How to survive nuclear war after a bomb is dropped: what to do, how to prepare
Russia is still escalating its nuclear threats as the war in Ukraine goes on.
If a nuclear bomb were headed toward the US, residents would have fewer than 30 minutes to prepare.
Actions immediately following a nuclear bomb blast amid fallout could help you survive.
Nuclear weapons remain an ever-present threat.
To date, only the US has ever dropped nuclear bombs on a population — in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. Still, the number of nuclear warheads in military stockpiles continues to grow worldwide, and tensions continue between nuclear powers.
President Vladimir Putin, for one, has repeatedly threatened nuclear force in Russia's Ukraine invasion over the last three years. Former President Joe Biden took those threats so seriously that, in 2022, he warned about all-out nuclear war.
Just a few months ago, Putin updated Russia's nuclear doctrine to allow Moscow to respond with nuclear force to a conventional attack from a nation backed by a nuclear power like the US.
Then there's Iran, which doesn't have nuclear weapons yet but is close enough to building them that other nations are constantly scrambling to subdue its nuclear program.
President Donald Trump said in early March that he sent a letter to Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei demanding a new nuclear deal, but later ramped up threats against Iran over the actions of Yemeni Houthis.
No recent developments suggest a nuclear strike is imminent. However, ever since World War II, the risk is always there.
If your city was under attack, you'd likely receive a Wireless Emergency Alert (WEA) text on your cell phone stating that missiles were on the way and to seek shelter immediately.
The Emergency Alert System (EAS) would also send out the same alert message as the WEA across all types of television and radio broadcasts, including satellite, cable, and wireless systems. On top of that, the President may choose to send out a "Presidential Alert" to cell phones nationwide.
Russia's nuclear arsenal is capable of striking just about anywhere on the planet. Were Russia to launch a nuclear-armed intercontinental ballistic missile at the US, residents would have roughly 30 minutes, or less, to find shelter, assuming they were immediately warned of the attack. Some weapons, such as submarine-launched missiles, could potentially have shorter delivery times.
"In theory you could park a submarine closer to North America, thereby lessening the warning and flight time," Brian J. Morra, a former Air Force intelligence officer, a retired senior executive in the aerospace and defense industry, and author, previously told Business Insider.
If Russia launched a weapon from international waters just off the East Coast, people in cities like New York, Boston, and Washington, DC, might have just 10 to 15 minutes to prepare.
"You wouldn't even have time to go get your kids from school," Irwin Redlener, a public-health expert at Columbia University who specializes in disaster preparedness, told Insider in 2022.
Arguably, the American public is not as prepared or educated on what to do in the event of a nuclear attack as Americans were during the Cold War, when stocked fallout shelters, nuclear drills, and air raid sirens were in place across the nation. So here's a minute-by-minute guide to help.
The minutes to hours after a nuclear blast are a critical window. The potential for radiation exposure decreases 55% an hour after an explosion and 80% after 24 hours, according to the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security.
Immediate actions during those first few hours, like covering your eyes or hunkering down in an indoor shelter, could mitigate your risk of death or serious injury. Here's how to protect yourself in a worst-case scenario.
The US doesn't have a sufficient warning system for nuclear threats, Redlener said.
Hawaii learned this lesson in 2018, when the Hawaii Emergency Management Agency sent out an erroneous push alert to people's smartphones, warning of an inbound ballistic-missile threat.
"Seek immediate shelter. This is not a drill," the warning read. An employee at the agency had sent the alert by mistake.
"It caused chaos," Redlener said, adding: "Some people just totally ignored it, and some people went into panic mode and were jumping down sewer drains with their children."
Redlener said the best way to learn of an impending nuclear attack would probably be TV or radio. Those without immediate access to news reports could hear sirens, he said, but the noise might be confusing. By the time you Googled the sirens or called the police department, your time would have run out, he said.
The best course of action is simply to avert your eyes. When a nuclear bomb strikes, it sets off a flash of light and a giant orange fireball. A 1-megaton bomb (about 80 times larger than the "Little Boy" atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima, Japan) could temporarily blind people up to 13 miles away on a clear day and up to 53 miles away on a clear night.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also recommends dropping to the ground with your face down and your hands tucked under your body to protect from flying debris or sweltering heat that could burn your skin. If you have a scarf or handkerchief, cover your nose and mouth.
