Vapourized :2 cents:

You really didn't get my point. Antibiotics, banks? Antibiotics are at least on the shopping list, but banks? Come on. Government starts getting for people shelter, food and water, and that point banks are irrelevant (untill much later). Governments don't buy things times like that, they take what they want and totally legally, paying is in somewhere future, if at all.

I don't know about US military, but at least around here army has stockpiles, it doesn't go shopping if we are attacked. Well, actually some weapons must be bought more if war goes on enough long time, but I guess you can manage your own citizens without cruise missiles, etc.

I am quite sure that US military has enough bullets to shoot every American, including the shooting soldiers, but as we are talking about keeping the society up, that is not the case anyways.

You are talking like you would go war against your own country/ government. Also, communication can be kept with simple "messenger guy" system, although not the fastest one, but armies and governments have used that for the most part of humankind's history.

The previously mentioned confiscation (eminent domain) includes labour, like you. You don't need private contractors, you just need people to do the work, whether soldiers or civilians. Army is prepared to make at least bridges, communication and roads, and under fire.

You do what you have to do, we are not talking about some spoiled little girls.

Discussions like this, it's like it's the 1950's and '60's all over again. :(

Thanks Putin.


I think I'll say Winnipeg, right where I am. I mean seriously, what could possibly be gained by nuking Winnipeg? :D

No, would probably have to move north, I'd say northern Canada 'd be about as safe as anywhere.

I'ma go play FALLOUT now...

You are assuming one blast on one city.

I am assuming that if Russia destroys NYC the US will retaliate with forty-eight hours - and then Russia will follow up with yet more nukes. A nuclear strike against the United States would not be anything like the two atomic blasts on Japan in the 1940s; A nuclear strike against the United States would mean all out war. And a nuclear strike against the United States would not just include the continental United States - It would include the Pacific Fleet at Hawaii, Diego Garcia, Japan, and any country the US and NATO has troops. (That's a long list of targets.)

Once a single nuke lets loose, it's game over. There won't be any place to hide.

From what crockett and Mark Prince have said about man-made "climate change"...I would guess that if a nuclear war broke out that it would eclipse all the CO2 from us peasants driving our cars.

So my answer is: According to crockett, ********** and all the global warming alarmists...nowhere would be safe because if me driving a car has doomed the world, a nuclear war would definitely melt the icecaps and FINALLY put the coastline underwater.

And then crockett and ********** can be happy that their doomsday alarmists nonsense came true! lol

Forget the military. Forgot what was done in the past. I'm talking global commerce and trade in the year 2014 and what is going to happen when it ALL stops suddenly. Most nations are dependent on other nations. That will end immediately and cause lots of problems. THAT is my main point. Many buy their power from elsewhere, along with massive food imports, medicine, and so on. All already said in posts above.

Then look at food. Will the ground still be fertile to farm or will it mostly be contaminated? I dunno. Probably depends on where you are. Water sources polluted? Radiation? Lots of variables. You can force all the manual labor onto a problem that you want, but contaminated land isn't going to grow food for people and contaminated water isn't going to help.

Not sure what you are talking about with banks. I said there won't be any. That means, you're not getting your money, which in turn means, unless you have something to sell or trade, you're ass out. Even if you could get your paper, it probably wouldn't matter anyway. At that point it probably won't be worth more than toilet paper, which you will also run out of very quickly.

What are you talking about? I'm not going to war with anyone, I'm telling you what will happen in the USA with the National Guard. Since you're obviously not American, that is the national military unit that is used to protect / help the nation. It is not going to be pleasant should they have to go into an area and keep the peace.


You are talking as if cities are going to be bombed by drones and damage will be minimal. Who is forced or not forced to rebuild is irrelevant. My point is, the world now survives on what it gets from other counties. When you're no longer getting what you need from elsewhere, you're in a world of hurt. And yes, antibiotics will be needed immediately, and if you're country doesn't make their own and are able to get them to the right places, a lot of people will die from other issues, such as a simple infection. I don't know where you are in the world, or what you make there, but not everyone makes their own drugs. In fact, most countries don't.

Sure, the US has plenty of bullets should they need them, but fuel is a limited resource, so is manpower that will be spread out over an enormous stretch of land. You can have warehouses full of weapons, but if you can't keep your vehicles fueled, in the long run, all of those weapons are of no use. But putting that to the side, the US is simply too large to police after an event like that, assuming there is anything left to police. You're talking about a nuclear war, not being hit with cluster bombs from above.

