What Countries Would Be Safest In Nuclear War? - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

pornguy · 09-09-2014, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

No where would be safe.

When that shit went down in Chernobyl, radiation was everywhere. And that was an accident. And that was an accident. Imagine if the US and Russia start nuking the shit out of each other. No place would be safe. Radiation would be everywhere. Oh, you might live through the first few strikes... but after a few months everything you eat would be deadly.

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.

aka123 · 09-09-2014, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

No where would be safe.

When that shit went down in Chernobyl, radiation was everywhere. And that was an accident. And that was an accident. Imagine if the US and Russia start nuking the shit out of each other. No place would be safe. Radiation would be everywhere. Oh, you might live through the first few strikes... but after a few months everything you eat would be deadly.

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.

Barry-xlovecam · 09-09-2014, 02:59 PM

I would rather be vaporized in the war's beginning than struggle to survive in a post nuclear war world. There won't be much worth living for -- you are watching to many movies/TV shows with dramatic and romantic interpretations.

Life will be horrid for those that survive ... As they rot away inside and die slowly ...

aka123 · 09-09-2014, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

I would rather be vaporized in the war's beginning than struggle to survive in a post nuclear war world. There won't be much worth living for -- you are watching to many movies/TV shows with dramatic and romantic interpretations.

Life will be horrid for those that survive ... As they rot away inside and die slowly ...

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.

dyna mo · 09-09-2014, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

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.

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.

dyna mo · 09-09-2014, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

No where would be safe.

When that shit went down in Chernobyl, radiation was everywhere. And that was an accident. And that was an accident. Imagine if the US and Russia start nuking the shit out of each other. No place would be safe. Radiation would be everywhere. Oh, you might live through the first few strikes... but after a few months everything you eat would be deadly.

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

dezmondel · 09-09-2014, 04:00 PM

.

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

.

aka123 · 09-09-2014, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dezmondel

.

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.

dezmondel · 09-09-2014, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aka123

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.

aka123 · 09-09-2014, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dezmondel

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.

dezmondel · 09-09-2014, 04:32 PM

.

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.

.

the Shemp · 09-09-2014, 06:04 PM

its been 50 years, but i guess its time to get the signs out again...

mikesouth · 09-09-2014, 06:41 PM

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...

CaptainHowdy · 09-09-2014, 06:51 PM

Saturn ??

crockett · 09-09-2014, 08:23 PM

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.

SplatterMaster · 09-09-2014, 08:39 PM

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

http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

2MuchMark · 09-09-2014, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

plenty of places would be safe from radioactivity.

Check it out: http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/ enter the largest yield possible (the russian tzar bomb 100mt, no one uses these sizes or test them anymore), we all use significantly smaller yield nukes now. And even with the tsar bomb, the fallout isn't that widespread. biggest nukes right now are 1mt, thus minimal fallout and not widespread. plenty of space left.

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.

RummyBoy · 09-09-2014, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SplatterMaster

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

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.

2MuchMark · 09-09-2014, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DWB

Well that depends. A nuclear war can be a limited exchange, just military targets or select cities, or it could be a full out war.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RummyBoy

As for location and self sufficient so that's why:

Canada
Australia
New Zealand
Indonesia
Malaysia
What about Ireland?
What about Iceland?

Most of these countries are in a good location and most have some level of energy/agricultural independence.

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.

2MuchMark · 09-09-2014, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDSmith

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...

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!

2MuchMark · 09-09-2014, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

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

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..

2MuchMark · 09-09-2014, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aka123

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.

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.

2MuchMark · 09-09-2014, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the Shemp

its been 50 years, but i guess its time to get the signs out again...

2MuchMark · 09-09-2014, 09:21 PM

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

aka123 · 09-10-2014, 02:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

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.

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).

just a punk · 09-10-2014, 03:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

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.

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

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:

just a punk · 09-10-2014, 03:38 AM

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.

