List members , this is a new study that has once again highlighted the risk to the West Coast of North America...there seems to be much turmoil below that region - upsurging from Earth's hollow interior :-
Regards
2 Likes
Sidhartha,
The More we find out, the less we seem to know.
Cheers!
1 Like
I can say this: living west of the Great Plains is a terrifying prospect in the USA or Canada.
1 Like
Soretna,
We have nuclear missiles out West, for exxample, inside of Cheyenne Mountain.
Cheers!
1 Like
I didn't know that. I mean, maybe in Nevada, but haven't heard of Cheyenne Mountain or any other place that might have them out here in the west.
While I do not believe this map is actually realistic as far as nuclear targets since I don't think scorched earth policies would be reality at the present stage, what is interesting is that such a map reveals target areas that are of value - particularly where nuclear arsenals are located in the west:
In reality I think that the mountains and fault zones are of far more consequence and danger.
I think Wyoming and the surrounding states are in enormous trouble with Yellowstone's presence.
I also think aside from these dangers, I believe China has its designs upon the west coast and plan on pretty much "taking" everything to the Mississippi if things go as they are going presently. Russia has a chance of claiming the Eastern USA and, frankly, Russian conquerors would be much more "friendly" towards people than the Chinese given contextual history.
Texas and all southern states are also high danger zones with Mexico already having fallen to China's control. Similar to Canada and northern states, but the invasion risk is not quite as great.
I do think all major cities are going to be in trouble though and I simply think the Great Plains and the region round through there will be uninhabitable generally for various reasons.
These are my personal feelings and I have a lot of information to back such speculations and feelings up, but I don't really feel like getting into it here.
1 Like
Thank you for sharing that and your thoughts, Soretna.
For anyone interested:
Looking at the key for the map, it says the black circles are "Target in a 2,000 warhead scenario," and the triangles are "Target in a 500 warhead scenario".
Stars are state capitals. Squares are cities.
There are a horde of black circles overlapping Wyoming, Colorado, and Nebraska where they meet. Also a bunch in North Dakota and Montana. That surprises me.
It would be nice to see a realistic map, all right.
When they say " 2,000 warhead scenario," what do they mean? How is it different from a 500 warhead scenario?
@SilverMoon, the difference between a "2,000 warhead scenario" and a "500 warhead scenario" is crucial in understanding the scale and strategic intentions behind a nuclear strike.
In a 2,000 warhead scenario, the targeting strategy is far more extensive, aiming to completely incapacitate an adversary's ability to respond or recover. This includes not just military targets but also critical infrastructure, major cities, and economic centers. It's essentially an all-out strategy designed to ensure total domination, leaving little to no room for recovery. The presence of numerous black circles on the map in Wyoming, Colorado, and Nebraska, where nuclear assets are heavily concentrated, reflects this comprehensive approach.
On the other hand, a 500 warhead scenario would be more selective, likely focusing on the highest-value targets such as key military installations, command centers, and major population hubs. This scenario might represent a more limited engagement, where the goal is to deliver a decisive blow without completely annihilating the opponent. Even in a 500 warhead scenario I would consider that there would be numerous purple triangles over the large black dot zones that you currently see since those nuclear facilities and weapons repositories would be targeted.
Now, considering the current global dynamics, especially with China’s aggressive posturing and Russia’s possible nuclear threats in the backdrop of the Ukraine conflict, it becomes evident that the U.S. might be increasingly vulnerable. China’s unconventional warfare strategies, including cyberattacks and potentially using migration as a means to insert operatives or influence, coupled with Russia's increasing reliance on its nuclear arsenal, indicate that these threats are not just theoretical (Obviously not much trust should probably be given these FBI and CSIS links, but some narrative is using that thread of thought: FBI: Chinese Government Poses Broad and Unrelenting thread to USA Critical Infrastructure, CSIS: Nuclear Weapons Issues).
Personally I think the 500 (or less) nukes is more likely as I think they will wipe out key weapons systems and critical control and population areas to prepare the west for en masse colonization via the insurgents that have already been advertising themselves (and mocking the police about it as has been in the news) as being hired by China and others that are clearly Chinese military aged men that have been surging through the borders. Russia more likely has its eyes on the eastern USA and will only target major population zones to eliminate what they see as "western idealistic strongholds" where clearly leftist ideals are juxtaposed to their values and have caused the bulk of their pain points.
Rural regions that are durable and gorilla-able are likely to be left alone since they are low population and high patriotism locations. This is also why we can see the main government in the USA at large has been dismantling agriculture and rural America as discretely, but quickly, as it can. It is a key imperative from their Chinese and other overlords.
While some might, hilariously, say this is "conspiratorial", all of these concerns and conjectures are based in readily available data and news that even someone watching "mainstream" news can piece together if they have a modicum of intellect and any knowledge of history. The concerns about China's influence operations are backed by numerous reports highlighting how China is targeting not only military but also civilian infrastructure in its bid to weaken the U.S. from within. These tactics are part of a broader strategy that includes leveraging economic and social vulnerabilities within the U.S., something that could be exacerbated by an internal weakening of societal resilience.
In light of these factors, it's clear that both the domestic and international threats the U.S. faces today could drastically affect its ability to respond effectively to such scenarios. The map’s depiction might be a bit of an oversimplification, but it underscores the reality that if these vulnerabilities aren't addressed, the potential for catastrophic consequences grows, whether through direct military action or more insidious means of undermining U.S. stability.
Ultimately, though, as I noted, I personally feel as though "natural" disasters are going to be the bigger issue and even that data is seemingly pointing towards that direction - which would mean we may not have to worry about all of these geopolitical factors and have much worse natural calamities to worry about instead... Which is actually better?... I'll leave that to the readers to ponder.
1 Like
SilverMoon,
I'm not sure how much they had underneath Cheyenne Mountain, but it was supposed to be impenetrable.
Cheers!
1 Like
Yes folks , there is a massive DUMB beneath the highly mysterious Denver International Airport...it is just a 96 mile drive from there to the Cheyenne Mountain Complex & both sites are connected via giant tunnels :-
Regards
2 Likes
I've thought about that. All the political stuff, military age young men coming through the borders, Agenda 2030, etc, and yet all it takes is a bunch of serious natural disasters to mess up all of their plans.
1 Like
A giant tunnel? Wow!