There are people who need a 4×4 vehicle, because they work in the country or have to go along some appalling road to get to their house. And, if they have money I can see the point of a Range Rover rather than a better, more comfortable car.

Then there are the people who just want to burn money to show off. The petrol heads, who want a “better than anyone else’s car”. Who will want the fastest, or biggest, or most in your face bit of nonsense.

Then there are the dim eco-nutters, who want electric because they have been told that “electric” is good for the environment (wrong). But, if they are going down that route, then then need the smallest CHEAPEST vehicle that they can cope with and ideally none. Cheap, because anything that adds prices creates CO2, and if they want to reduce CO2, they have to go for cheap. So, they will get a tiny car with batteries … no frills, no performance … indeed, they really should get a bicycle or walk.

And, then there are the utterly absurd brainwashed urban idiots who get “Electric” Range Rovers. It’s the combination of the absurd. The most unecological bit of garbage: a big, heavy, fuel consuming bit of “in your face I don’t care about the environment one bit” … for eco-loons?

It’s like someone getting a clown nose as beauty treatment. You either get a clown nose .. or you get beauty treatment. Or getting fit … by eating icecream.

Only the totally completely dimwitted brainwashed get an electric Rangerover. I might allow an executive … who is forced to get a “electric car” for pure marketing purposes, taking an electric one. But no one in their right mind wants an electric Rangerover when they have a choice of a proper car.

Sorry! We fucked up.

It turned out that most of what we were being told by the legacy media is blatant lies. From “peaceful” Israel to the cause of most wars in the world (the US), we were told a pack of lies.

And, then the internet came along, and the old media could no longer hide the fact they were lying to us. And we all lived happily ever after. NO! Well, at this stage it doesn’t look like it.

Instead of admitting they were liars, and mending their ways, what has happened is the media doubled their efforts with bigger and bigger lies, and at the same time more and more censorship and draconian behaviour by government. Continue reading →

Legal cases have now been opened which look like they stand a very good chance of succeeding. Let’s hope the criminals in the US get their comeuppance, followed swiftly by the same type of criminals in the UK.

These criminal referrals are accusing them of things such as murder, mass negligent homicide, abuse, fraud, kidnapping, battery and even terrorism

This is one of the first sections in a book I was writing on how to survive a nuclear exchange. The book was only intended for my own family and a few close friends … and only to be sent to them if it looked like a nuclear war was likely. And, only because, given how relevant it is to my own knowledge base, I felt I ought to have an answer, if they did ask me for advice … and I knew how I would feel if I had nothing to say.

2.1The flash (first seconds)

Fig 1: Relative heat intensity of the flash over relative time (seconds). The time is approximately in seconds for a 1mt explosion. Larger explosions last longer, with each 10fold increase in size there is a 3fold increase in length.

If there were an unexpected nuclear attack, the first anyone would know of the explosion, is an extremely bright, but totally silent, flash of intense heat and light.

DO NOT LOOK TOWARD THE FLASH!

If the first thing you know about a nuclear explosion is the intense light, then you must hit the ground, face down, immediately. Don’t look at the flash. Hit the ground and close your eyes.

If you are still exposed to the heat, cover bare skin and try to get to shade. If you have even a few second’s warning use this to get behind cover so you are not exposed to the flash.

Rationale: The reason to follow this advice is that many of the survivors of the atomic bomb in Japan mention that they had been taught to to drop to the ground this and that is what they did. The reason this works is that in a nuclear explosion anyone who is exposed to the flash could suffer extreme burns. As fig 1 shows, most of the heat energy of the initial flash energy arrives at the beginning. For a 1mt explosion, a third of the heat arrives within 1second.

With a reaction time of 0.3seconds, and a time for gravity to bring a person to the ground of 0.6seconds, the fastest anyone can “hit the deck” is about a second. So for a 1mt a third of the injury from the flash occurs before you have any time to react. Think about it for a second, choose to move and not drop, and you’ve doubled your potential injuries. You cannot afford to wait. There is no time to think. There is no time to weigh up the options. Your best hope is to use the fact that the closer you are to the ground, the more shielding you get. Because even plants, walls, chairs, desks, cars on the street, even small changes in the surface will shield you. You could reduce your exposure by 70% which would change third degree burns into something more akin to bad sun burn. If you think about it for even one second, you have lost the opportunity to make a substantial impact. If you start running, you will never get anywhere quick enough to effectively reduce your exposure to the initial flash.