DWB · 09-10-2014, 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aka123

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.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

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.

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.

dyna mo · 09-10-2014, 07:55 AM

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.

Marshal · 09-10-2014, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaDalton

New Zealand sounds pretty tempting - they have everything you need to live and unless there's a new Hobbit movie, you don't hear anything from there for the rest of the time

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

Plutocracy · 09-10-2014, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rummyboy

best places in the usa? Holy shit......... I think russia would be safer than the usa.

As for location and self sufficient so that's why:

Canada
australia
new zealand
indonesia
malaysia
what about ireland?
What about iceland?

Most of these countries are in a good location and most have some level of energy/agricultural independence.

canada ;)

aka123 · 09-10-2014, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DWB

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

Not very lucky in my point of view. As I can't see into future, I will rather have the "painful death", as it might be that it turns out to be just painful and I will die sometimes later. Or not even painful, maybe I will be totally okay.

just a punk · 09-10-2014, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

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

You are 100% correct here. Looks like Rochard didn't learn in the school

Chernobyl accident was caused by a steam explosion followed by a massive fire of graphite rods. The Uranium fuel was turned into a dust an thrown far away into the atmosphere. In two words it was the biggest dirty bomb in the history of mankind.

The nuclear weapon does not seriously pollute the environment (course if the warhead has no shell of cobalt, but it's a way another story... ;)) Almost all energy of explosion will be transformed into the shock wave, heat and ionizing radiation. In other words, even a serious nuclear blast will be 1000's times "safer" for the environment. In terms of radioactive contamination, but not a physical damage of course.

just a punk · 09-10-2014, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

That's why there are no longer nukes arsenal with >1mt.

SS-18/Mod 3 are still equipped with 20 Mt warheads.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

There will be many places on this planet free from radioactivity from a nuke war.

But it won't be free from a nuclear winter, however... It will be caused not by radiation. It will be caused by massive firestorms which will burn out the cities and forests in Europe, Asia and America. Plants and animals can't exists w/o sun. So I won't agree with you on the quoted above. It will be the end for a whole planet.

aka123 · 09-10-2014, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CyberSEO

SS-18/Mod 3 are still equipped with 20 Mt warheads.

But it won't be free from a nuclear winter, however... It will be caused not by radiation. It will be caused by massive firestorms which will burn out the cities and forests in Europe, Asia and America. Plants and animals can't exists w/o sun. So I won't agree with you on the quoted above. It will be the end for a whole planet.

Well, about the nuclear winter. It might be possible at some extent, depending of course about the amount of nukes, fires, etc. However, even on cloudy day sun will pass, dust is heavier of course, but I doubt that there will be that much of it. At least life wont end, as there is much living matter to consume and the nuclear winter will most likely end before the consumable matter is used (many seeds can wait at least tens of years). Not to speak of that Earth has life that is not dependent about sun, although most life is, but there is whole ecosystems based on other energy than sun energy. These ecosystems are on seafloor, and the base source for life in there is volatile Earth's mass.

Also, nuke scorched earth will act as a firewall. Well, anyways, total nuclear war is not the nicest of things.

just a punk · 09-10-2014, 12:05 PM

Oh, I forgot to mention. Not only Amazon and Siberian forests will die during a nuclear winter, but all the oceanic plankton as well, so the Earth will simple run out of oxygen pretty fast.

aka123 · 09-10-2014, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CyberSEO

Oh, I forgot to mention. Not only Amazon and Siberian forests will die during a nuclear winter, but all the oceanic plankton as well, so the Earth will simple run out of oxygen pretty fast.

Why would all the oceanic planktron die? Also, I don't think that all Amazon and Siberian forests would burn. Why would Amazon be on the target at the first place? Or Siberia for large part? That is quite empty space and simply having fires somewhere doesn't burn the whole Earth. Fires are natural part of life, well maybe not made by nukes, but in general.

