No matter what paper you want to pick up and read or radio station you tune to, TV station we turn on or internet site we surf to, they’re always full of one thing or another, and none of them are well balanced to include everyone’s point of view. And I guess that’s a good thing because then we’d all be looking at something we don’t want to see. But on the other hand it gives us an incredibly skewed view of the daily, pointing directly at what the promoters want you to see, which makes for an easy way to obscure the truth of a matter.

The writers of the news want you to believe in their message, and their message alone. It’s better for their advertisers that way, you know. As humans we tend to drift towards the things we like, which means we seek that which is comfortable for us. We dislike adversity, and because of that we only run the race we think we can win.

The preparedness community works the same way. When we talk about preparedness we only want to talk about the safe subjects. The stuff that makes us feel good about what we are doing. So we end up with people bragging about how prepared they are with their long term storage food and cans of heirloom seeds. Not that that’s a bad thing, because these are things we need, but unfortunately, that’s all they have to fall back on when the crap hits the fan. For some strange reason the assumption is that everything will remain pretty much unchanged should the ultimate meltdown happen. And there are those who seem to not want to accept that this ultimate meltdown may even occur. And who knows, perhaps it never will.

But either way, we have to accept the fact that there are changes occurring in the world today that portend a vastly different future for the times to come than what we have presumed would be in the past. And these changes should dictate the direction we should take towards our long term planning goals. As we are all aware, the last couple of years have been horrendous as far as the economy goes, for several reasons. Some of which are beyond our control as a nation, but most of which we really do have control over, but we refuse to accept the necessary responsibility that accompanies those solutions.

Perhaps the greatest source of consternation is the aspect of credit in our country today. Credit can be, and is, a wonderful tool when used wisely. There are many scripture references regarding the wise use of credit and investments, so the problem isn’t that we use credit, but that we use credit in the wrong ways. And so, instead of building our wealth with appreciable assets, we accommodate our desires with things we don’t need, when we cannot afford them. We seek that which is comfortable, and use credit, instead of wise investment to attain that which we really don’t need. And yes, people in the preparedness community do the same thing.

But the bigger problem is that our elected officials are doing the same exact thing, except they’re doing it with your money. They are using more and more of our tax revenue to fund non productive welfare programs and other special interest boondoggles that have no benefit for the taxpayer at large. The result is that we now see a lessening of available funding to cover the necessary infrastructure construction, maintenance and repair bills across the country.

There are many dangers and threats that we need to be both aware of, and be prepared for, and because of these expenditures we, as a nation, are shirking our responsibility to keep ourselves, our families, our loved ones, and our nation secure. The current administration has signaled this week his intent to further weaken our borders by limiting our ability to utilize the nuclear arsenal we have available to keep our position in the world secure. He is, in fact opening the door for a potential nuclear threat against this nation from a great many sources other than the conventional threats exhibited by Russia and China. We now have to contend with many countries as a threat, not just two or three.

Here’s the two fold problem as I see it. Nuclear weaponry has been retained by the worlds superpowers for many decades now, and it has become reasonably certain (reasonably certain, not absolutely certain) that the primary significance of nuclear weaponry is its ability to suppress another nations desire to use that weaponry in attacking another country. The main reasoning is that if one country strikes first, every other country will retaliate by using their nuclear weapons in some way. Russia attacks the US, the US retaliates. In the crossfire China gets into the act because they will most certainly be in the middle. The same thing happens if China strikes first, or if the US strikes first.

In a wide scale nuclear bombardment nobody comes out the winner because every country, and then some, gets destroyed. Ground zero damage would be phenomenal, but the resulting collateral damage and residual fallout would cripple any territories receiving a hit. And as the winds carried this fallout aloft and across continents the damage would continue to spread. Entire populations would become crippled by the affects of this fallout, and though it would dissipate in somewhat short order, it would take decades for those populations to return to present day levels of economy and society.

No one really wants to see that happen in the real world, and so while we all sit and stew over the nuclear issue, the benefits far outweigh the negatives of maintaining a nuclear arsenal for the purposes of defense and protection. So, the super powers of the world maintain their arsenals, and sit and wait to see if another superpower performs the improbable and flips the launch sequence switch on.

But we have a new problem in the world of nuclear armament today, and this is where the real problem exists with the recent stand taken by our administration. The 72 page Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), released this week says:
The international security environment has changed dramatically since the end of the Cold War. The threat of global nuclear war has become remote, but the risk of nuclear attack has increased. We have less to worry about from countries that have turned from being enemies into trading partners, and much more to worry about from the backwater nations of the world.

The terrorist element of the world has for the most part become very organized, and very sophisticated, and worse, they have many sources of funding available to obtain their needs. While most people envision Inter-continental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) delivering warheads from thousands of miles away, that is no longer the primary threat. The primary threat has become organized terrorist groups such as Al-Qaida and others, and the delivery method has become as convenient as a short range rocket with a mere hundreds of miles of capability, and even more convenient as what is referred to as a suitcase device.

The NPR goes on to say: As President Obama has made clear, today’s most immediate and extreme danger is nuclear terrorism. Al Qaeda and their extremist allies are seeking nuclear weapons. We must assume they would use such weapons if they managed to obtain them. The vulnerability to theft or seizure of vast stocks of such nuclear materials around the world, and the availability of sensitive equipment and technologies in the nuclear black market, create a serious risk that terrorists may acquire what they need to build a nuclear weapon. With the growing drug wars to our south creeping ever northward, I would wonder if these people may not become involved as well.

Obama has stated that we will not use nuclear weapons against a non nuclear nation, even in the event of a biological or chemical attack. Our sleeve card has been traded away for political expediency and favoritism. This being said by our Commander in Chief indicates permission for countries harboring terrorist elements to go ahead and attack the US. We will not fight back. Non nuclear nations harboring terrorist will be free from retaliation because: #1, we are decreasing our defense funding and cannot afford to engage in conventional battle for much longer, #2, Obama’s speech signaled that they would be free from the ultimate retribution via an ICBM attack on their soil, and #3, our elected officials and leaders are severely weakening our position in the world.

In light of the fact that as the threat from Russia diminishes, the threat from other sources increases, I feel as though one of the core elements of our emergency preparedness planning should be to prepare for, and familiarize ourselves with all aspects of nuclear attacks. There are many issues to be confronted, such as blast damage, radiation sickness, fallout affects and length of dangers associated with an attack, electromagnetic pulse attacks, and many more items of interest. Constructing and outfitting your survival shelter as a barrier against radiation would be a wise choice in these times.

If you would like to learn more about fallout and other nuclear issues, please visit TACDA, The American Civil Defense Association at You can click onto the link to your right for The American Civil Defense Association if you like, and while there, please consider joining the group. They have tons of information that will be of use to you in the coming times, and not just for nuclear attacks.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s