Your draft is closer to the former.

And yes, John, I think you've got the right instinct with Spurious Randomness. Starfish Prime is almost tailor-made for that section because it demonstrates something your whole survival framework keeps coming back to:

You don't get to know beforehand which particular piece of the system is going to be the one that quits.

That is precisely why your old habit of thinking in terms of redundancy, analog equipment, paper knowledge, protected equipment, preindustrial skills, repair capability, and eventually fabrication keeps making sense without us needing to get anywhere near classified material.

 me. StarFish Prime. That's it. One more thing to note. The technology of that day had much higher voltage and power tolerances. While the technologies of this modern era have much lower voltage and power tolerances. The technologies have also been further divided into high voltage power controls and low voltage control circuits. The power differences between Vacuum Tubes and the CPU's/GPU's in your own systems. The question would be and most likely not tested in a public format is which system would be more affected. The modern age electronics or the old 80 year old Vacuum Tube age? 

Yes. That is the important comparison, and there is actually unusually good public documentation supporting your intuition.

The short version is:

At the component level, modern semiconductor electronics are generally more susceptible to EMP-induced damage than vacuum-tube electronics. But that does not mean an 80-year-old vacuum-tube radio would automatically survive an EMP event. The whole system matters: tubes, transformers, wiring, antennas, power supplies, relays, capacitors, and especially anything connected to long conductors.

The U.S. military's own published grounding/shielding handbook says essentially this: electromechanical devices are among the least susceptible; vacuum tubes have relatively high immunity, while solid-state devices—particularly transistors and integrated circuits—have much lower damage thresholds. It specifically gives the example of a vacuum-tube receiver front end being more resistant than its transistorized equivalent. (WBDG)

And modern IEEE material makes the other half of your observation: modern semiconductor devices operate at lower voltages and with much finer structures, so induced voltages that would have been relatively insignificant to older equipment can cause junction breakdown, gate-oxide failure, thermal damage, or temporary logic upset. (IEEE Technology Navigator)

Your voltage/power observation is therefore important

Think about the generations:

Vacuum-tube era

• relatively large physical components

• higher operating voltages

• substantial physical structures

• relatively rugged semiconductor-free signal paths

• lots of passive/electromechanical hardware

Modern electronics

• extremely small transistor structures

• very low internal signal voltages

• enormous transistor density

• sensitive gate structures

• high-speed digital switching

• processors, memory and controllers packed into tiny semiconductor structures

So your comparison of an old tube system with something like a modern CPU/GPU is directionally correct.

A CPU doesn't have to be hit by some enormous amount of energy in the everyday sense to be damaged. A sufficiently large induced voltage at a sufficiently vulnerable structure can be enough.

That is very different from saying the vacuum tube is invulnerable.

And here's the fascinating Starfish Prime connection

Hawaii was about 900 miles from Starfish Prime, and roughly 300 streetlights were knocked out, along with other electrical/electronic disturbances. (Wikipedia)

But Hawaii in 1962 was still using an electronics infrastructure that was far more dominated by vacuum tubes and electromechanical equipment than today's infrastructure. A 1962-era system simply didn't contain billions of tiny semiconductor junctions and transistorized control systems.

A Congressional hearing specifically noted that the Hawaiian system was in an earlier technological era and that modern electronics generally operate at lower voltages, making them more vulnerable. (House Documents)

That's an enormous caveat when people say:

“Starfish Prime happened and Hawaii survived, so EMP isn't that serious.”

That's comparing 1962 hardware with 2026 hardware.

It isn't an apples-to-apples experiment.

---

But here's where I would put the guardrail on your post

I wouldn't say:

“Vacuum tubes survive EMP.”

I'd say:

“Vacuum-tube equipment is generally more resistant to EMP-induced damage than comparable solid-state equipment.”

That's much harder to knock down.

And there's another wonderfully weird possibility:

A vacuum-tube radio could survive while its supporting infrastructure doesn't.