Just keep the Putin far from the trigger. Will be much easier that way.

dyna mo · 09-10-2014, 12:19 PM

ANuclear winter is speculation. Much controversy re:nuclear created climate change. One big problem with that assumption is the fact that modern day cities won't erupt into firestorms. No firestorm means no soot and smoke blocking the sun. Other issues also with the assumption.

RummyBoy · 09-10-2014, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

A Nuclear winter is speculation. Much controversy re:nuclear created climate change.

And it has been rejected by many scientists....

JA$ON · 09-10-2014, 12:56 PM

Aint ever going to happen. NOW, you may get a nut job that buys a dirty bomb or small device, but that would just be a horrific tragedy, not the end of life as we know it.

Mutually assured destruction is a 100% perfect deterrent. Why would a country fire off warheads at another knowing that by the time they were halfway to their target, the other country would have fired back themselves. All you'd get as the first strike country is about 30 min of being top dog before YOUR con tie was blown back to the dark ages as well

thus....no major nuclear war will ever happen 2c

2MuchMark · 09-10-2014, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

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.

Ok phew! For a minute there I thought we had something to worry about. Please tell me where I can sign up for your head-in-the-sand blog. I'm fascinated.

aka123 · 09-10-2014, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JA$ON

Aint ever going to happen. NOW, you may get a nut job that buys a dirty bomb or small device, but that would just be a horrific tragedy, not the end of life as we know it.

Mutually assured destruction is a 100% perfect deterrent. Why would a country fire off warheads at another knowing that by the time they were halfway to their target, the other country would have fired back themselves. All you'd get as the first strike country is about 30 min of being top dog before YOUR con tie was blown back to the dark ages as well

thus....no major nuclear war will ever happen 2c

The only problem is that "country" won't decide that, the hieharchy usually ends up to one guy. Like Adolf Hitler. He thought that if the Germans are not strong enough to rule, they deserve to be wiped out. I don't think he would have hesitated so much. We can just hope that the nutjob leaders are surrounded by some reasonable guys, those will either convince him/ her otherwise or take command.

2MuchMark · 09-10-2014, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

ANuclear winter is speculation. Much controversy re:nuclear created climate change. One big problem with that assumption is the fact that modern day cities won't erupt into firestorms. No firestorm means no soot and smoke blocking the sun. Other issues also with the assumption.

Really? Fan-tastic! I was really worried there. Can you imagine all those scientists and simulations getting that so wrong? Dynamo you are a truly special and upstanding person. The more you post the more fascinated I become. Torturing Animals? Meh! Nuclear Fallout? Bah! Oil, Coal, and Lung Cancer? Feh! All nothing to worry about in Dynaworld. Where do I sign up?

aka123 · 09-10-2014, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

Ok phew! For a minute there I thought we had something to worry about. Please tell me where I can sign up for your head-in-the-sand blog. I'm fascinated.

No, you have something to worry about, but the fisherman at Tuvaly maybe not so much. Unless he really waits for the next Expendables (might be let down).

aka123 · 09-10-2014, 01:17 PM

Now I got it: Bikini atols. It's nuked already and no one lives there, that it's great place to settle.

dyna mo · 09-10-2014, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

Ok phew! For a minute there I thought we had something to worry about. Please tell me where I can sign up for your head-in-the-sand blog. I'm fascinated.

The adults with an understanding of what's known are having a discussion mark prince. Your looking for the thread on Lego land.

dyna mo · 09-10-2014, 01:31 PM

I've mentioned this to you before ********** in an effort to help you: the real world isn't like a Transformers/Michael Bay movie.

2MuchMark · 09-10-2014, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

The adults with an understanding of what's known are having a discussion mark prince. Your looking for the thread on Lego land.

I have been completely wrong about you! You are a genius! Not just a genius; A fucking great fantastic incredible wonderful sexy genius!!! You have taken all my fears and cares away, Dynamo! Or should I call you Dr.Mo? Are you a doctor? or a scientist? I bet you are! I bet you've got a certificate of doctorology hanging on your wall! So proud!! No, seriously, Wow, just wow....one day I hope to be a smart as you!