However, make sure to keep your mouth open, so your eardrums don't burst from pressure. Research also suggests that if you're in an above-ground building, avoid narrow hallways and doorways, which can act like a wind tunnel, accelerating the detonation's shockwaves to dangerous, bone-crushing pressures. Instead, seek shelter along walls in large, open spaces and avoid rooms with windows, if you can.
A single nuclear weapon could result in tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of immediate deaths in a major city like New York or Washington. The number of casualties depends on the size of the weapon, where it's detonated, and how many people are upwind of the blast.
Survivors of a nuclear attack would have about 15 minutes before sandlike radioactive particles, known as nuclear fallout, reached the ground. Exposure to fallout can result in radiation poisoning, which can damage the body's cells and prove fatal.
People should ideally look for shelter in the opposite direction of fallen buildings.
"You'd want to go in the direction away from the wind," Redlener said, adding: "Get as far away as you can in the next 10 to 15 minutes, and then immediately seek shelter before the radiation cloud descends."
The best shelters are buildings like schools or offices with few to no windows and a basement for camping out. If there aren't sturdy buildings nearby, it's still better to be indoors than outside.
If you take cover in a multistory building, choose a central location and steer clear of the top and bottom floors. If the building has windows, stand in the center of a room. Shock waves can shatter windows up to 10 miles away from an explosion, resulting in flying glass that could injure people nearby.
The hours after a blast are critical for reducing radiation exposure.
Doctors can often treat radiation damage with substances such as potassium iodide, though "there are certain dose levels that you can't do anything about," Kathryn Higley, a professor of nuclear science at Oregon State University, previously told Insider.
However, in a disaster scenario, there may not be enough physicians or hospital beds to care for everyone.
"There are not enough empty burn beds in all of the United States to deal with even a single nuclear attack on one city in the US," Tara Drozdenko, the director of the Union of Concerned Scientists' Global Security Program, previously told Insider.
People who were outside during an explosion should shower as soon as possible, making sure the water is warm and soap is applied gently. Scrubbing too hard could break your skin, which acts as a natural protective barrier. You should also cover any cuts or abrasions while rinsing off. Complete these same steps for pets, too.
Don't use conditioner, body lotion, or face cream after exposure to a nuclear blast, since these products can bind to radioactive particles and trap them in your skin and hair.
Blow your nose and wipe your ears and eyelids, since debris could get stuck in these places. The CDC also recommends sealing outer layers of clothing in a plastic bag, along with any tissues or cloths used to wipe your body or face.
It's safe to consume food from sealed containers such as packages, bottles, or cans, according to the CDC. You can also eat items from your pantry or refrigerator, as long as you wipe off containers, cookware, counters, and utensils. But anything left uncovered, such as fruits or veggies from a garden, would be unsafe to eat.
Unless you're told to go outside, it's best to stay put until the risk of contamination has gone down. The US Department of Health and Human Services recommends staying indoors for at least 24 hours after a nuclear explosion.
The World Health Organization recommends listening to the local radio for information and advice on next steps. Your cell phone, television, and internet probably won't work, but battery-powered and hand-crank radios should.
Over the radio, authorities may advise you to stay put or issue an evacuation to a safer area. This is where you'll also likely learn about available medical aid, if you or someone with you, is sick.
If you venture outside, know that nuclear fallout will be raining from the sky. Most fallout from a nuclear blast takes about a week to return to the ground.
To reduce exposure, cover your mouth and nose with a damp cloth when you go outside and make sure you don't have any exposed open wounds. Also, avoid any food that's directly exposed to open air like fresh produce or open water supplies.
Ultimately, the best thing you can do is remain indoors for the first week while the majority of nuclear fallout settles back down to the ground.
This story, which was originally published in March 2022, has since been updated and republished amid Russia's continued nuclear threats.
