Preparing for WW3

[pvdude]

I remember neighbors with underground bunkers (Orlando) in the early 60’s (Cuban missile crisis).

Cuban Missile Crisis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Soviets were just as fun back then as now!
The bunkers might be a bit moldy ….tropical climate here……..

 

[12VoltInstalls]

VP went over there and started ranting about NATO

Like threatening a mafioso with another mafioso

 

[WYtreasure]

It seems Antarctica is the safest place for now. How is the daylight in Antarctica impacts solar generation? any clue? the solar max still 4 hrs/day?

I'm thinking a wind generator for half the year, solar the other half. Pick a mountain enjoy Sun, Wind and View.

they just recently added a tunnel access to their main house! ?

Yea, now your talkin. ?‍ Just remember the hardhat so ya don't konk your knoggin too much.

 

[MurphyGuy]

Back on topic...

Here is my small metal can homemade faraday bucket. Holds the Bluetti components and 3 GMRS radios.

Unfortunately the AC200P will (barely) not fit in a large metal garbage can. I will probably end up wrapping the original boxes (including B200) in a crap ton of foil. Who knows if it will work.
View attachment 86022

Your trash can isn't going to work very well.. You might get 10db out of it.. you need an absolute minimum of 40db, and an absolute minimum of 80 db to protect anything with a sensitive chip like a cell phone or computer.

You can fix the trashcan by closing it and wrapping the lid interface in foil tape so the lid is sealed.

I would STRONGLY suggest you visit Digi-Key and order a bunch of their Dri-Shield 3400 series bags. They provide 45 db of attenuation... then put the the bags in the trash can. One metal layer, then one aluminum layer = very good protection.

Also, you need to remove that red tape.. use some sandpaper and polish the connection points where the lid joins the can.

Putting your device in a cardboard box and and tightly and neatly wrapping it in tinfoil is an EXCELLENT method. Use some clear packing tape to make sure all seams are pressed together, use lots of overlap. Then wrap the foiled box in plastic, and then foil it again over that for a second isolated layer. That method is proven to provide a good solid 75 to 80 db.

We keep all our really important stuff behind three layers of steel, aluminum, aluminum. Other things are kept behind two layers.

 

[MurphyGuy]

Chicken wire with a grounding strap to a rod? AKA Cheapo Faraday Cage?

Chicken wire won't provide any meaningful protection.. Never ground a Faraday cage.

 

[offgriddave]

so what about if you have an inverter outside of a faraday cage? I have a small victron and server rack battery. I don't have a spare 48v inverter but I guess I could theortically re-arrange the cells inside the server rack battery for either 12 or 24v, hoping the cells themselves don't get EMP nuked and run it without a BMS. Then use one of my spare inverters, stored in a faraday cage trash can double enclosed.... just thinking outloud

The victron that can't be in a faraday cage has a 400ft extension cord going to my satellite dish. If I unplug it would it increase the chance of surviving an EMP? or go with the plan above

 

[MurphyGuy]

so what about if you have an inverter outside of a faraday cage? I have a small victron and server rack battery. I don't have a spare 48v inverter but I guess I could theortically re-arrange the cells inside the server rack battery for either 12 or 24v, hoping the cells themselves don't get EMP nuked and run it without a BMS. Then use one of my spare inverters, stored in a faraday cage trash can double enclosed.... just thinking outloud

The victron that can't be in a faraday cage has a 400ft extension cord going to my satellite dish. If I unplug it would it increase the chance of surviving an EMP? or go with the plan above

Batteries are not subject to damage from an EMP.. But an 18650 with a protection circuit built in might be... If they are unprotected, then they'll probably be fine.

The 400 foot extension cord would almost certainly destroy anything attached to either side of it.. it acts like a giant antenna, and at 400ft, a really good one too.. worst possible thing you can have.

This is also why we say NOT to ground a Faraday cage.. the ground wire is likely to do more harm than good, and there is no benefit to it anyhow. The only time a cage should be grounded is if its an "active cage" with functioning radio equipment or something..

If your BMS is exposed, it will probably be toast.. anything that is exposed, will likely be toast.

 

[HOU_Castle]

Chicken wire won't provide any meaningful protection.. Never ground a Faraday cage.

I thought grounding faraday cage only for larger size. No need for small size, unless there is conductor running thru it.

 

[MurphyGuy]

I thought grounding faraday cage only for larger size. No need for small size, unless there is conductor running thru it.

The physical size is irrelevant to grounding. The problem is that the ground itself (the earth) becomes energized right along with everything else.

There are some exceptions, but they aren't going to be applicable to most people.

The fact is, the conductivity of the ground below your feet plays a large role in a decision to ground a cage or not. Generally, the wisdom is "if in doubt, don't ground it".. That said, there are specific places where the conductivity of the soil is so high that grounding the cage would be beneficial to some degree.. and that's the crux of the issue.. The ungrounded performance of a Faraday cage is easy to predict.. but if you don't know all the specific attributes of the soil under you, then the ground could do more harm than good.

The vast majority of the land area is not a good enough ground (have high enough conductivity) to shunt an E3 pulse from a nuclear weapon.. but there are some places where the soil has a very high conductivity..