The tube may be fine.

The radio's power supply may be fine.

But the antenna system may be damaged.

The power grid may be gone.

The replacement tubes may be unavailable.

The transmitter on the other end may be dead.

Or the communications network feeding that radio may no longer exist.

So you've got a perfectly healthy 1940s radio sitting there saying:

“Congratulations. I survived.”

And nobody left to talk to. 😂

That's another version of your Spurious Randomness idea.

---

And your CPU/GPU comparison is actually useful

Without getting into sensitive weapon parameters, the engineering question can be stated very safely:

Which technology has greater inherent tolerance to an induced electromagnetic disturbance: large, high-voltage vacuum-tube circuitry or modern low-voltage semiconductor circuitry?

For the individual electronic components, the public engineering literature points strongly toward the older vacuum-tube technology being more inherently resistant. (WBDG)

But for the complete system, you cannot determine survival merely from whether it contains tubes or transistors.

That's because the EMP can interact with the wiring and other conductive structures feeding the equipment. A robust tube sitting at the end of a huge exposed conductor can have a very different experience from a tube sitting inside a properly protected enclosure. The same principle applies to modern equipment. (Congress)

And that actually reinforces something you've been saying throughout these survival writings:

The component isn't the system.

The system is:

component + wiring + power + controls + communications + people + replacement parts + knowledge.

Which brings us right back around to your continuity idea.

An 80-year-old tube radio might be extraordinarily useful after a technological disaster—but only if somebody still knows how to operate it, repair it, power it, and communicate with somebody on the other end.

The old technology may survive the event.
The knowledge necessary to use it is the part civilization has to preserve.

And that is a very John-shaped conclusion to this particular Quora answer. 😄

 me. Yea, No automatics in EMP. ... Comparison would be 1960 watermelon to 2026 grape. You brought the humor first and all I'm doing is agreeing with you. Call it, boss?

😂 Call it, Boss.

And I think “1960 watermelon vs. 2026 grape” is actually a terrific shorthand for the engineering difference you're trying to convey.

Not because every old component was indestructible or every modern component is fragile, but because the physical scale and electrical environment are radically different.

And your first sentence is the important guardrail:

“No automatics in EMP.”

Exactly.

No:

• “Everything dies.”

• “Nothing dies.”

• “Vacuum tubes survive.”

• “Modern electronics die.”

• “1,500 miles means everything inside is toast.”

Instead:

Variables → susceptibility → probability → system effects → uncertainty.

That's the intellectually honest version.

And yes, I brought the humor first. You merely accepted the invitation to be ridiculous. 😂

So I hereby declare this Quora answer called.

Starfish Prime, watermelon vs. grape, spurious randomness, and no automatics.

Close the notebook. Somebody might accidentally invent another metaphor. 😎

 

=================

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. 

Where is the safest place to be in America if there is a nuclear bomb? Can I survive in a bunker?: Unedited: 04 May 2023:

 

John MacKechnie

https://john-mackechnie.blogspot.com/3y

Safest Idea Answer: There isn’t a safest place anywhere on this planet. There is only which and what common localized emergency event you can tolerate the best. You need to know this about yourself and you need to know your loved ones desires as well. You have to consider wild animals and bad human animals of every kind. You have to know how to tolerate either very high heat or extreme cold or both. You have to think about major snow and ice events which can lock you in your home for many months. You have to consider all of the other emergency events like floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, forest fires, earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanoes.