Read the original article on Business Insider
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Fox News
an hour ago
- Fox News
The global intifada is here. Hamas-aligned networks brought terror to US soil and we need to stop it
For decades, "Globalize the Intifada" chants have rung throughout Europe and the Middle East, a blatant and unmistakable call for violence and terrorism against Israelis and Jews. But over the past two years, those chants have only intensified and multiplied, now making their way west to our United States. What started with campus protests has now turned to vigilante violence. This week in Boulder, Colorado, a man yelling "free Palestine" threw Molotov cocktails at peaceful protestors hosting an event to bring home the Israeli hostages, setting them ablaze. Two young staff members of the Israeli Embassy were murdered outside the Jewish museum, after which the shooter said, "I did it for Palestine, I did it for Gaza." Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro's home was set on fire with his family inside because of "what [Shapiro] wants to do to the Palestinian people," given that he's Jewish. These are not isolated incidents. They are all organized and linked to one group: Hamas. The same terrorist ideology behind these attacks was on display on college campuses over the past two years in the form of violent anti-Israel and anti-Semitic encampments. Let's be clear, these are not the protests of the 1960s. Contrary to what the media may have reported, these were not student-driven "protests" at all. New lawsuits, filed by my organization, expose how the violent takeover of Columbia University's Hamilton Hall and the weeks-long encampments at UCLA were part of an organized, choreographed effort by career professionals to carry out Hamas' plans of violence, terror, and the eradication of Jews and Israelis. At UCLA, a rabbi, a doctor, and a law student sued National Students for Justice in Palestine and other anti-Zionist groups over encampments that were manned with a sword and "human phalanxes." Designated teams of security personnel surrounded the area armed with wooden planks, makeshift shields, pepper spray and tasers. Members of the groups involved in the lawsuit coordinated via social media and Google Docs ways in which to plan, fund, execute, and reinforce the encampment. And just a few days after the first encampment was dispersed by police, more than 40 protestors were found with metal pipes, bolt cutters, chains and padlocks, and manuals for "occupying" campus buildings. At Columbia University, a highly coordinated mob used violent, masked tactics reminiscent of the Ku Klux Klan to storm the campus' Hamilton Hall. Armed with rope, zip ties, and crow bars, the masked invaders smashed their way through the doors and windows, and when they came across two people in their way – janitors, neither of whom were Jewish – they terrorized them, battered them, and mocked them. These two janitors sued the group behind the occupation, the People's Forum, for the assault, during which the assailants berated the janitors as "Jew lovers" for their employment. These aren't doe-eyed kids with signs calling for a more loving and peaceful world. These protestors are part of an expansive terrorist network taking advantage of those same doe-eyed students, using them to stoke violence and create chaos. This is an attempt to legitimize the terrorization of an entire group of people. This is the use of guerrilla warfare tactics against students and faculty in an environment that is supposed to be safe. What we are dealing with now is a highly organized, generously-funded, professionally managed campaign that has all the attributes of a military engagement – from detailed planning to careful mapping to precise logistical elements. This new realization requires a shift in strategy in how we fight back against these attacks. Up until now, most cases against universities were based on a single strategy: to hold taxpayer-funded colleges accountable for the hate that they allowed to become pervasive at their institutions. The goal of this strategy is two-fold. First, colleges should not be permitted to use taxpayer money to fund discrimination, especially when that discrimination prevents students from attending classes. Second, colleges should be incentivized to deal appropriately with the problems on their own campuses, so that neither the government nor lawyers have to handle them one-by-one. These previous cases that held universities accountable for their deliberate indifference to anti-Semitism have worked when they have forced these schools to admit to and confront the rampant anti-Semitism on their campuses. I developed this strategy during my time as the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at the United States Department of Education twenty years ago. It underlies the ongoing congressional investigations and enforcement activities by the Office for Civil Rights, and it's similar to the strategy used by the Trump Task Force on Anti-Semitism to root out anti-Semitic harassment in schools. But a lot can change in twenty years, and this is no longer enough. To address this current reality, it is necessary to adopt new strategies to deal with it. We must hold perpetrators accountable for their criminal actions on campus, including both criminal prosecution and civil litigation. But that alone won't be enough. We must also disrupt the perpetrators' support and resources that are helping them to carry out these calculated, coordinated campaigns. In other words, we were previously addressing the symptoms of anti-Semitism by holding universities accountable. Now, we're also getting to the root of the problem by addressing those who fund, support, plan, and enable the anti-Semitic activity. Like the Muslim Brotherhood, which the Colorado attacker supported; the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), who praised the October 7th attacks; and Students for Justice in Palestine, who continually promote violence on campus and incite "the student intifada." Our protests have changed, just as our reality has. We must be ready to change with it. Kenneth L. Marcus' organization is representing the Columbia janitors and members of the UCLA Jewish community in both lawsuits.