It is a science that requires knowledge beyond my own, I just know the basics of it.

Interestingly, the effects of an E1 pulse (Solar EMP), are also dependent upon the local soil conductivity. Areas with highly conductive soils will experience fewer and more attenuated effects from an E1 pulse.

 

[Batvette]

I understand if Putin decides to go nuclear its likely to be short to medium range like strikes on eastern europe.
Much talk is going on about the number of nukes in russias arsenal but keep this in mind.
If he launches a max range ICBM at the continental US, he will not live to see the results. We have a number of submarines parked off their coasts that fire without even surfacing. Their defenses have never been good enough to reliably detect or deter them. On those subs are enough warheads to decimate the entire russian launch capability in one salvo. We know where all their launch sites are.
The russians also have subs with launch capability. I dont think they are as near to our coasts, russias blue water navy abilities are nothing like ours.
An exchange with russia is suicide for them, any way you look at it they are on the losing end.

I am not sure where our ballistic missile defense capabilities are at, Im pretty sure the navy with its AEGIS cruisers has short to medium range capability.

Not sure if anything can stop an ICBM inbound at Mach 25. The ABM laser system was pure folly.

What we are also seeing in Ukraine is boots on the ground, they might have a conscience. It is posited that Russian launch officers, if given orders, and know the truth of the situation, may not follow orders.

If its a full scale exchange, safe bet is to be happy to die. It was inevitable anyway.

Whats left, wont be worth living in if each side delivers say 50 warheads and thats not even 1/10th of our capability. Every major metropolitan area, hundreds of thousands killed. Many more, severely burned, blind, sick from fallout, dying weeks or months later.
We are talking each warhead with 10-100 times the power of bombs dropped on Japan.

But this is not reason to capitulate to Vladimir Putler. No he must be stopped. Surrender emboldens madmen.

 

[12VoltInstalls]

russias blue water navy abilities are nothing like ours.
An exchange with russia is suicide for them, any way you look at it they are on the losing end.

Except imho Putin is reliving Cold War fantasies and got himself in a save-face situation that imho- in his mind- he’s having a misguided “mine is bigger” junior high school moment. That’s an unstable thing for an adult. I don’t trust nuttin.

 

[Ralphloren]

.

 

[newbostonconst]

No one should trust anyone especially not Biden, Harris or Pelosi or Putin. Everyone already knows the lunacy that is Joe Biden. We got a good glimpse of the lunacy behind Nancy Pelosi the other night when he mentioned "burn pits". The problem with Putin is he's a lunatic but a smart and evil one whereas the lunatics in the US gov are just in La La land 24/7 with no clue of reality (kind of like they are constantly drunk).

Just go outside and shoot a shotgun into the air and Putin will go away running......at least we got our checkmark for electing special needs for Pres...

 

[SparkyJJO]

The World is insane.

 

[MurphyGuy]

I understand if Putin decides to go nuclear its likely to be short to medium range like strikes on eastern europe.

You understand wrong.

Much talk is going on about the number of nukes in russias arsenal but keep this in mind.

There is no controversy about the number of nukes in Russia's arsenal.

If he launches a max range ICBM at the continental US, he will not live to see the results.

Yes, he would.

We have a number of submarines parked off their coasts that fire without even surfacing. Their defenses have never been good enough to reliably detect or deter them. On those subs are enough warheads to decimate the entire russian launch capability in one salvo. We know where all their launch sites are.
The russians also have subs with launch capability. I dont think they are as near to our coasts, russias blue water navy abilities are nothing like ours.
An exchange with russia is suicide for them, any way you look at it they are on the losing end.

Wrong again. An exchange with Russia means everyone loses.. both sides would lose equally.

I am not sure where our ballistic missile defense capabilities are at, Im pretty sure the navy with its AEGIS cruisers has short to medium range capability.

Our missile defenses are limited to taking down one or two ICBM's launched from rogue states or terrorists, there is zero change of defending against a full scale attack.. there is only a 50% chance of taking out even just one Russian ICBM, and its probably more like 10% chance of success against just one.

Not sure if anything can stop an ICBM inbound at Mach 25. The ABM laser system was pure folly.

We do have systems that can stop an ICBM.. the key words are "an ICBM", not 10 or more.

What we are also seeing in Ukraine is boots on the ground, they might have a conscience. It is posited that Russian launch officers, if given orders, and know the truth of the situation, may not follow orders.

That might be true.

If its a full scale exchange, safe bet is to be happy to die. It was inevitable anyway.

You can die if you want.. I have other ideas.

Whats left, wont be worth living in if each side delivers say 50 warheads and thats not even 1/10th of our capability. Every major metropolitan area, hundreds of thousands killed. Many more, severely burned, blind, sick from fallout, dying weeks or months later.
We are talking each warhead with 10-100 times the power of bombs dropped on Japan.

But this is not reason to capitulate to Vladimir Putler. No he must be stopped. Surrender emboldens madmen.

That's mostly true. One correction, the radioactive fallout from modern day nuclear weapons is almost zero, and what fallout there is, mostly decays within 12 hours. Modern nuclear weapons are air-burst devices and are detonated thousands of feet above the ground to maximize blast radius. Fallout is almost non-existent.

