Scottish Sceptic

I have been looking at how to survive a nuclear war and I’m not at the stage of attempting to validate my approach by looking around to see what others have done. And, I’m frankly aghast.

I just could not find anyone in the UK who is taking the subject seriously. Indeed, I have sent many emails, and people just do not respond … total head in the sand approach.

The reason is clear from a discussion on Mumsnet. Everyone that piled on at the beginning (co-ordinated coincidence?) stated that a nuclear war of any kind simply wasn’t survivable and everyone should just kill themselves immediately. That might be news to the Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors.

Likewise on various so called “prepper” forums, there was a complete lack of discussion. They will discuss ad nauseum the “horrific” effect of “climate change” equivalent to walking up a small hill and the disastrous impact of sea level rise of 1mm/year which will flood somewhere 10m above sea level in 10,000 years times (well after the next ice-age starts). They will praise this or that new bit of equipment, clearly showing that “prepping” is really a big business and many prepper sites are paid to push people toward the many expensive gadgets on sale.

However no discussion of a nuclear war, that could start tomorrow and could seriously impact everyone’s life in a very dramatic way.

So, the first step to surviving a nuclear war, is this – ignore the idiots and doomsayers who pretend to be preppers, but aren’t:

Accept it could happen, and that you are more than likely to survive, and that you could do a lot now to improve your chances of surviving then.

Indeed, the overwhelming feeling that most people will have just after a nuclear exchange is this: “I thought we were supposed to die?” quickly followed by: “if I knew I was going to survive I would have spent a little bit more time learning what to do now and making life easier for me now”.

20 years after the event, most people will regret their behaviour before the event.

Many survival experts tell us the key to survival is “don’t quit”. Yet what does that really mean? And is it really good advice?

What does “don’t quit” mean? Does it mean doggedly continuing on the path you are taking despite it going over a cliff? Obviously not! Does it mean repeatedly attempting the same action despite it failing each and every time? Or, does it mean sitting still and doing nothing and waiting to be rescued?

The last is a very viable strategy, particularly if in a vehicle stranded in an Australian desert and you left someone details of your route. “Don’t give up” means don’t give up on your plans. Your plan was to finish your journey so “quitting” is giving up on your plan to keep going. So “Don’t quit” must mean finishing your journey by getting out. Thus staying with your vehicle is “quitting”. That means quitting is not just the recommended advice, but the best advice.

So, does that mean the right advice is “Do quit”?

But, if you are a few days walk from help in a place where no one goes, and no one even knows you left your home, let alone where you went, there is no chance of anyone looking for you. It would be daft if you could easily walk to safety for you to just sit and wait in a place that no one goes for the miracle of someone coming to your isolated spot and finding you! You should quit waiting – quit quitting – and continue your original plan and make your way to safety.  Clearly if no one is going to find you where you are, you have to make your own way out or at least get somewhere where someone will see you.

A more apt piece of advice would be as follows:

Assess your situation, then make a plan. The two best options tend to be to either stay put and wait for help or to make your own way out. Once you decide which, stick to your plan and make it happen, but don’t be afraid to change if circumstances change. If you expect help within a few days, and none appears after a week, then perhaps something went wrong and no help is coming and then you must attempt to make your own way out. If, however you attempt to make your own way out, and that turns out to be impossible, then making your way back and staying put may still be your best option.

But now, I saying “be adaptable”, which is tantamount to “be ready to quit your plan”.

So why are we told by so many people that “to survive you mustn’t quit”? The reason it seems to me, is that when people look for heroic stories of survival, they don’t want to hear the story of a person who broke down in the desert and then sat by their car until someone came to rescue them. Instead, they want to hear a story of a person that struggled against all odds to complete some form of miraculous escape. That is the story people want to tell and want to hear, and that is the story of someone “not quitting”.

So, the reality is the people who “don’t quit” aren’t better survivors, they are just better stories of “heroic” survival.

Thus the truth is this: if you want to survive, be prepared to be flexible and prepared to quit what you are doing. If however, you want to be the hero of someone’s story (possibly after you die trying to escape a situation you would have survived if you’d just sat down and waited for help) then doggedly pursue the path you have chosen wherever it leads and don’t quit.

