Bunker Death Trap (nuclear trap) ?

An individual bunker most probably decreases your risks only in case of a one time limited nuclear bomb explosion and regaining of order in a matter of days (depending on your bunker and how much all was prepared on the moment of impact).

In today's context that is not a very realistic scenario, and the chances your personal or even a collective bunker (traditionally supposed safe havens) turns into a (bunker) death trap (this page) becomes more realistic.

You best decrease your risk by not being present in a region where one or more impacts (can or are expected to) occur.

You are much safer in a freestanding homecar (considered less safe than most houses) in a region upwind and or far away from impact, than in a bunker were more than one impacts (can or are expected to) occur

Any bunker that is not an integral part of a smart grid, and has no direct access to a confined aquifer and autonomous gravitational sanitation becomes a “death trap” in case of a realistic nuclear war *.

This makes that pretty much all bunkers in the world will become “death traps” in case of a realistic nuclear war, this for the above, and still other reasons.

One of the other reasons, is that even with access to a good traditional bunker in a region located in a frequently targeted cell (atmospheric circulation cell) (a circumnavigating part of the world, like for instance the southern hemisphere hadley cell that holds the most part of Europa and US), will undergo a severe “nuclear winter”.

“Paraiso do Brasil” “Safe Haven Beach Houses” are integrated part of an autonomous (?) “smart grid”, and have direct access to a very well “confined aquifer” and “autonomous gravitational sanitation”.

In addition of the fact that “Paraiso do Brasil” “Safe Haven Beach Houses” are located in the cells that has the largest capacity to dissolve and absorb bombs without experiencing a nuclear winter, it also is located in the least targeted cell simply because it contains the least number of targets.

In other words, apart from only being (needing) a semi-bunker, or even a normal house, will have the effect of an advanced bunker, and this with no chance to become a "death trap", the cell it is located in has no chance to experience (undergo or express) a severe "nuclear winter", and even less a sustained one.

(*) A realistic nuclear war * is a war that involves not just one nuclear bomb ("the bomb"), but several succesfull or partially succesfull nuclear bombs spread out over a significant period of time (we are considering a normal atmospheric circulation cell).

this means that death trap bunkers will run out of (drinkable) water and become contaminated with sanitation.

Certain countries and certainly several alliances and axis will dispose of thousands of nuclear bombs.

Under no circumstance a party will only launch one bomb.

New bombs will be loaded, brought in and or constructed and launched.

Already a relative small number of bombs will cause a nuclear winter in the targeted atmospheric ciculation cell.

bombs even in different continents will accumulate effects in a cell and cause a nuclear winter in that specific cell.

If bombing is sustained it will cause a sustained nuclear winter if that was not already the case, and most probably will spill over to the nearest cells.

Tactical nuclear weapons are enough for any Alliance or Axis to be able to "take" the West (Nato countries) ?

Probably a significant number of launched nuclear bombs will be made unclear by the defending party (unless a party is totally knocked out or depleted from anti-weapons).

Bombs that were made unclear still could pose a threat, because of the residual radioactive material that could cause nuclear fallout etc (and turn any unclear bomb into a kind of a succesfull “dirty bomb”).

keywords :

safe haven, bunker, preveniton, perfect storm, threats, nuclear winter, fallout, black smoke, black soot, upwind, stratosphere, nuclear trap, ...

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse