Quote:
Originally Posted by **********
It's just not the immediate distraction. It's the fallout, the radiation, the dust. As the radiation spreads around the world more and more water and food becomes poison. More and more people die of cancer. All the dust kicked up reduces sunlight making it harder to grow food.
The idea that a nuclear war as survivable was the scariest fucking shit of the 50's, 60's, and 80's.
|
again, hollywood movie film science.
Nuclear weapons have been designed to have minimal fallout effect, radioactive fallout is not desired in the design of these weapons, it's not the goal.
That's why there are no longer nukes arsenal with >1mt. The blast does not go high enough to get into prevailing tradewinds, etc, and the half-life of a 1mt bomb means that by the time the radioactive contaminants come back to earth, they've died.
again, it's all documented, the prediction map I supplied earlier is a great example of the facts behind this.
localized/regional damage is the end goal, thus there will be many places that are not radioactive.
Also, many of you seem to think a nuke war means a strategy of mutually assured destruction, and while that is a realistic strategy, it is not THE strategy and it certainly is not the primary, go-to strategy.
There will be many places on this planet free from radioactivity from a nuke war. You might not be lucky enough to be at one or near one, and who knows ahead of time where they may be, but they will exist. the goal in a war is to defeat the enemy, not destroy every place to live on the planet.