A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. The warning given to us by President Ronald Reagan and reiterated many years ago by President Joe Biden seems to carry great importance with respect to current international politics. The threat to the possibility of a global war between nations that possess nuclear weapons may have never been so great, and one can’t help but ask which states of America may provide for survival. Recent fallout simulations, re-evaluated in this article through Newsweek calculations based on information provided in Scientific American, are alarming. While it has been known that no area can be declared entirely safe after a nuclear attack, some regions are certainly safer than others concerning low-level radioactive fallout within days of an attack.
These models will calculate where the radioactive material will be deposited, which will be the most hazardous areas, said Mark Ziemkiewicz, a hydrologist with the Somerset Environmental Laboratory in Pennsylvania. ‘‘The highest risk is actually quite a distance away from the affected zone, he said. These models will calculate where the radioactive material will be deposited, which will be the most hazardous areas said Mark Ziemkiewicz, a hydrologist with the Somerset Environmental Laboratory in Pennsylvania
1. Midwest Missile Fields: America’s Ground Zero
In addition, there exist hundreds of ICBM missile silos in Colorado, Wyoming, Nebraska, Montana, and North Dakota which would be priority targets in a nuclear attack. Princeton University projections have shown that affected areas would get eight times or higher than a lethal level of 8 Gy of radioactive fallout in just four days. Radioactive materials would be dispersed over hundreds of miles.
2. Coastal Distance as a Shield
Those regions that are relatively further away from the silo site chains, especially the Eastern and Western Coasts, are modeled better when it comes to the fallout. For the mean case, the doses are set between 0.001 Gy and 0.5 Gy. These doses are quite low and do not fall within the lethal range. These levels are highly influenced by the distance and the wind.
3. Survivable Zones in Worst-Case Winds
Even in the presence of adverse winds, however, a substantial area of New England and the Mid and Deep South, down to Alabama and Mississippi, stays within the lower dose range of 0.1 Gy to 2Gy. Such doses are survivable given a good shelter, but they ignore the serious long-term effects of nuclear winter.
4. Radiation Thresholds That Matter
Doses of radiation are measured in Grays (Gy). It has been established that a dose of more than 8Gy constitutes a definite killing dose, while a dose between 1Gy and 4Gy will render a sick person, provided medical attention is not sought. Areas in simulation safe do not exceed a dose of 2Gy, while the unsafe areas, comprising the states of Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Iowa, and Minnesota, will receive as high as a dose of 84Gy.
5. Wind and Weather: Fallout’s Wild Card
Fallout disperses mainly by means of wind currents. Projections made on a model for each day in 2021 indicate how changes in wind direction can greatly influence the areas that are impacted by the fallout. There are certain days when the whole East Coast is safe, while there are days when the cloud of radiation spreads past the Midwest.
6. Regular Low Exposure of West Coast
The lists state that the annual limit of radioactive exposure of 0.001 Gy takes only four days to be fully realized in the Northwest regions of the US, which include the regions of Oregon, California, and Washington. The geographical position also shouldn’t be underrated. The coastline of the Pacific and the direction of the wind from west to east make the aforementioned regions shielded against the Midwest fallout.
7. The Global Risk Beyond Fallout
Fallout is just the tip of the iceberg: Radioactive water and food, and destruction of infrastructure and continued radioactive environment exposure would affect the entire country, according to the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation’s John Erath. A ‘small’ nuclear war would kindle a famine that would kill at least one billion people worldwide, writes Christian G. Appy.
8. Alternate Target Scenarios
Not all experts have uniform views on what possible targets could be in such an attack. According to a Virginia Commonwealth University expert named Braden Goddard, perhaps even more consideration should be given to the potential of Washington, D.C. being a target in this scenario. A target of this kind could drastically alter fallout patterns, putting at risk an area which has already been considered to be of less likelihood in terms of possible damage to a silo.
9. Moral Implications of ‘Safe Zones’
Maps may assist with planning, but the morals of planning for zones for survival within a nuclear war have been questioned. Appy explains that The probable winning campaign in a nuclear war would kill most survivors with an environmental collapse. Overall, while the knowledge of comparative risk may assist with evacuation planning and resource allocation, prevention and diplomatic tact have proven far more potent. The data speaks for itself with a grim yet necessary picture when considering safety with respect to the allocation of risk with respect to the potential for the impacts of radioactive fallout, while with respect to the potential destruction level of the war itself, nothing is ever guaranteed.
With this said, for the obvious concerned citizen seeking their own level of safety and security, a word may be had with respect to the relevance that while geographic allocation is part and parcel with prevention and planning for the potential war that may be seen down the road, the only truly meaningful factor is that of prevention.