My comment

After a discussion on another forum about the best approach and whether a “table” would provide protection I made this comment:

It’s an extremely difficult problem, because any response has to be done extremely quickly, so basically “drilled” and done without thought. I took the approach of “what action can make the most impact in improving survivability for the most people”. And, what most people can do, is reduce their exposure to IR, which will cause third degree burns (likely to lead to a slow death). The other key thing is to preserve sight. Because anyone blinded by the flash is far more likely to die afterwards.

Most people will be in one of three places: in bed, in their living room, or in an office. The ideal thing is to “look around for shade” … by which time they are blind. The only universal fall back that works in most places is “hit the deck and don’t look” (looking is quite hard when you’re on the deck)

If you take into account acceleration from gravity and reaction time, most people can be down on the ground in about 1sec. Ask them to think and that time probably doubles, doubling the initial injury. Hitting the deck doesn’t guarantee protection, but it doesn’t make the situation worse than not hitting the deck.

Once down you can then think … and then crawling or rolling into shade is the best way to move. But you have to be able to see to know where the shade is. And, if you did not hit the deck, you will have looked and won’t be able to see.

In the survival zones, the blast wave will arrive toward the end of the flash (or later). My bet, is that most people will be completely stunned by the event, partly blinded by the light, in severe pain from the IR burns and basically incapable of doing anything more. The blast wave will hit … the wave is a tsunami of debris that is flung horizontally at any wall or through any opening . So “hit the deck” is likely to be all most people actually do before the blast wave. The only general guidance is to be “low down”  (below a window sill) where there is generally more protection.

After the blast wave, comes the reverse suction … where everything is pulled back and then things begin to fall out the blast wave tsunami. At that point, there may be parts of walls carried by the blast wave falling through the roof. At any point after the blast wave arrives, a wall may collapse and you want something like a desk over your head.

Addendum … close to the detonation, you can reduce the high energy radiation exposure in various ways. You might also factor in that an air blast “looks down” and so a window sill isn’t a great  barrier. But close to the detonation, you are toast whatever you do. There is no point advising someone to do change their behaviour when it doesn’t change the outcome.

Because the US always uses shock and awe terror tactics, the US will target Russian cities. There is no doubt about that … and no doubt they will laugh and joke as they trigger the attack … if they believed they could get away with it.

As such, Russia has to target US cities. And because it knows there could be spies at all levels, it actually has to be targetting and ready to hit US cities, because if the US knew the Russians were not going to follow through with the threat, the US would immediately launch a nuclear strike against Russia (get them before they change their mind).

So, US is targetting Russian cities, and so Russia is targetting US cities (forget what the press say).

But, the UK is for all practical purposes just a offshore base of the US. The UK cannot independently fire the US’ missiles. An “Independent” deterrence is a joke. The UK will fire weapons when ordered to by the US … indeed, the weapons will fire irrespective of whether the UK government agree.

As such, the UK view on the matter is irrelevant to whether the nukes are fired. So, it does not matter if Russia targets UK cities of not … the UK politicians are irrelevant to the event. As such, Russia will ignore civilian targets and instead target military targets. There is no point wasting nukes on civilians, when there are plenty of military targets to take out. Indeed, why hit Manchester … when the nuke could go as a third or forth round to Washington?

Would Russia fire first?

This is an interesting question. The simple answer is that the answer is unknown, because if it were predictable, then the US would use that fact against Russia. Which means that Russia is quite prepared to fire first. But it is also prepared to only fire in response.

The simple rule, is that he who fires first has the advantage. Another simple rule, is he who can most speedily empty their cities and is prepared to take casualties from those who have not got out, has the advantage. My guess, is that the Russians would win such a race. The reason, is because they are a cohesive society that believe in Russia and they don’t have all the stupid ideas & divisions of the US. They are just pragmatic … and will probably exit in half the time of a similar sized US city.

However, the US administration are quite prepared to kill their own people. That will include a whole city. I’m not sure if the Russians are that ruthless.

