As you may know, I spent many years of my life (from 2008 to the end of 2011) preparing for a major catastrophe. I proposed the massive construction of anti-atomic shelters in Spain in the face of the risk of Solar Storms, Pandemics, Nuclear Wars and various uncatalogued Apocalypses... Both myself and most of the members of the association were convinced that having a shared bunker, a few (or many) kilometres away from our homes, was the best option to survive the aforementioned scenarios... but were we right? I will try to answer that a little bit below, but first let me explain something.
Now that Russia's invasion is making the front pages of the newspapers and saturating the television news, we have begun to hear experts complaining that we are not prepared (as we once warned), and that ideally we should have fallout shelters in case Putin goes off the deep end. We all know the danger we face if Russia and NATO (or the United States and China) engage in a nuclear strike against Moscow. It would be preceded by a first bomb, which would almost automatically be met with a strong retaliation by the country under attack.
Before trying to answer the questions in the title, I think it is very important to know the potential of each country and what nuclear arsenal has at its disposal. In the image below we can see that Russia is the most powerful territory in terms of nuclear warheads (6,257), followed by the United States (5,550).
Far behind are France (290) and the United Kingdom (225), leaving Spain, as we can see on the map, as well as many other European countries, with zero nuclear weapons. These are protected only by NATO in case of attack.
In recent weeks I have read in many media, including sports newspapers, dozens of articles describing the destructive power of a nuclear bomb and what the magnitude would be in terms of human losses. As a mere piece of information, I must admit that some of them are very good. They help us to understand new things, even to me, who ended up being quite aware of the dangers and consequences of nuclear weapons, having studied them in depth in the past. The problem I see is that talking about a single nuclear bomb is not entirely realistic. We see that in this video below.
The simulation below was recently created by Princeton University in the United States, based on probability statistics as well as war tactics considering all the variables of a hypothetical war between the United States, NATO and Russia.
91.5 million deaths | Total duration: 5 hours
The final figure would actually be much higher, taking into account long-term illnesses from radioactivity and the millions of deaths that would occur over the course of days as a result of poorly healed wounds, collapsed buildings, chaos, famine.
I will not emphasise the loss of patrimony here. Although one of the things sought in any kind of war is to weaken the "enemy" country. In our scale of values we all agree that a life is worth more than a building, a monument or a museum. But we must not forget that one of the main objectives of any armed conflict is to shake Spain, England or any other country in terms of health and politics. That is precisely why, to date (08/03/22), no one has intervened in Russia's invasion of Ukraine. All Europe and the rest of the world can do right now is to offer humanitarian aid and solidarity with the exodus of Ukrainians fleeing their country.
What's promised is promised: could we survive a nuclear attack?
The answer to this question depends on just one fact: how close are we to the impact of the bomb? It seems obvious, but it's the only thing I'm interested in knowing to answer it, because the closer we are, the more risks and dangers we will face: radiation, heat, tornadoes, debris rain, collapse of structures and buildings, etc. I may do another post analysing the variants depending on our proximity to ground zero and how we might expand our survival options.
So... is a bunker necessary?
Honestly? I don't think it is necessary. And it is not necessary for the simple reason that it will be logistically impossible for us to move from A to B in the short space of time in which everything happens after the bomb detonates.
As much as I would like to continue defending the idea of the fallout shelter, the truth is that during the first attack we will most probably find ourselves in the street or at work. How do I know? Well, I don't really know, but I can imagine. It is on the street or at work that we, as working people, spend the most hours of the day. Let's forget the hours of sleep. Let's focus on the fact that from 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. are the only hours of the day when we are most relaxed at home. So let's say that between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. would be a "ripe" time for chaos to reign. I may be wrong, but I can't imagine that the dropping of a nuclear bomb - the first in 77 years since Hiroshima and Nagasaki - would take place while we are taking the dog out at night or feeding the children a snack. The vast majority of us who live in the suburbs, in small towns, are forced to travel to the city centre for work or school. Large cities welcome a human tide from the early hours of the day, making them more than attractive targets to inflict further damage on the opponent.
Remember that the first attack on the Twin Towers on 9/11 hit the North Tower of the World Trade Center in New York at 8:46 a.m. Seventeen minutes later, at 9:03 a.m., the South Tower of the same complex was hit by another plane. In just over an hour and a half, both towers collapsed and were reduced to rubble. A third flight hit the west side of the Pentagon (the headquarters of the US military) at 9:37 am. The fourth and final plane crashed in a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, at 10:03 a.m.