Even if the bombs are smaller these days, there is no telling how many will rain down on a city, or the secondary effects of those bombs and their radiation. Just losing the power grid permanently would be a game changer. I honestly don't even want to think of the chaos that would come after cities went black and stayed that way. Perhaps the Japanese would remain orderly, but Americans... nope. Not a chance. Especially in inner city areas. You'll probably be better off being killed in the blast than have to live in the chaos that would come after.

All of that said, I don't think anyone is dumb enough to go down that road. It would literally mean the end of everything as we know it. Back to living like the Amish, who I may add, will probably not skip a beat after the world around them is turned into rubble. :upsidedow

madagascar

You list problems, I tell solutions. I already read the problems you listed and I replied with solutions. You have problem focused approach, I have solution. I have been in my own country's military and you even mentioning some banks is so funny. For what you would even need money? Government provides you food, shelter and water if you can't get it yourself (as best as it can). You don't have to go shopping and even if there would be some shops left, they would be confiscated. Rights for private property practically ceases to exist for a moment. Even without some nukes, during WWII were food, cars, horses, dogs, etc. "confiscated" in my country. You had food stamps with what you got food.

Also I haven't said that everything would continue as it was (if everything got nuked). So what if we live like Amish? Lucky to be even alive.

About National guard, I am not expert about US military, but last time I looked you had all sorts of military branches, like regular army, navy, marines, air force, etc. Being "pleasant" job or not is fucking irrelevant. You sound again like some little girl.

Not only that, but think it out. In the event of a war the Top Brass would haul ass out of the country and set up shop some place else. so the Russians would make sure to hit every big country as a preemptive thing.

Me, Im heading for Gilligan's island.

Well, hundreds of nukes have already been blasted on Earth's surface. Although it have contributed some change in radiation levels, but not that much.

Rot inside? This is not some zombie movie. I will always rather choose struggling than dying. Humans have almost gone extinct several times, nothing new in there. I even consider it as a my responsibily to survive. I see no glory in dying, that will come anyways, I have no horry.

I'm not assuming anything and certainly not 1 nuke on one city. I'm going on well-documented info. You're going on a Hollywood movie version on nuclear weapons. The fallout radius is an important factor in the design of current devices, half-life etc. The fact is nukes are now designed to minimize fallout. Not to mention designed as1 Mt.

Anyone that compares a nuclear detonation with Chernobyl does not really understand the difference between an accident and a strategic nuclear weapons.

.

only two options:

1. start crawling towards the nearest cemetery, or...

2. take a good look at the explosion cos you ain't never gonna see anything like it

.

Why would I crawl to cemetary if it's supposed to be doomday (everyone dies)? Who cares if my body rottens on street? Cemeteries are for living people, not dead ones.

wouldn't you rather die in a cemetery than on the streets? ;]
...but if you ain't the religious type, you can always go for option #2 and enjoy the show.

I want to live and healthy, so I don't choose the second option, and if I die, it might as well be on the street. Although if I would find some readily digged hole on cemetary I would use that as a shelter, you know, like foxhole.

As I have been in military service (not US), I have already taken it into account that I might get shot, cutted, blasted into pieces, burned alive, and left on the street to rotten. So that part is already covered. Getting nuked is not that different.

.

either way aka123, let's hope that we're just talkin' shit for a good time, cos if Putin & Obama gonna have a dick size competition, no hole in the ground is gonna save us.

.

its been 50 years, but i guess its time to get the signs out again...
http://outlawtgp.com/falloutsheltersigns.jpg

very interesting, also crazy interesting to see how many people here figure that "government" would step in to fix things.

First surviving the initial attack is about 10% of the problem you have long term problems from fallout second i believe you had damn well better be very self sufficient if yer thinking anywhere in the northern hemisphere I suspect yer gonna die painfully southern hemisphere has less population and fewer....way fewer targets of any value... look at global weather patterns and decide on a place were you can hopefully grow your own food with uncontaminated water on uncontaminated ground. and remember you aint likely gonna be welcomed with open arms by whomever is living there...if as most you have to stay where you are caves in temperate climates with underground clean, water and you better e ready to seriously change your diet as insects are more likely to be your best uncontaminated form of protein....and thats just the VERY beginning....almost nobody here could survive it I could have maybe in my 20s or 30s now...almost no way...