How would the UK do …. you have got to be joking. Russians will probably leave within a few hours. The US within a couple of days. London would take about a month to exit … and all most of them would do is go to another city. And would the US care if British cities might be hit? LOL

However, my guess is that the Russians have a detailed set of decision criteria which decides if they fire. Probably not written down, not even known to just one person. But, they will have worked out how best to respond and how to make known or hide those intentions at every step.

If Russia did fire, it would start by giving warnings. But it would finish without warning as a first strike. But, I do not believe it would ever launch a first strike unless severely provoked. But it may have been extremely close to that first strike at times during Ukraine. But, they will not make that known. Because they will not tell anyone how close they are to firing … until they fire.

The key criteria they will use is this: When the circumstances make it highly probable that whatever reasonable action Russia takes will lead to the US launching an attack on Russia. As soon as those conditions are met (from their perspective based on their intelligence, based on their interpretation of US intentions), they will launch a first strike.

There will not be any last warnings … there will be no signal that they are “very close” to launching a first strike. They will warn vehemently about the “unacceptability” of US actions (or its proxy), but never openly threaten a nuclear strike. Instead, if the US doesn’t back down and keeps pushing the issue so that a nuclear war seems inevitable (to the Russians) … the Russians will strike first.

Here “inevitable” means something very different in the Russian psychology. It is not the outcome tomorrow of the next debate or the next US scandal. Instead, it is their best assessment of what it going to happen in several months and even years. They will analyse US past behaviour and using their own modelling of US behaviour, then predict the likely outcome months, even years in the future.

So, to the US, it might appear that a nuclear conflict was something in the remote future … something where there was a lot of actions before anything like that was being considered (by them). In contrast, the Russians, may have decided, that based on past US behaviour, all roads lead to nuclear war.

Ukraine

That was why Ukraine was so dangerous. If at any point, the Russians could see that any course of action they took to secure their borders from nato was going to end up in an escalatory cycle of increasingly aggressive responses leading to nuclear war, they would not play that out. They would instead fire when escalation to nuclear appeared the only likely outcome (they would not back down …and allow Russia to be destroyed by the US/Nato).

They are not playing poker. They are not threatening the US. They are not bargaining peace. They are simply doing the most rational thing to secure Russia from US aggression. Most of the time that is not to fire nukes. But, if the best way to prevent the US doing to Russia what it did to Iraq is a first strike of nuclear weapons, I have no doubt the Russians will do that.

And, so, the only thing stopping a first strike, was the Russian perception of whether the US was prepared to accept Russia’s requirement that they leave Russia and its immediate neighbours alone. Something that during the Bidem regime, didn’t look at all likely.

As anyone who watched the covid liars and their daily liecast will know, when government have a disaster of their own making they go into lying hyperdrive. They focus on deaths … as scareporn to lure the idiots in, and they use those deaths to scare people to do what is good for those people in government … which is to ignore the fact that government incompetence has/is/and will kill people, and to label some other group as “the problem”.

So, when those who took us into a nuclear exchange, if they survive, get hold of the means to propagandise the people, we can expect covid style lies in hyperpdrive (hyper-hyper-drive). Continue reading →

This is my own note to my future self.

Continue reading →

I’ve been hit by the huge susceptibility of the UK to a nuclear strike, which means the result is far far worse here than it would be anywhere else.

The key issues that would cause so many problems are:

Economy

• A very bad level of debt
• Nut zero wrecking the economy
• The destruction of export earning manufacture
• The concentration on financial services … which are going to suffer as Brics introduces its own financial systems.

Food

• An over bloated population that vastly exceeds the ability to feed it from home-grown food
• Farming concentrating on one-off yearly cash crops, which require foreign fuels & foreign machinery to get the harvest in. They cannot harvest manually.

Government & Society

• An appalling government constantly making mistakes and making the worst blunders like Nut Zero, Covid, destroying UK industray, censorship=anti-innovation, mass immigration
• which is incapable of admitting those mistakes,
• Censorship, totalitarian behaviour, and generally putting two fingers up to the populace, and therefore hated like never before
• Britain is now a very divided society. There is no commonality of vision amongst the people brought here by the hated politicians. The first sign of stress, and those divisions will split right open massively increasing the problems.