I have been trying to go through a list of symptoms of infections that are likely in large 3rd degree burns, something that would be very common amongst many people after a nuclear exchange.

What the ££££  is:

“Erythematous necrotic lesions (ecthyma gangrenosum) in unburned skin”?

I can see why so many people just stick their head in the sand and sing “laa laa laa laa laa” whenever someone tries to seriously discuss how to prepare for a nuclear exchange. It is completely overwhelming.

And, I can see why doctors are sociopaths with no empathy … because how could you carry out surgery on a patient if you had any empathy with the blob of flesh you are cutting into?

I am beginning to realise, the reality, is that knowing what is killing someone, isn’t going to stop them dying. Even in the context of a hospital, a large burn with “Ecthyma gangrenosum” would be challenging, but, someone in a dirty hole somewhere with no medical training … not a chance.

The reality, is that having tried available disinfectants, you have to scrub the open wound with a very stiff brush to remove all dead flesh or cut the flesh off – and the patient will feel every bit of it. I don’t know if I could do that.

The truth is that so called “Prepping” isn’t about buying gadgets or even the scrubbing brush or knife to do the job … the real preparation is preparing yourself mentally for the challenge of scrubbing raw flesh of a child whilst they scream and all the other horrific things that survival entails after a nuclear war. I am not ready for it.

I read a preparation leaflet from some Scandinavian country. It sounded like a list of items to take to a church picnic. It was as different as chalk is from cheese from the reality of nuclear war. In no way was it preparing the people for the reality. In contrast, it was making surviving war sound like following Ikea assembly instructions.

Indeed, it made no mention at all of government. What Covid showed, is that it is government that will fall apart, followed by the medics who’ll shelter in their bunkers, probably joined by the army generals trying to find a safe space to discuss their gender equality as the missiles rain down. It’s that class of public servants producing these leaflets who will be least prepared of everyone. Especially mentally! Because they are the ones reliant on “government” to spoon feed them everything. Without government, they will be completely lost. They have been trained to be institutionally incapable of self-reliance – they simply won’t be able to function without someone sending them a memo or writing down detailed instructions.

I have been writing what now amounts to a book on “how to cope with a nuclear event”. Not “how to prepare”, but what to do if one happens. Because I start from the assumption that no preparation has been done (except reading the book).

As someone who has studied physics and survival, I felt competent to write on the physics of a nuclear war and survival. But, when it came to medical treatment I felt totally inadequate for the role. However, needs must … which is probably what the section on medical care should be titled.

The section on medical care is now 32 pages long and I have something, which I think is worth saying, on all the main medical categories. I’ve not yet worked out what that means in terms of items I would want to have in my own medical supplies, so it still needs work, but I am getting there.

To give a flavour this is the start of a random section from about half way through:

The primary aims of treatment for trauma are as follows:

1. To stop external bleeding using bandages and reduce internal bleeding with rest
2. To prevent and treat infection
3. To stabilise damaged limbs
4. etc.

Hopefully, it’s all common sense. Now having worked out what “should be done”, I have the task of working out what “can be done” by someone who has not prepared. This may be interesting. Not quite “the idiots guide to brain surgery”, but the reality of a nuclear conflict is that people with no experience of severe injuries will be left to deal with them. And, I am trying to work out what I can possibly say that will make life easier for them.

Let’s put it this way: you can’t do worse than the doctors who advocated the deadly covid jab. Well, statistically, that might be wrong but not morally, they were paid to know how to do it better and to treat people when ill and they ignored the data telling them they were wrong and most didn’t even bother to turn up to work when they said people were ill and needed them.

I don’t think I’ve come up with any magic solution. Because there is very little that can be done for many injuries specific to a nuclear event, so there is no point preparing to treat them. So, what are the priorities?

• Burns
• Infections
• General cleanliness to avoid illnesses found during disasters.
• Plenty of clean water
• Healthy food and shelter
• I assume a good medical box

I know a lot about the details of what is required to survive a nuclear war, which is a cross between “good luck”, “just the same basic common sense and preparation as any other natural disaster” and a few specifics for nuclear.

I’ve spent the day (like many before) trying to find other people who have a genuine knowledge of the problems of surviving a nuclear war and/or have useful skills and an interest and a pragmatic outlook … ideally within travel distance of me in Scotland. I have TOTALLY failed to find anyone that I would genuinely want to talk to.

