We offer this consultancy aimed at protecting people, animals and property against the destructive effects of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). We have been addressing this issue for a long time and we are well aware of how extensive and complex this area is. We are probably the only ones in the world who provide the general public with practical information to such an extent in the area of protection against weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
It is difficult for the majority of people to acquire the necessary knowledge of physics, chemistry, microbiology, medicine, mechanical engineering, meteorology and other sciences to be able to address the preparation for the possible use of weapons of mass destruction by themselves. Plus, a range of important information cannot be found in the professional literature and must be calculated or derived by other means. Of course, even in this professional literature, there are sometimes quite serious mistakes and often it is not easy to figure them out.
No wonder then that people try to obtain information about the effects of weapons of mass destruction in other ways. Various 'calculators' of the alleged effects of nuclear explosions on towns are very popular on the internet, where the estimated numbers of deaths, the extent of damage to the city, at what distance would be the overpressure at the head of a blast wave of a certain value etc., can also be displayed. These calculators of nuclear explosions are often nicely coloured, they look sophisticated, but the problem is that their simulations can barely be used even for a rough estimation of the effects of a nuclear explosion in a desert. In practice, for example, there may be a situation where two identical houses can be only 50 m (55 yd) apart and one house can be completely destroyed in the event of a nuclear attack on a nearby target while the other can be only slightly damaged. This can be similar in the event of a chemical attack. Two identical houses can be only 50 m (55 yd) apart, and in one of them the people would survive without problems in the event of a chemical attack, and in the other one, they would have no chance of survival using an identical method of protection. Therefore, it is always necessary to evaluate each house individually, taking into account a number of variables. It follows that in the real situation, the actual effects of weapons of mass destruction may even differ several times from theoretical values.
In addition to the aforementioned “simulations” of nuclear explosions, most often people read a few shorter articles on the Internet about the effects of weapons of mass destruction, which are usually not written by any expert, and are therefore often full of half-truths or outright lies, which the amateur may not notice. Only a very few number of people have read some book on protection against weapons of mass destruction. However, for very indicative calculations of at least some of the effects of a nuclear explosion, people would need to study thousands of pages of expert texts focused upon the destructive effects of nuclear weapons.
While it is possible to correct a bad grade for lack of knowledge in school, it may not be possible during wartime. Any mistake can be a serious one. Mistakes may be unavoidable, but unnecessary mistakes can be avoided. And it is from mistakes, especially unnecessary ones, that we can protect you. We offer you a “lifeline”. All you have to do is grab it and hold on tight. If you stumble, it will keep you from falling into the mud and keep you on your feet. The next world war, which we believe is virtually inevitable, will probably not be very forgiving to mistakes. Those who want to survive, it is in their interest to know well what to do and how to do it.
The protection against weapons of mass destruction consultancy service is intended for people who do not believe in the nonsense that a nuclear explosion would completely destroy a larger town, that a nuclear war would wipe out humanity, that it is impossible to survive a nuclear war, that for protection against radiation they would have to be hidden in underground reinforced concrete shelters with walls a metre (yard) thick for a long time etc. It makes sense for those in particular who are considering building at least an improvised fallout shelter, which primarily will be outside the town. It might be, in fact, difficult to ensure sufficient access to water particularly in a town, and therefore the town, in the long run, cannot be considered a suitable place to hide out and subsequently live. Not everyone has enough money to build a classic shelter but everyone has a number of acquaintances, friends and relatives with whom they can start to prepare. When more people are involved in the preparations, it is generally cheaper for everyone. And a good improvised fallout shelter is not usually such an expensive affair.
Expert advice is provided only in a written way. Real-time communication, such as video calling, is not really appropriate because the answers to many questions require some time to consider and to acquire or calculate the required information.
It is not so vital whether the questions come from one person or from a group of people who maybe know each other only vaguely, it is the time devoted to the answers which is important.
After receiving the questions (electronically, by regular mail, or, by prior agreement, in person), we suggest their possible elaboration and expansion and, if necessary, we ask for additional information. We will point out any questions that might be addressed in another of our specialized consultancy services. After agreeing on the form of the questions and the delivery of the necessary additional documents, we will state the price and the approximate date of sending the answers. There is no charge for fine-tuning the questions, we only charge for the time required for working-out the answers.