If the UK gets hit by a major disaster (like a small strike war scenario), then the economy is so shaky .. it immediately goes into serious recession. The failing economy, makes food & fuel imports difficult, hitting agriculture. As food become scarce … the hated government cannot gain support and society rapidly divides into numerous groups with no interest in the rest of people. That then results in strikes, blockages, etc. that further hit the economy, further hit food supplies. Eventually the economy goes into melt down, the currency plummets in value, there is no means to buy foreign food and there is no means to buy fuel, so home grown food output drops and is always far too low to feed the over-bloated population.

The result is that the hated government have created a very unstable situation. An incompetent government which no one trusts, a divided society, a basket case economy, … lead to a deep economic recession … which then leads to an inability to feed the country. So, very quickly we flip from “the good times” to “a recession” and rapidly to “famine”.

Basically, we have an economic/food multiplier which makes any hit to the UK far far more serious than it would to other countries. Even a pretty modest blow, could easily take us well beyond the point of modern experience of how economies behave. The nearest comparable event is the hyper inflation in Germany at the end of WWII.

It can never happen here!

Is exactly why it could, and sooner or later will. Because the kind of arrogance that says the UK is somehow special and will never be subject to the normal laws of economics … is the precursor to those laws of economics showing their ugly heads.

The multiplier effect

Relative to other countries, there is a massive multiplier effect for the UK, such that a small disaster here, has a far greater damaging impact than a similar country. So, whereas an impact in another country might see 100,000 job losses, here … particularly due to Nut Zero … it could be 300,000 to 1,000,000.

Total Strike

So, if the UK were hit with a “total strike” not so much greater than what has happened to Ukraine, rather than see a Ukraine type response, we are going to see something far far worse. If that strike is nuclear, the rest of the world also gets a huge strike to the global economy, and that further increases the bad effect on the UK. And, then the collapsing UK further damages the global economy wrecking confidence, which means there is no/little economic/food support for the UK.

Conclusion

I am trying to convince myself the famine leading to ~80% deaths has got to be wrong. Instead I just see a government and society that are ready to collapse, and I cannot see anything that could stop it happening.

What Can I do about it?

Absolutely nothing. A government that cannot admit its mistakes on covid, is a government that can never admit it was wrong. As such it will NEVER change its mind. As such, there is no way that I, or anyone else is going to affect it.

A person can easily survive 21 days without food. But, by the end of the first week, their body is getting the brain to obsessively think about food and to repress any thoughts such as “you can’t do that” if that stops them getting food.

The first day, the power goes out. Within 24-48hrs, most people will be thinking of trying to get fresh food. Within a week, I’d guess a majority will have run out of food. Within a month almost everyone will run out.

As soon as it is possible to move, people will be at the shops trying to get fresh food. A week after they run out, they will be breaking into any building with a potential for food. Continue reading →

Yesterday’s work, was a bit of a shock, because I suddenly realised that I had been focussing on the wrong things in terms of surviving a nuclear war. So, this article challenges my whole assumption of a “nuclear war”.

My simple conclusion is that a “nuclear war” is a propaganda lie. It is just a war, with bigger weapons, So, anything one would do to prepare to survive a war applies to a nuclear war. The big difference is a nuclear war is a propaganda weapon which means it behaves in a different way in the minds of politicians and public.

There is a basic assumption when researching “how to survive a nuclear war” which needs challenging. And, that is the assumption such a war would be nuclear. For obvious reasons I excluded a non-nuclear war, but in the light of modern precision strike equipment that was a mistake.

I’ve also not specified an opponent, because, that opponent could as easily be the US, France, Israel or the Russian Federation. The crazies have taken over the EU … those crazies could easily create a war with the UK. Bidem could very easily have gone to war with the UK, it only needed a democratically elected government “not approved” by Bidem and the brain dead regime could have taken us into nuclear war (the US never forgave the UK for being the UK).

It is well known how the US would behave: to target civilian centres and kill the maximum people. Because that is how the US prosecute all wars: kill the maximum people in order to terrorise the country into submission. The Israelis are just a more evil form of the US.

It is well known to anyone watching the Russians (which means not well known to most in the UK), that the Russians do not target civilians. Instead they will hit legitimate military targets. Continue reading →