There are some people with common sense. Yes! But they are the shops selling “prepper” equipment to “preppers”. They have the common sense to tap into and help create this “fear” market and at least some are making money by selling hot air “prepping” with little to no real real idea of what would be needed in a nuclear war. But at least they have enough common sense to turn it into a business!

Otherwise, zilch.

The problem is this: I am trying to prepare a sensible response plan (not a Zombie Apocalypse plan), that is ready to bring out if it is time to start preparing. I don’t want to add to the panic, there isn’t any point making money in a real nuclear disaster, so that is not high on my agenda. I certainly don’t want to direct people to spent pointless money on pointless gadgets, none of which they would actually use. I just want a sensible thought out plan and a response based on the best science (hopefully).

I am becoming increasingly frustrated.

So, I think the reason I’m writing this, is in the hope that I suddenly have an idea about who to contact, or what to search for to finally be able to track down other people like me. Because by now, I’m sick to death of seeing the same sites, especially some forums which I left because I thought it stupid to stay whilst being censored for saying that it is possible to survive a nuclear war. What is the point in a “prepper” site that censors posts for saying war can be survived?

You are either preparing to live … or you are preparing to die.

What is the point preparing to die? They clearly don’t genuinely believe in the idea of surviving so what are they preparing for? Nothing as far as I can tell. There is something seriously wrong with the so called “prepper” sites I’m found, they seem to deliberately dissuade people from the small practical steps that can make a difference.

Why can’t I find any serious person looking at how to improve chances of surviving a nuclear war?

Options:

• Start a forum … no point! The old altruistic internet has been shut down by US big Corpse.
• Run a course … no point unless I am in contact with people with a genuine interest
• Wait till people have a genuine interest … at which point, I will not have a genuine interest in helping others, because I will be too busy helping my own family.
• Try to contact people who ought to be interested …  but who? The big problem is that I’d be effectively becoming a “consultant”, but approaching the subject seriously, can’t be done without money. But there is no money for serious consideration of how to prepare. It’s a catch 22 … there is no money available … and there will be no money available. All we have is a load of crazy “Zombie apocalypse preppers” who seem to be spending their money on crossbows to kill the Zombies (I thought Zombies couldn’t die twice?)

Realism

No one is going to start doing serious preparation until AFTER they need to prepare. And, given the rapid developing phase  of a nuclear war, serious preparation is going to take longer than they will have when they realise they need to prepare.

The only realistic approach is the head in the sands attitude that most people have: let’s hope nothing happens.

Plan

I am just going to have to work on this on my own. At worst, I have something for those people I know … better … I am just waste my time. Maybe if we headed to nuclear war, it might get some use, but if government etc., have no interest now, they are going to have zero interest in the face of an actual nuclear war.

I thought today I would try to find any sensible group that has looked at preparing for a nuclear war … now that there is a realistic possibility of one.

The result of this search is that I found:

• Lots of articles about the cons of nuclear everything by Scottish this and that
• I found many articles about “cold war” “nuclear secrets” such as bunkers
• I found a fascist book group of “preppers” based in Scotland … who failed the first test of common sense preparation, which was that they using fascist book. Anyone who knows anything knows the last place anyone should look for useful information on contentious subjects is on manipulative censoring fascist book.
• And I found several links to articles on this website, which was  rather disconcerting.

That means, unless there is a sensible discussion on the “Scotland preppers” or whatever they are called on fascist book, I seem to be the only person in Scotland who has seriously looked at the subject.

Which begs the question: Should I, knowing as little as I do, offer myself as an “expert”?

But then reality hits me. What covid showed, is that in such a situation, government will consult the worst possible people (SAGE) and the result is that the response is the worst possible response. Why would I want to be part of the worst possible response?

Fortunately, the reality is that despite being the only person in Scotland I can find who has done serious research on the subject, I am highly unlikely to get consulted or influence government response.

So, whilst I might (reluctantly) offer myself to “help” … I am not expecting that offer to be taken up. Instead I will not be doing anything except my own and my family’s preparation. Which, to be fair, at this stage, is not a lot. It’s a plan to start doing something … at some future point in time … a bit like a New Year’s weight reduction resolution … except my plan will definitely start when certain conditions are met.

