Yesterday in preparing for nuclear war II, I used a scenario of a single strike against the UK. On reflection, that seems unlikely, if for no other reason, than the aim of such a strike would be to force total capitulation, and given the arrogant fantasist behaviour of our politicians, it will take more than one decisive strike to force them to face reality.

So, I still do think there will be a “first” and devastating strike, at least to our ability to fire back. However, that may not be the actual first action and I’ve no doubt after thinking about it, that there will be a series of strikes, each aimed at progressively destroying our ability to resist.

As importantly, these will not all be nuclear. Indeed, the vast bulk of ordnance that hits the west is likely to be conventional arms, targeted at specific facilities, as small as a local gas terminal. I suspect the worst offenders like the BBC will be hit very early on (probably on the direct orders of the leader who like me, won’t think a lot of them). An obvious first target is to hit Westminster, MI5, MI6 GCHQ, all nuclear capability and all military command and control.

So, whilst there will be a devastating first wave of nuclear, there will also be conventional, the UK will try to retaliate, and that will cause wave after wave of attacks, to drive home the point that “we are not running out” and “any further attempt to retaliate will hurt you a lot more than it hurts us”.

Implications

This rather complicates things for us plebs who have to try to live through it. If you survive the first attack (and almost everyone except MPs, BBC & some military have a high chance of surviving), it doesn’t mean we are safe. As importantly, it doesn’t mean that if we weren’t affected by the first wave, we should forget about building ourselves a shelter or preparing provisions, etc.

Unlike a single sudden strike … where there is no chance to prepare, a series of attacks, means that most people will have some chance to prepare. That means, rather than “it’s all over before we can do anything”, there is a lot we can do.

Also, I hadn’t considered the use of conventional weapons. Potentially, the number of people whose chances of surviving can be improved by addressing the risks of conventional weapons may by a lot higher. It may be that sheltering from conventional weapons is the most effective way to increase survival chances. But that’s because Nuclear, is likely to either totally wipe you out, no matter how well you prepare, or leave you alone, making a shelter useless. Nuclear is a few key places, conventional could hit everywhere.

A nuclear shelter really has to be underground to be effective. Anything above ground, and your best strategy is to wait perhaps 12hours and then get moving, because the shelter is not increasing your chances of survival after that. But a conventional shelter can be above ground. It means we can all increase our chances of survival.

Also my concept of “move out the fallout zone (at the right time)” … was premised on a single strike, after which everywhere but the fallout zones is safe. In contrast, with continuing hits, there are now substantial risks for those moving around. The concept of “moving to safety” disappears.