At 8:15 a.m. on the morning of 6 August 1945, a US plane flew over the city of Hiroshima, dropping the first nuclear bomb to be used for war purposes, known as Little Boy.
Three days later, on 9 August 1945, Fat Man - the name of the second bomb - was set off in mid-flight, being dropped by the pilot on an emergency launch over the city of Nagasaki at 11:02 am.
The explosions on the four suburban trains of the 11 March 2004 attack in Madrid took place between 7:38 and 7:40 a.m.
We could go on like this until tomorrow: the mass shooting in London on 22 March 2017 on Westminster Bridge took place at 2:40 p.m., the similar attack on the Ramblas in Barcelona on 17 August 2017 at 4:56 p.m....
Against this background, I am inclined to think that if we were to be attacked, it would most likely happen: first in a big city, Monday to Friday and at a time between 7am and 6pm.
If you happen to be at home:
In the event of a nuclear attack, the safest bunker is to stay at home. Concrete walls are our best protection against radiation and the blast wave, and while a communal car park inside our building several metres underground would be more suitable, at home we have food and water to survive the 48 hours we should stay there without going out. If we are fortunate that the centre of the blast is 15 to 30 kilometres away from our home, the chances of getting out alive are quite high.
If you are caught at work or on the street:
Assuming the bunker was 5 to 10 km away from your workplace, your chances of reaching it are 0.01%. After the impact of an atomic bomb, the last thing you should do is drive your car. Metal doors and glass windows will be too thin to protect you from gamma radiation. Motor homes do not offer adequate shelter either.
Try to find a basement or a multi-storey building, remembering that the key factor is to put as many thick layers between your body and the fallout as possible. We are talking about concrete or brick, so glass offices, glass shopping centres or wooden houses are not the best option.
If you want to block 99% of the radiation you have to shelter behind 12.5 centimetres of steel, 40 centimetres of brick or 60 centimetres of compacted earth. If you are in a city like Madrid or Barcelona with a metro system, head for it. It will offer a decent level of protection.
Assuming you have entered somewhere above ground, avoid the upper floors, as all the fallout will settle on the ceilings. The point of going indoors is to stay as far away as possible from those pesky dust particles that emit dangerous levels of gamma radiation, which could lead to radiation poisoning.
If you have time, try to close the areas where the fallout could enter: doors, chimneys, air conditioners, windows...
If during your escape on foot, running like crazy, you think that radioactive particles have fallen on you, in your hair or on your clothes, you are at risk of acute radiation poisoning. It would be a bad sign if you have already started vomiting. Since your gut is very sensitive to radiation, vomiting is a sign that you have absorbed a fairly strong dose of radiation and the prognosis is probably death.
If you have not started vomiting, there are many things you can do to get rid of any fallout that may be in you. Carefully remove the outer layer of your clothing - this can remove 90% of the radioactive material - put it in a plastic bag and leave it somewhere away from you. Take your time, taking everything off too quickly can release radioactive dust and that's not going to help anyone.
A shower would also be very helpful, of course you can shower with some soap and shampoo, but never use conditioner. It will bind to the radioactive particles in your hair and you will most likely lose your hair soon - as we all know, it is one of the many victims of a nuclear disaster.
If you don't have a shower nearby, wash your face, hands and any exposed body parts using a wash basin or a wet flannel.
Many people believe that such nuclear attacks would be predicted by some kind of warning, but the reality is that almost no country has nuclear missile detectors. I think only the United States has something like that. The rest of us, unfortunately, would only know that we were attacked when we saw the big fireball explode before our eyes.
So why did I promote the construction of anti-atomic bunkers?
Because the plan was not just to survive 21 December 2012 (the date on which the world was supposed to end, according to the Mayan calendar). I'm not ashamed to admit that it started out that way, but the idea evolved into something more productive and sensible, broadening the range of proven dangers: solar storms, pandemics, nuclear attacks, energy crises, and so on. We wanted to set up a sustainable project to have not one, but hundreds of bunkers in the main cities of Spain. Public shelters to which the population would have access in the event of a nuclear or any other kind of threat. We knew it was not going to be easy, which is partly why it failed. Because in order to make it prosper, the first thing that is needed is that there is a real threat that makes them necessary and, secondly, an educational and awareness-raising effort that manages, after many years, to change the government's order of priorities in terms of national security.
In Switzerland, for example, they have done their homework. They have been building bomb shelters for decades and almost the entire population has access to them. From which we can deduce that in the event of nuclear war, most of the survivors of the new world will speak French, German, Italian and Romansh!