This is a difficult topic to talk about, because any specifics could influence the insane people who might trigger a nuclear war to kill more people. So, I will not talk about specifics.

But, one of the key things to know, is what will actually happen in terms of how many strikes and where.

One thing is clear, is that the “all out war” destroying everything is a total load of codswallop. I don’t whether it is deliberately false, or that the people who game planned it are sociopaths who expressed their own views of what they would like to do, but it makes no military sense.

So, I have been wondering what would actually happen. That affects timescales … as in from the point of the first knowledge that nuclear devices are going to be used, how long on average, do we have as individuals to respond? And, that depends on how the devices will be used, which depends on understanding the military strategy of those who are most likely to fire the devices on the UK.

…  and now I find I cannot say more.

For a naughty schoolboy who knows they are going to be found out and punished, the knowing they are going to be punished, without knowing when or how, is almost as bad as the punishment. Indeed, it can be worse. For many of those committing crimes are so distressed by the not knowing when or how they will eventually be caught and then prosecuted, willingly give themselves into the police and openly admit the crime to bring the horrific period of uncertainty to an end.

The UK has now committed an act of war. The UK knows it will be punished. But it does not know how that punishment will happen, when it will happen, nor because there are so many ways to punish another country, it may not even know if the punishment has happened, is happening or will happen. But it knows something is going to happen sometime.

There is no doubt about the precarious position of the US and UK economy with the massive debt and lack of support for the present unwanted occupants of the top job. So, it is quite possible that this endless speculation about the form and timing of the punishment, and the jumping onto anything that does happen as “potentially the start of the punishment”, that the UK & US markets could talk themselves into a recession. And, it would all be ably abetted by the Western Psyops desperate to push Russia into a response that would allow NATO to start WWIII before Trump takes over.

And, Russia need not do a thing.

The guilt of the criminal … creates the punishment.

Will the UK government be able to repress discussion of impending WWIII from the media?

Let’s see:

The
The
Imagine a group of boys standing in front of the headmaster’s office expecting to get a caning … and everyone is blaming each other for getting them into trouble. And, inside the headmaster is laughing as he lets them wait.

Is there a lot of talk about nuclear war?

There are now posts indicating that the UK has participated in an act of war against Russia.

So, I went shopping to stock up on supplies. The bizarre thing, was walking around the shop because I knew that I was shopping because there was now a realistic prospect of the UK and US starting a nuclear conflict.

It was hard to square the isle of nappies, with the prospect of a nuclear war. Even more bizarre was the idea that, at some unknown point in the future, the store could be filled with terrified people all desperately seeking the last loo rolls. Why they would want loo rolls, is rather weird. There are many many things that I would put ahead of loo rolls on an apocalypse shop, but it is generally accepted, it will be loo rolls that shops run out of in the run up to a nuclear war.

One bizarre thing was buying a few extra long-life Christmas puds for “the stores”. In terms of shelf-life it made perfect sense, but I couldn’t help wondering what I, or whoever found those puds, would do with the Christmas theme.

There is of course, a finite chance that in the next five minutes, everything will kick off. So, there is the question: “do I really want this (whatever I’m doing) to be the last thing I do?” The logical answer is obviously that it doesn’t matter what I’m doing if I then die, it only matters if I live, and then it isn’t the last thing I did, so I should just keep doing what I’m doing.

A more pertinent question would be this: “do I want to remember (this) as the last thing I was doing before everything changed?” Yet, if I knew of anything better to be doing, I would be doing it. The only way I might change, is if I stopped caring about the future, and e.g. spent a lot of money now to enjoy myself now rather than later. But, if I did that, I’m giving up on the future, and if I did that, that would be the thing I most regret if something happened and everything changed.

I do of course, have a plan. But, as covid showed, there is no point sharing the plan. Most people are daft, and I do not want the last thing I do, to be wasting my time trying to convince daft people.

I could publish my plan … but any money I make, would either 1) be from scare raising from something that didn’t happen or 2) be making money from an event that makes money meaningless and so there is no point making money from it. So I will not be publishing.

However, in the hope we make it that far … Happy Christmas and a (very) Merry New Year.

With the confirmation that the US has participated with an attack on Russia, it is now the fact that the US is in a war with the US.