We give concise and clear answers that can be understood even by 10-12 year old children.
People often ask some of the following questions, for example:
Is it possible to survive a nuclear war?
Of course. However, it is necessary to prepare for it accordingly.
Can a third world war occur already in 2025 or the following years?
With respect to global developments, this possibility is increasing significantly every year. However, it should be emphasized that preparations for the next world war, in the form of gaining strategic positions, began in the 1990s, (Iraq, the Balkans, the start of NATO enlargement after the end of The Cold War, etc.), and developed fully only thanks to the so called war against terrorism. As preparations near completion, various sanctions have been imposed (they will only continue to broaden under various pretexts), supported by massive propaganda against Russia and its allies, with the aim of destroying these countries politically and economically, which is unlikely to succeed. In fact, it can be said that the war has already started, although only by non-military means for the time being. The possibilities for further development can easily be deduced.
If civilization collapsed as a result of a natural disaster, the failure of the monetary and economic systems, or for any other non-military reason, would it still be necessary to count on a subsequent war?
If there was, for example, the impact of an asteroid several kilometres wide, or a similarly devastating catastrophe, then there would be no war. The greater such a catastrophe, the less risk of war. But under other conditions, it would probably be inevitable. For example, a strong solar flare in the direction of the earth could be enough to cause the collapse of civilization. In the event of damage to the distribution network, especially in the northern hemisphere, there could be a long-term electric power outage in many areas, which would result in the failure of not only the monetary and economic systems but also production, etc. The problem being that there are probably not a sufficient number of large transformers in reserve that could replace the damaged ones. Additionally, their production is on a made to order basis and takes up to a year on average. Amongst other things, a number of satellites could be affected. The subsequent rapidly escalating problems in individual countries would probably lead to a global war conflict, estimated within one year. So those who are preparing for the collapse of civilization should also rather count on the further development of the situation towards war. There is no space here to explain the context, but the majority of adults can easily deduce logically how the situation would develop in terms of the supply of food, raw materials, etc. and why the subsequent problems could probably not end in anything else than war.
You point to the risk of a third world war, but there is no information about it in the media.
Information about this is sometimes in the mainstream news media, but it is usually downplayed and also, from the point of view of world events, quickly overshadowed by a large amount of less relevant information. There is also no interest in talking about this risk, because the current system is vitally dependent on growth in consumption. Therefore the public has to be kept calm just so they don't think too much and continue to buy a lot.
Would the war start unexpectedly?
It can be assumed that it would be preceded by several weeks / months of sharply growing tensions in the world, but due to the purposefully distorted information from most major media, this situation could essentially remain “hidden” from the general public. Plus, none of the attacking parties would state that they intend to attack at three o'clock in the morning in exactly one month etc.
How long would a third world war last?
We estimate several weeks to a few months.
Would civil defence workers etc. help people during and after the end of war?
In most countries of the world, this aid would probably only be marginal, and higher quality aid would most likely only affect a few percent of people. Probably the most state aid would be given to people in Russia, where it could be spoken about in terms of providing meaningful aid to several dozen percent of the people.
I have a protective mask with several protective filters and I have read a few instructions on what to do in a nuclear explosion. Am I ready for nuclear war?
It is enough to give a 5-year-old child training for a few minutes, what he should do in the event of a nuclear attack in order to avoid unnecessary injury. If he is a sufficient distance away, if he follows the instructions and is a little lucky, he will survive a nuclear explosion without any injury or with just a slight injury. So, there is no great art to coping during a nuclear attack, but it is an art to cope for a longer time after it. This also applies to war using chemical or other weapons. A protective mask with a few filters certainly does not solve the problem.
Could a 1 Mt nuclear explosion (about 50 times stronger than the atomic bomb dropped on Nagasaki) completely destroy a town of 100,000 inhabitants? At least that is how some simulations of nuclear explosions, which are freely available on the internet, show it.
Not even by mistake. Other physical laws would have to be applied. As a rule, these simulators have little in common with the real effects of nuclear explosions on towns.
Would only missiles with nuclear warheads be used during a third world war?
