what's necessary.

Preparing a "survival" facility is a waste of money. People may be able to have stored food, water, oxygen and batteries for power but they will need to replenish if in survival mode, so they will need connections to the outside world, their Achilles Heel.

We got over it back then (shelters wouldn't really work, and if they did, who wanted to get out of one with all the destruction and residual radioactivity...)

No doubt we'll get over this, too.

If you were in the immediate blast zone probably not but further out 2+ weeks under 3 ft of dirt would be sufficient in most cases.

has a huge blast radius and radiation spread for hundreds of miles. Look at what the Chernobyl disaster did, and think of a few 100+ megaton bombs in a metro area. Hundreds of square miles obliterated and radioactive.

N

So after 2+ weeks in a shelter the radiation would be low enough to move to a safer location. Especially if you were upwind.

Chernobyl was more than 20,000 roentgens per hour in the worse areas, a lethal dose is around 500 roentgens over five hours.

The Chernobyl explosion put 400 times more radioactive material into the Earth's atmosphere than the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima.

...most in the 100 kilton range. With smaller warheads they could add more then one per missile, up to 10.

Desperate, irradiated dying people and dying animals? What about food, oxygen, power, water? You can only take so much of that into your bunker.

Honestly, you are better off if you were right smack in the blast zone, at least then death would be instantaneous instead of a certain drawn out affair.

When the going gets tough, the tough get going.
Everyone is free to sit down in a radioactive dust cloud and hasten the end but death by radioactive poisoning is unpleasant and I'd rather skip it, ymmv.

How, exactly, do you filter the radioactivity out of air? (None, that I recall, had a supply of oxygen bottles.) And a host of other questions.

But as a kid listening to the adults talk, I seriously wished we had one of those things.

Met a woman whose father had worked for one of the governmental "alphabet" agencies, and when many in their neighborhood were installing fallout shelters, he refused to take part -- she said as an adult she figured out that it was because he knew it was useless.

So take that for whatever it is worth.

One of the procedures after a blast would be to put a white paper plate outside...you had up to a hour for the dust to start to settle from the upper atmosphere..to either flee or stock a basement shelter....when the plate started to turn dirty you had better be underground.

This all is amusing.

It’s like nuclear war, I’ll just soak up the first blast.

Especially if there was a nuclear war. Better to have the last few seconds with them than to watch each die in the aftermath.

If the situation was bad enough that I actually needed a 'doomsday preppers' level bunker then we're gonna be left with a world that's not worth living in. If the nukes are coming down I'm gonna go sit out on the balcony, smoke some good stuff, and enjoy watching the end of the world. I want nothing to do with a world where I need to roam around scavenging for food and fighting off hungry cannibals.

that ANYTHING that connects to the outside world completely negates any protection that the bunker is intended to provide.

If they use solar or wind energy, draw in water from a well, have air vents, I promise that I could figure out a way to get to them within two days from the inception of the effort.

The destruction they have wrought upon the planet, I think it would be kinder to allow extinction.

that they can survive nothingness. They think that they can eventually come out and "re-breed" the human species. Good luck to them. If we have a worldwide massive kill off event, I would prefer to be among the dead, than to face a slow, certain painful death.

The cockroaches - ultimate survivors.

Cockroaches are amazingly adaptable to pretty much any situation, human beings aren't remotely so.

A week in a bunker and the would be drinking each other's blood.

To 'repopulate the world'

a world in chaos. They see their little bunker world free of threats that they can't easily dispatch. I am sure that if one could develop statistics, belief in bunker salvation would almost certainly track to how religious a person is, with the notion of being pre-ordained central to their actions.

People went nuts staying in their normal home for 7 weeks.
Having a bunker & staying in it are two very different things.
Seems like a waste of money.

In fact, the smaller ones probably ARE normally built as those. Our kids in Arkansas have discussed putting one under their garage floor. Right now they shove the boys in a closet.

Very rarely as an appraiser on practically tornado-less SoCal I'd run into a property with one from the 1950s. A couple had been covered over with lawn and become inaccessible, according to RE agents just creepy to potential buyers to know they were there. But I was shocked when neighborhood kids told me that an undisclosed one was "over there" and knew how to get its door open. Appalling negligence by the owners, but the eventual purchasers were happy to agree to have it welded closed as a condition for finalizing the loan.

Beyond that they have no reason for existence. Even using them to store seeds for something other than to have seeds for different date periods, is impractical, given that any climate event severe enough to wipe out seed species worldwide in not something that is just going to last 30 or 50 years, try hundreds of thousands of years, minimum.