Fox News
2 hours ago
- Fox News
TIM GRAHAM: Hostile journalists pose as heroes while Trump faces their questions daily
Jack Blanchard at Politico's Playbook newsletter made the leftists angry by praising President Donald Trump's energetic availability to the press. While CBS star Scott Pelley wailed at a college commencement that they are "the fierce defenders of democracy," "the seekers of truth" and "the vanguard against ignorance," Trump grants them wrote on May 28 that by lunchtime, "it will have been 48 hours since Donald Trump stepped in front of a TV camera for a speech or Q&A -- the first time that's happened (outside of the weekends) since he returned to the White House on Jan. 20. Whatever your politics, that's a remarkable record of public availability, especially when compared to his famously sheltered predecessor." THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION'S TOP MEDIA MOMENTS AND CLASHES OVER FIRST 100 DAYSFormer President Joe Biden was hidden away from the press for four years, and this never drew angry commencement speeches -- because Scott Pelley was eager to please Team Biden, which allowed him to join the other privileged Biden softball-throwers like Drew Barrymore and Ryan Seacrest. He didn't seem to grasp how they make him look by association. Blanchard infuriated the Biden boosters by arguing "the Joe Biden experience shows just how important it is that leaders are held up to regular scrutiny. Trump's answers may sometimes be rambling, erratic -- or even downright unpleasant -- but every American voter can see where he's at."This is where the Pelleys scream, "But he lies! All the lies!" They will try to sully all this acceptance of hostile questions by disparaging all the answers as dangerous Stelter, and Oliver Darcy, and their partisan squad adored Pelley's lecture, but ignored what Blanchard pointed out. They should just deal with his count: "A quick trawl through the archives suggests Trump 2.0 has done media on 111 of his 138 days back in office -- an 80 percent hit rate that includes weekends and must put him on course to being just about the most-accessible president in modern history." When Trump accepts a hostile interview on NBC's "Meet the Press," it's actually used by NBC to congratulate itself. Incoming "Nightly News" anchor Tom Llamas told an interviewer he accepted this battle "because he knows he's going to get a fair shake. It's because Kristen Welker has done a masterful job of helping Americans get information and being fair with President Trump." CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINIONTrump was sparring with Welker in real time, telling her it was unfair to raise the prospect of empty store shelves in the midst of his global trade disputes. "This is such a dishonest interview already," he said. But he accepted it. How many times did Biden appear on "Meet the Press"? None, but nobody cares. They would rather fuss about Trump fighting back against the press by his lawsuits and threats of regulatory scrutiny at the FCC. None of these arrogant media partisans grasp that they boosted every ounce of regulatory scrutiny and lawsuits and lawfare against Trump over the last eight years. Every Trump-trashing tactic they support is automatically defined as "democracy" and "truth-seeking." CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APPThey define "independence" and "freedom of the press" as the freedom to smear Trump as a criminal or as Hitler, and any attempt to respond in kind is described as nasty pages in the "authoritarian playbook." Then they wonder why no one outside their reinforced leftist bubble trusts them as actually objective or nonpartisan.