Not at all. Everything that could be effectively used to wage war would be used, including infantry.
I saw a simulation of the progression of a third world war on the internet, which clearly demonstrated how many nuclear explosions would occur in The USA, Russia and elsewhere. It also dealt with how many minutes there would be before nuclear explosions and when the war would end. Can such a simulation of a third world war be considered credible?
If the stated simulation of the progression of a third world war deals only with nuclear attacks in the form of missiles with nuclear warheads and does not count on air defences, electronic warfare, the failure of several missiles, the destruction of some missile silos, especially before any second missile launch etc., then it is basically about nothing. In this case, it is more or less just a pretty animation, but no more than that. It is necessary to realize that there is a huge difference between the American and Russian air defences (the Russian system has a lead of about 10–15 years over that of the Americans) and it is similar with cyber warfare. Russia would probably be able to destroy most of the approaching nuclear missiles (perhaps more than 90–95%), but the success rate of The United States could be something like 5–10%. So, some simulations of a number of nuclear explosions are completely pointless until they take into account air defences etc.
Would the planet be inhabitable at all if all nuclear weapons were used?
Of course. However, places very heavily contaminated with radioactive fallout would, with a few exceptions, be inhabitable within a few years at the earliest. But less affected areas for example, would be inhabitable within just a few months.
People would have to hide away in their shelters for several years after the war, right?
Especially in areas more heavily affected by radioactive fallout, staying outdoors for a longer term could not be considered sooner than within a few months. Areas with a low incidence of radioactive fallout would either pose almost no risk during an outdoor stay or could be inhabited after a few days or weeks.
How big an area could a nuclear explosion cover with a radioactive fallout?
This cannot be answered in a simple way because military significant radioactive fallout may not even occur. It depends on many conditions, and therefore each presumed nuclear explosion must be assessed with respect to the nature of the target, the distance from it, the height of the explosion, the composition of the nuclear weapon, the strength of the explosion, the speed and direction of the wind from the ground to the top of the radioactive cloud, etc.
Would mankind be eradicated during a third world war?
The end of civilization would indeed occur, but definitely not mankind. It can be assumed that more people would die from inferior quality water than from the direct effects of weapons of mass destruction.
Did several people vaporize during the atomic explosions in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
No one was vaporized during the atomic explosions in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. People in and around the epicentre suffered fourth-degree burns, but none of them were, and under the circumstances they could not have been, vaporized. A blast wave killed them.
How long would it take for civilization to return to its current form after a third world war?
Given the complexity of the production processes for many things, where raw materials are even transported half way across the world for example, then a shortage of raw materials would be enough to cause a great reduction in, or even halt, some production. In the event of the destruction of the production plants, the situation would become almost unsolvable, as it would not be easy to ensure their recovery, and even if this was possible, it would be necessary to re-establish the entire customer supply cycle, and this probably would not be possible. It would have to start almost from the beginning. Restoring society to a state at least somewhat similar to what we have today could therefore take centuries.
What would society look like a few years after the war?
It is hard to say, because it could vary quite significantly from area to area. To put it simply, society in many areas would have reached the level of the Middle Ages.
Would there be a nuclear winter after the war?
There would be some cooling and fluctuations in the weather for a few years, but a nuclear winter, as commonly presented in films etc., would probably not occur.
Is it necessary to have an underground fallout shelter to ensure reliable protection against radiation from possible fallout?
Not at all. An above-ground garage, ground floor of a house etc. can be used as a shelter, if above all it can withstand a blast wave. However, it may be necessary to provide additional shielding against radioactive radiation.
Does it make sense to leave the preparation for a possible war conflict until the time it is set to happen?
How do you know, at the latest, when it is necessary to take action? Even the first-class analysts of world events, of whom there are only about a few thousand in the world, could talk in terms of a success if they could determine the start of a war hours or days in advance. Most people do not even realize the direction of world developments, so how do they want to deal with something about which they have very little knowledge? Anyone who talks about how superbly the economy, automation etc. will develop within a few years, knows absolutely nothing about actual world development, and those who follow such news are in a similar situation. Even if someone started preparations a few weeks before the start of a possible war, he would have a huge problem buying everything he needed anyway. It can be expected that he would probably not be the only one trying to buy something. Understandably, at the last minute, he would scarcely find a protective mask with filters, enough food, water disinfection, etc.