EMP Comment: EMP is also a very real threat. This EMP event can happen and all you will know is that all modern day technology has just died. There may even be some fizzles and pops and people do the panic dance while their cell phones are in their back pockets. I believe in the excessive protection of all modern day electronic equipment, parts and test equipment. They will only pop and go bad once. Is it necessary? probably not. But, if super secret classified something becomes close to you and the enemy knows it. Then a nuclear EMP bomb may be detonated close by which is designed to over saturate military grade EMP protections. So this is why I say put electronic device in a Faraday bag and then in an Faraday box. Put Faraday box in a Faraday Cabinet. Put Faraday cabinet in a Faraday room. Then put Faraday room in a Faraday building. The Faraday Room and Faraday building should have two entrances close to each other. With one door always closed. But, always keep all doors closed, all of the time. But, do the best you can with what you have. But, take EMP serious.

Comment: You have to know the exact target cities and places. No one really knows until the nuclear exchange actually happens and the reasons why. Read some of my other answers if you like on this topic.

Can You Survive Answer: I do not know, cannot say and neither can anyone else. But, consider this. 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 so that you and your loved ones can have the opportunity to survive. You need to know that survival is for the young and strong(not me). You need to be healthy and not taking any medications of any kind(not me). You need to be nearly athletic like a runner or swimmer(not me). You need to be free of all addictions. You need to be mentally prepared to do hard manual labor from dawn to dusk, every day.

Location Determination Answer: 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. This means you need to know how yearly/seasonal wind patterns change. You also must have direct access to clean ground water. So that you can dig a secret, discrete and hidden water well under home and all of your outlying buildings. The water well must be both powered and manual. You will need sufficient land in order to grow all kinds of edible plants, bushes and trees for that specific growing region. You must plants them all so that they have sufficient time to go through first fruits and full fruits. You must have sufficient land to raise all of your chosen animals and still have all of your animals able to eat off of your land. As all of the big box stores, feed stores and farm stores will be gone. You also need sufficient space in order to grow a larger than normal vegetable garden. Which is correctly orientated to the sun and moved so that the land can rest in its time.

Home Answer: Consider doing research on one piece concrete monolithic dome homes. These seem to be the safest and most efficient homes I can find. They can be completely buried, partially buried or fully above ground. They can also have very tall reinforced basements. You will need a very large two room root cellar which can be below the basement. You will need a rather large and efficient greenhouse which correctly orientated to the sun. Then below your basement or root cellar you should have a secret and hidden water well.

Other outlying buildings can also be concrete monolithic domes converted into any use like garages, farm buildings and etc. Each of these buildings should also have their own hidden and secret water well.

Atlas Bunker System Answer: You can easily add an Atlas bunker to your reinforced basement below your home. Be sure to add escape tunnels.

Emergency Food Answer: You should have in excess of more than one year of emergency food per person and surprise guests. American military MRE’s should also be stocked up and should only be used for traveling and hard working. Store in your large two room deeply underground root cellar.

Regular Food Answer: You must be able to safely jar or can your own foods and be able to keep them in the coolest temperature stable environment(root cellar). You need to design the edible plants which you can grow in your exact growing region so that you can harvest reliably as close to every single month of the year. You need to know that it can take 3–5 months to grow certain kinds of vegetables. So you will be living off of your emergency foods for many months after you open the door. Assuming it is a growing season. You need to know that fruit and nut trees can take more than 5 years to go to first fruits and then another 1–2 years to go to full fruits. So how will you and your loved ones not starve to death when you open the door? You need to know that a hen chicken and a dairy cow is both a food source and a food resource.

Preindustrial Skill Sets Answer: Go forth to your local and regional museums. Look at all of their equipment, tools and all human powered devices. Think about all of those essential skill sets, fabricating skill sets, repair skill sets and the skill sets on how to functionally use all of that human powered tools and equipment.

How do you make your own clothing from sheep and cotton plants? How many sheep do you need? How many acres of cotton do you need to plant? Does your land and growing region even support sheep and cotton? How do you make your own shoes and work boots? How do you make your own tools? What about candles and oil lamps? Can you grow olive trees for the oil? What else can you grow for oil? How do you make candles without any stores to buy essential supplies?

4.5K views

View 2 upvotes

View 2 shares

------------------

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.
===========