CNN
2 hours ago
- CNN
Analysis: The Musk blowup reveals how Trump is remaking the presidency
Through a panoramic series of actions, President Donald Trump is transforming the federal government into a vast machine for rewarding his allies and punishing those he considers his adversaries. Trump is using executive orders, federal investigations and regulatory decisions to deploy federal power against a stunning array of targets, ranging from powerful institutions such as Harvard and Columbia universities and major law firms to individual critics from his first term and former President Joe Biden's top White House aides. Simultaneously, Trump is rewarding allies with presidential pardons, commutations, government contracts and the termination of federal regulatory or criminal investigations. The explosive breakup with Elon Musk has provided the most vivid demonstration yet of Trump's transactional view of the presidency. When Musk was Trump's most prominent political ally and benefactor, the White House brushed off complaints about the potential for conflicts of interest as the tech billionaire's companies competed for billions in government contacts. Then, when the two men fell out last week, Trump immediately threatened to terminate the contracts for Musk's companies. Trump struck a similar note on Saturday, telling NBC's Kristen Welker that if Musk began to fund Democratic campaigns in protest of the president's sweeping policy bill, 'He'll have to pay very serious consequences.' The extraordinary episode underscored how quickly anyone can move from Trump ally to adversary by opposing or questioning him in any way — and how dire the consequences can be for crossing that line. In his almost instinctive reaction to threaten Musk's contracts — even if it would be difficult to do in practice — Trump signaled unambiguously that staying in his favor would be the difference between favorable decisions by his administration and costly confrontations with it. The president sees little boundary between public policy by the federal government and personal fealty to him. 'Never before in this country has a president made so clear that mere disagreement with him or failure to show sufficient personal loyalty might cause that person to lose government contracts or even face investigation,' said Ian Bassin, co-founder and executive director of Protect Democracy, a nonpartisan group that analyzes threats to US democracy. 'That's how things work in Russia, and apparently, under Donald Trump, now here.' Until Trump, historians considered Richard Nixon the president who pushed hardest to bend federal legal authority into a lever to advance his personal and political interests — a process that culminated in the Watergate scandal and the disclosure of the infamous White House 'enemies list.' But while Nixon fulminated against his opponents in private, he never subjected them to anything approaching the bombardment of hostile federal actions that Trump has directed at his targets. 'You see very similar personality traits in the men, about how they feel about people and what they want to do about them,' said John Dean, who served as Nixon's White House counsel during Watergate and later revealed the existence of the enemies list. But, Dean added, whereas Nixon would often lose sight of his threats or back off when faced with resistance inside or outside his administration, Trump and his aides are moving to draft virtually every component of the federal government into this mission. 'Everything with Nixon is more or less a one-off,' Dean said, 'whereas with Trump it is a way of life.' The effect is that, with much less pushback than Nixon faced, Trump is now moving far faster and further toward reconfiguring the federal government's sweeping authority into an extension of his personal will. 'We are so far beyond Nixon's inclinations and disposition to employ the government to attack perceived enemies and perceived political adversaries,' Dean said, 'that it is the difference between spitballs and howitzers.' Almost daily, Trump is acting in new ways to deploy federal power in precision-focused attacks on individuals and institutions who have crossed or resisted him. He has revoked federal security clearances from an array of former officials (including Hillary Clinton, Kamala Harris, and Republican former Reps. Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger) and terminated federal security protection for others. He's withdrawn security clearances from and directed his administration to investigate two critics from his first term, Miles Taylor and Chris Krebs. Last week, Trump ordered a federal investigation into the right-wing conspiracy theory that aides to then-President Biden misused his autopen to implement decisions without his knowledge. Trump has ordered the Justice Department to investigate Democrats' principal grassroots fundraising tool, ActBlue. Large institutions Trump considers hostile have faced comparable threats. He's signed executive orders imposing crippling penalties on several large law firms that have either represented causes or employed attorneys Trump dislikes. Trump has canceled billions of dollars in scientific research grants to prominent universities and escalated that offensive with a dizzying array of other measures against Harvard, including attempting to revoke its ability to enroll foreign students and publicly declaring that the Internal Revenue Service intends to revoke its tax-exempt status: The New York Times recently calculated that Harvard is now facing at least eight separate investigations from six federal agencies. The Federal Communications Commission is investigating '60 Minutes' over its editing of an interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris, probing charges that television networks have engaged in 'news distortion,' and scrutinizing the proposed merger with Skydance