If there was a war only between The U.S.A. and Russia, using all weapons, who would win?
Russia would probably beat The United States of America within 1–3 weeks.
Is the preparation for a possible third world war and its consequences challenging?
The preparation is about 90–95% the same as would be the preparation for the collapse of civilization due to a natural disaster etc. The remaining percentage consists of knowledge of protection against weapons of mass destruction, protective masks with filters, filter ventilation equipment as the case may be with enough replacement filters and at least some place to shelter, which can usually be built by yourself (in the cellar, garage, etc.).
In which parts of the world would be the greatest escalation of fighting during a third world war?
The largest military clashes could be expected mainly in Europe and The Middle East, as, among other things, strong ground fighting would take place in these areas.
If there was to be another world war, who would have the main share of the blame for it?
Quite clearly countries like Israel, The U.S.A., Great Britain, France and Germany. Generally speaking, The West and its allies.
NATO is considered the strongest military bloc in the world. It devotes considerably more money to defence than Russia and has many more troops and equipment. Would Russia have any chance against NATO in a war?
We are not in The Middle Ages, judging the strength of armies according to the number of soldiers. Likewise, it is not very important to compare the defence budgets of NATO countries and The Russian Federation. It is about how the money is effectively spent on defence. Approximately 73% (at the beginning of 2023) of the Russian army consists of new or modernized technology, the majority of which is only up to eight years old. The Russians introduce new types of missiles into their arsenal, against which The West has virtually no possibility of defence. Russia's air defences do not have any comparable competition in the world, Russia's electronic warfare systems are highly advanced, and The West is also lagging behind in that area. We could continue with the Russian Air Force etc. So as to whether Russia has a chance in a war with NATO countries, it is possible to say 'yes', it has a chance, and a relatively large one. And together with its allies, it has very good prospects for the military defeat of The West and its allies.
We send answers by electronic post, by registered mail via Czech Post, or we pass them on in person. When using standard mail, answers are sent in printed form by default, while they are also simultaneously presented on an enclosed CD in *.pdf and *.doc format, (other formats are possible upon request). For example, some customers prefer to send data only in encrypted form on a CD along with part of the password, and the rest of the password is sent to them by e-mail. They then print everything themselves. In the case of personal collection, the answers are presented both on CD and printed.
Payment is made by bank transfer (some other digital payment methods are possible) or, by prior arrangement, in cash, and we do not send a request for payment until shortly before we begin processing the answers. After receiving the payment, the answers are sent or ready to be picked up within about a week.
Assistance with formulating the questions is free. Personal collection of the CD together with the responses in printed form is free. Information are in English (translation into other languages is possible).
The rate per hour is 2,400 CZK (5 minutes – 200 CZK; 10 minutes – 400 CZK; 15 minutes – 600 CZK, etc.). The price in USD or EUR depends on the current rate of exchange of the Czech crown on the date of payment.
| Time | Price |
|---|---|
| 5 min | 200 CZK (approx. 8.5 USD or 8 EUR) |
| 10 min | 400 CZK (approx. 17 USD or 16 EUR) |
| 15 min | 600 CZK (approx. 25 USD or 24 EUR) |
| 30 min | 1,200 CZK (approx. 50 USD or 48 EUR) |
| 45 min | 1,800 CZK (approx. 76 USD or 72 EUR) |
| 60 min | 2,400 CZK (approx. 101 USD or 96 EUR) |
| 120 min | 4,800 CZK (approx. 202 USD or 192 EUR) |
If the order is cancelled before payment, no fee will be charged. If the order is cancelled within two days after payment, the fee is 20 %, within three days 50 % and over three days 100 % (in this case, everything will be delivered).
| Delivery method | Postage and packing |
|---|---|
| electronically | 0 CZK |
| personally (CD + printed answers) | 0 CZK |
| by post (CD + printed answers) | 199 CZK (approx. 9 USD or 9 EUR) |
| by post (encrypted CD) | 199 CZK (approx. 9 USD or 9 EUR) |
By purchasing, you agree to the terms and conditions.