When Russia dropped the Tsar Bomba (largest in human history), the scientists were at ground zero the next day doing research.. and when we bombed Japan, the rebuilding of Hiroshima and Nagasaki started almost immediately.

 

[Ralphloren]

.

 

[Koldsimer]

Top Gun just came out on Netflix. I suggest everyone watch it. It's gonna be ok, America rules.

 

[MurphyGuy]

If I was Putin, I wouldn't dream of nuking the USA.. I would have North Korea do it for me via an EMP.

I'd send my guys to NK with the technology to create a modern day ICBM with all the defensive measures like decoys.. I'd then bring Kim and his family to Russia, and have him launch the missile while safe in Russia.

Once the deed is done, I would publicly condemn North Korea, announce that in light of this unprecedented aggression that Russia is pulling out of Ukraine to facilitate peace, and offer to provide humanitarian assistance to the USA.

Wait a few months for the USA to collapse in on itself as it's power grid is toast and people are starving.. Once the USA is so concerned about its own welfare that it doesn't care about anyone else, I'd go back into Ukraine with a full scale attack.. then start taking over the other countries as well.

 

[Ralphloren]

.

 

[MurphyGuy]

Good hypothesis for considering I'll say that...I don't like the idea but it's a sound possibility.

Who says he won't "help" the USA in that scenario with the UN and China to provide Humanitarian aid to the USA and invade the USA by legal means?

Look up Kigali principles signed by Obama. I think he has bigger ambitions then Ukraine but who really knows for sure.

Problem is, you can't invade a nuclear armed country.. this is WHY countries want nukes.. once they have them, an invasion would be suicide.

 

[Ralphloren]

.

 

[MurphyGuy]

Problem is the Kigali principles allow foreign troops into a Nuclear armed country by pre-signed authority based on certain conditions like a disaster or civil war, etc. (EMP).

That stuff applies to non-nuclear armed countries.. the forceful placement of peacekeepers against the wishes of the nation..

Unless a nuclear armed country agreed to it, the UN isn't going to commit suicide by invading a country that can launch nukes at them.

Also, in the USA, where there are more guns than people, no one in their right mind would willingly put a blue helmet on and come here. They'd probably choose to have a colonoscopy without sedatives over coming to the USA and dealing with a bunch of pissed off Americans with guns.

If you ever see blue helmets in the USA, they will be unarmed and carrying food boxes or stirring soup in a kitchen. No way would our population allow armed foreign troops here.. I'd be gearing up myself if that happened. Those blue helmets would become the new national symbol for opening day.. and let me tell you, we hunters can shoot real good on opening day.

I don't think that's going to happen.

 

[Ralphloren]

.

 

[12VoltInstalls]

No way would our population allow armed foreign troops here.

Have you noticed the results and near results of the last six presidential elections?

 

[MurphyGuy]

The fact is Obama signed the agreement July 2016.

That gives the UN and UN countries legal right to invade with force over civilians to "protect civilians" in times of disaster or civil war, etc.
What is the USA going to do nuke all the countries of the UN that say they are helping civilians in the USA? I don't think so especially not if their approved person signed the document that makes it legal.

In my opinion, the legalities of international agreements aren't worth the paper they are written on. They are just general guidelines for various operational understandings between nations, and only when such operations benefit both nations involved or one has no other options.

For reference, I would submit exhibit 1) The number of times the USA has gone against its agreements with other countries such as Iran and the environmental agreements.

Here in the USA, we have a culture where rules only apply to others, not the people who make the rules.. and this same culture is in play when we make international agreements.

Everyone's opinion on likelihood is always up for debate.

The point here is that legal doors are already in place to allow a possible legal invasion based on humanitarian reasons from civil unrest caused by who knows what events but could include EMP, earthquake, civil war, etc. This is a far easier way to invade than Putin's current reasoning for invading Ukraine of liberating the Ukrainians from Nazism.

The 2A is great but not very effective against modern tanks, and airpower.

Again, just my opinion, but legalities don't mean squat when weapons are involved. When the USSR fell, Russia agreed to never invade Ukraine if they gave up their nuclear weapons.. Then they invaded Crimea, and now the rest of Ukraine. Kind of stupid move on Ukraine's part back then to give up the nukes if you ask me.

So back to my above statement, the legalities and agreements aren't worth the ink they're written with.

Have you noticed there's no peacekeepers in Afghanistan? How do you think that would play out? Oh sure, they talk the talk, but no country is going to want to go into Afghanistan on a peace keeping mission.. You either cut the military lose and let them conquer, or you stay the hell out.. There's no middle ground..

Peacekeepers only work in 3rd world countries where the citizens have largely been disarmed.. and really, when the rubber meets the road, peacekeeping missions are nothing but NATO trying to fertilize the growth of democracy. Not that such things are bad, but it is what it is.. and it would fail miserably and catastrophically in the USA. There would be blood soaked blue helmets everywhere.. not even their base of operations would survive.

Legal or not, its never going to happen.. our own military wouldn't allow it.