Media that is being ardently pursued by CBS' parent, Paramount, and its controlling stockholder Shari Redstone. Trump's administration has arrested a judge in Wisconsin and US representative in New Jersey who have resisted his immigration agenda. While pursuing these penalties for critics, Trump has conspicuously rewarded allies. His Justice Department dropped federal corruption charges against New York Mayor Eric Adams, who has pledged to support Trump's immigration crackdown, and regulators have terminated high-profile enforcement actions against the crypto industry even as his family's financial ties to the industry have mushroomed. Trump has also issued a flurry of early second-term pardons targeted at his supporters, beginning with the mass pardon of January 6, 2021, rioters and extending to a growing list of Republican and conservative public officials. Legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, author of 'The Pardon,' a recent history of how presidents have used that power, said Trump's actions have no precedent. 'It's not even close,' Toobin said. 'I can't even think of even a parallel.' Taken together, these actions signal something like a mafia-style protection racket, Bassin argued. For those who meet the administration's demands, Bassin said, Trump is offering protection from federal interference, and for those who resist his demands, he's brandishing the opposite. The speed at which Trump flipped from praising to threatening Musk and his companies, Bassin added, 'is a perfect example' of how no one is safe from falling from one side of that line to the other — which allows Trump always to preserve the option of raising the price of protection with new demands. It's a method of operation, Bassin argued, that would be equally recognizable to Russian President Vladimir Putin or mobster John Gotti. Nixon unquestionably wanted to sharpen federal law and regulatory enforcement into the cudgel Trump is forging. Behind closed doors in the Oval Office, Nixon often bombarded his aides with demands to punish those he viewed as his political enemies. 'We have all this power, and we aren't using it,' Nixon exploded to his chief of staff, H.R. Haldeman, in one August 1972 meeting captured by the White House taping system. At times, Nixon succeeded in channeling that power against his targets. He successfully pressed the Justice Department to intensify an investigation into kickbacks and illegal campaign contributions swirling around Alabama Gov. George Wallace. The administration tried for years to deport John Lennon (over a British conviction for possession of a half-ounce of marijuana) after Republican Sen. Strom Thurmond sent a letter to the Justice Department warning that the former Beatle might headline a series of concerts intended to mobilize young voters against Nixon's reelection. A team of White House operatives — known informally as 'the plumbers' because they were supposed to stop leaks to the press — undertook a succession of shady missions, culminating in the break-in to the Democratic National Committee offices in the Watergate building that eventually led to Nixon's resignation. Chuck Colson, one of Nixon's most hardcore aides, tried to pressure both CBS and The Washington Post over their coverage of the administration by threatening FCC action to revoke the licenses of local television stations they owned. Colson and Nixon openly strategized about holding open the threat of a federal antitrust investigation to pressure the three television networks. According to research by Mark Feldstein, a professor of broadcast journalism at the University of Maryland, the plumbers even fleetingly discussed ways to assassinate investigative journalist Jack Anderson before they were diverted to a more urgent project — the Watergate break-in. In his obsessive hunt for leaks, Nixon illegally wiretapped the phones of both journalists and his own National Security Council aides. All these resentments converged in the development of what became known as the enemies list. The White House actually compiled multiple overlapping lists, all fueled by Nixon's fury at his opponents, real and imagined. 'It clearly originated with Nixon's disposition, anger, reaction to things he would see in his news summary in the morning,' said Dean. In an August 16, 1971, memo — titled 'Dealing with our Political Enemies' — Dean succinctly explained that the list's intent was to find all the ways 'we can use the available federal machinery to screw our political enemies.' Dean told me he wrote the memo in such stark terms because he thought it would discourage the White House. 'I actually wrote that memo that way thinking I would make this so offensive … that they would just say, 'This is silly, we don't do this kind of stuff,'' he said. 'I never got a response to that directly, but when I went to the (National) Archives decades later, (I saw) Haldeman had written 'great' on the memo with an exclamation point.' In fact, though, enthusiasm in the White House did not translate into action at the agencies. On the advice of Treasury Secretary George Shultz, the IRS commissioner put the list in his safe and ignored the White House request that he audit the people on it. Subsequent investigations found no evidence that those on the enemies list faced excessive scrutiny from the IRS or other government harassment. Once Dean revealed the list's existence during the 1973 hearings of the Senate Watergate Committee, inclusion on it became 'something for people to celebrate,' he recalled. 'I have actually spoken to (reunions of) a couple groups of members, people who have been on the list, because they had no consequences other than a badge of honor.' That was a common outcome for Nixon's rages. The Justice Department eventually dropped the case against Wallace. The courts blocked Lennon's removal. The Washington Post did not lose licenses for any of stations, said Feldstein, author of 'Poisoning the Press,' a book about Nixon's relationship with the media. 