Saturn ??

You guys are being silly. If there is a big enough nuclear war to "wipe" any country the size of the US or Russia off the map, then no where is safe because we all die in thermal nuclear winter.

Even still, it would take a "lot" of nuclear missiles to take out even a single large city. Stop watching dooms day movies because you would need probably 10 nuclear missiles to wipe out a city like Denver for instance.

The the radio active fall out that is the worry for most of the population after any large nuclear war and no where is safe from that once you have to come out of your bunkers to find food or water.

Just stay far enough away from military bases. Here, nuke the nearest base and see how far you need to move :1orglaugh

http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

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.

I've been blowing up bases all morning. Assuming this is close to accurate, even a payload measured in multiple megatons (many times bigger than Hiroshima or Nagasaki) doesn't actually doesn't reach THAT far and it kind of matches what I've read in the books. So my conclusion is that there is actually value in choosing locations away from US bases and other potential targets. Nuclear war is TOTALLY survivable but you have to be not thick enough to be defeatist.

Of course, the prime targets are US bases so other potential targets are probably secondary but you have remember something..... altitude (height above sea level) might actually benefit you in numerous ways if its a long term thing.

I don't think a limited exchange would ever be possible. If you are pushed into a corner, you will fight back with everything you have.


Maybe, but radiation fallout would be global for one, but besides that survivors would overwhelm those countries natural resources.

A war between the US and Russia would have severe global consequences, even if these 2 countries were the only 2 idiots fighting.

Well, Maybe Canada wouldn't be the safest place. Sure we might not get nuked, but we would definitely be invaded. Canada has tons of energy and natural resources. We are also the largest supplier of Plutonium I think. D'oh!

No I don't think so. I think instead that all of the dust kicked up would block alot of the sunlight and cool the earth. We would have darker days, longer winters, more ice, etc.

Nuke the planet and save the Polar Bears? Hmmm..

Probably alot.. I tried to Google it but found too much to sift through. There are probably increases in cancer and other deaths and sicknesses due to increased radiation too.

Here's some interesting info : John Wayne died of cancer after shooting a movie called "The Conqueror". 90 other people who worked on that movie also got cancer including Susan Hayward, and Agnes Moorehead, and director Dick Powell. The movie was shot137 miles (220 km) downwind of the United States government's Nevada National Security Site. Sad.

Play DEFCON: Everybody dies. http://www.introversion.co.uk/defcon/

There was some estimates on wiki, something like tens of thousands excess deaths. Probably millions affected otherwise. But, we are still alive and reproducing. The most acute threats to all life come more like in a form of plastic bottles and such (chemicals in them).

Depends on the nuke power. Also don't forget that one missile like R-36M "Satan" may carry up to 10 small 0.5-0.7 Mt warheads (each one has its own target anywhere across the country) or a single 18-25 Mt one.

Here is some nice simulator: http://www.21122012.com.ua/nuclear-simulator.html - enjoy :winkwink:

P.S. FYI: even a single 1 Mt warhead will set a firestorm in a territory with a radius of 7.5 km (only the diameter of the crater of its explosion will be about 380 m). Now do your math for a regular 20 Mt warhead using this well-known formula:

http://mk.semico.ru/pict/txt/trotil.gif

2crockett: here are my calculations for 20 Mt:

• 3.65 * sqr3(20) = 9.8 km (301 square km) - total destruction
• 7.5 * sqr3(20) = 20.25 km (1287 square km, which is about equal to the size of NYC) - heavy destruction and firestorm
• 14 * sqr3(20) = 37.8 km (4486 square km) - slight destruction and separate fires

According to Wikipedia, the size of Denver is 400 square km. So, how many 20 Mt warheads will be enough to destroy it?

P.S. 9.8, 20.25 and 37.8 above are radius sizes, calculated based on reference ones for 1 Mt explosion.

If you are lucky, you'll be vaporized before you even know what happened and won't feel a thing.

I doubt it too, but I know that is a strategic option that would be used to do a pre-emptive strike to disable the other military before they could strike.

Given how quickly a missile could reach it's target, I suppose it could be possible to catch someone with their pants down. But like you said, pushed into a corner with only minutes to make a decision, most will probably choose to go full retard, just in case.

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.

the most remote places, like New Zealand, Tasmania, or even Antarctica... :upsidedow