'Trump is doing what Nixon would have liked to have done,' Feldstein said. 'Even Nixon didn't take it as far.' The differences between Nixon and Trump in their approach to federal enforcement and investigative power extends to their core motivations. Nixon, as Dean and other close observers of his presidency agree, wanted to retaliate against individuals or institutions he thought opposed or looked down on him. Trump certainly shares that inclination. But Trump's agenda, many scholars of democratic erosion believe, pushes beyond personal animus to mimic the efforts in authoritarian-leaning countries such as Turkey and Hungary to weaken any independent institutions that might contest his centralization of power. 'Although some of it was (motivated by) revenge, the huge difference here is most of what Nixon did was to protect himself, politically and personally,' said Fred Wertheimer, who served as legislative director of the government reform group Common Cause during the Watergate scandal. 'Trump is out to break our democracy and take total control of the country in a way that no one ever has before.' One telling measure of that difference: Trump is openly making threats, or taking actions, that Nixon only discussed in private, and even there with constant concern about public disclosure. Trump's willingness to publicly deliver these threats changes their nature in several important ways, said David Dorsen, an assistant chief counsel for the Senate Watergate Committee and former federal prosecutor. Simply exposing an individual or institution to such an open threat from the world's most powerful person, Dorsen noted, can enormously disrupt their life, even if the courts ultimately prevent Trump from acting on it — a point recently underscored by Miles Taylor in an essay for Politico. And because Nixon's threats were always delivered in private, Dorsen added, aides dubious of them could ignore them more easily than Trump officials faced with his public demands for action. Maybe most important, Dorsen said, is that by making his threats so publicly, Trump is sending a shot across the bow of every other institution that might cross him. 'Trump is legitimizing conduct that Nixon did not purport to legitimize,' Dorsen said. 'He concealed it, he was probably embarrassed by it; he realized it was wrong.' As the IRS pushback against the enemies list demonstrated, Nixon's plans faced constant resistance within his own government, not only from career bureaucrats but often also from his own appointees. 'He failed in getting key officials in the government to do what he wanted,' said Wertheimer, who now directs the reform group Democracy 21. If that kind of internal stonewalling is slowing Trump's sweeping offensives against his targets, there's little evidence of it yet. Congress was another constraint on Nixon. Not only did the administration need to fear oversight hearings from the Democrats who controlled both the House and Senate, but at that point a substantial portion of congressional Republicans were unwilling to blink at abusive actions. Ultimately it was a delegation of Republican senators, led by conservative icon and former GOP presidential candidate Barry Goldwater, who convinced Nixon to resign during Watergate. By contrast, Trump today is operating with 'a completely compliant Republican Congress' and has filled the federal government, including its key law enforcement positions, with loyalist appointees who 'operate as if they are there to carry out his wishes, period,' said Wertheimer. As Feldstein pointed out, Trump also can worry less about critical press coverage than Nixon, who governed at a time when 'there were just three networks and everybody watched those.' That leaves the courts as the principal short-term obstacle to Trump's plans. In Nixon's time, the federal courts consistently acted across party lines to uphold limits on the arbitrary exercise of federal power. Three of Nixon's own appointees joined the unanimous 1974 Supreme Court decision that sealed his fate by requiring him to provide Congress his White House tapes. John Sirica, the steely federal district judge who helped crack the scandal, was appointed by Republican President Dwight Eisenhower. Today, federal district and appellate courts are mostly demonstrating similar independence. The New York Times' running tally counts nearly 190 rulings from judges in both parties blocking Trump actions since he returned to office. 'I think we've seen the largest overreach in modern presidential history … and as a result, you've triggered a massive judicial pushback,' said Norm Eisen, co-founder and executive chair of the Democracy Defenders Fund, a group fighting many of Trump's initiatives in courts. 'I won't say democracy has won so far, because of the damage that Trump and his ilk have done, but I will say Trump lost.' But even if courts block individual Trump tactics, the effort required to rebuff his actions still can impose a heavy cost on his targets. And, on the most important cases, these lower court legal rulings are still subject to reconsideration by the Supreme Court — whose six- member Republican-appointed majority has historically supported an expansive view of presidential power and last year voted to immunize Trump against criminal prosecution for virtually any actions he takes in office. So far, the Supreme Court has sent mixed signals by ruling to restrain Trump on some fronts while empowering him on others. 'We haven't found out yet what the Supreme Court is going to do when … they get the really big cases,' said Wertheimer. Those decisions in the next few years will likely determine whether Trump can fulfill the darkest impulses of Richard Nixon, the only president ever forced to resign for his actions in office.