_Richard_ · 09-10-2014, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RummyBoy

Chile - why?

Indonesia - Why not?

Austalia - I agree, it would be a total waste of ammo.

Canada - Why didn't you mention this? Canadians don't have many enemies and its not THAT close to the USA. It would also be a total waste of ammo, I mean why even bother?

we're close to the USA, and we have ports.

dyna mo · 09-10-2014, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

I have been completely wrong about you! You are a genius! Not just a genius; A fucking great fantastic incredible wonderful sexy genius!!! You have taken all my fears and cares away, Dynamo! Or should I call you Dr.Mo? Are you a doctor? or a scientist? I bet you are! I bet you've got a certificate of doctorology hanging on your wall! So proud!! No, seriously, Wow, just wow....one day I hope to be a smart as you!

There is hope for stupid people after all! Nice to see you can embrace reality.

09-09-2014, 02:59 PM	#53
Barry-xlovecam It's 42 Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Global Posts: 18,083	I would rather be vaporized in the war's beginning than struggle to survive in a post nuclear war world. There won't be much worth living for -- you are watching to many movies/TV shows with dramatic and romantic interpretations. Life will be horrid for those that survive ... As they rot away inside and die slowly ...

09-09-2014, 04:00 PM	#57
dezmondel 3D animator Industry Role: Join Date: May 2012 Location: emerald city Posts: 141	. 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 . __________________ ♠ Stone-Sorceress.com ♠ On Patreon ♠

09-09-2014, 04:32 PM	#61
dezmondel 3D animator Industry Role: Join Date: May 2012 Location: emerald city Posts: 141	. 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. . __________________ ♠ Stone-Sorceress.com ♠ On Patreon ♠

09-09-2014, 06:04 PM	#62
the Shemp congrats to the winners Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Echo Beach Posts: 10,891	its been 50 years, but i guess its time to get the signs out again... __________________ i use Vacares...so should you Submit your picture galleries to my site...Outlaw TGP

09-09-2014, 06:41 PM	#63
mikesouth Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: My High Horse Posts: 6,334	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... __________________ Mike South It's No wonder I took up drugs and alcohol, it's the only way I could dumb myself down enough to cope with the morons in this biz.

09-09-2014, 06:51 PM	#64
CaptainHowdy Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Happy in the dark. Posts: 93,416	Saturn ?? __________________ "Tjeezers.cam wishes you a nice day”

09-09-2014, 08:23 PM	#65
crockett in a van by the river Industry Role: Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 76,806	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.

09-09-2014, 08:39 PM	#66
SplatterMaster Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: cyberspace Posts: 790	Just stay far enough away from military bases. Here, nuke the nearest base and see how far you need to move http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

09-09-2014, 09:21 PM	#74
2MuchMark Videochat Solutions Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Canada Posts: 49,054	Play DEFCON: Everybody dies. http://www.introversion.co.uk/defcon/ __________________ Custom Coding \| Videochat Solutions \| Age Verification \| IT Help & Support www.2Much.net Last edited by 2MuchMark; 09-09-2014 at 09:22 PM..

09-10-2014, 03:38 AM	#77
just a punk So fuckin' bored Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 32,384	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. __________________ Obey the Cowgod Last edited by just a punk; 09-10-2014 at 03:49 AM..

09-10-2014, 12:05 PM	#86
just a punk So fuckin' bored Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 32,384	Oh, I forgot to mention. Not only Amazon and Siberian forests will die during a nuclear winter, but all the oceanic plankton as well, so the Earth will simple run out of oxygen pretty fast. __________________ Obey the Cowgod

09-10-2014, 12:19 PM	#88
dyna mo The People's Post Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: invisible 7-11 Posts: 64,891	ANuclear winter is speculation. Much controversy re:nuclear created climate change. One big problem with that assumption is the fact that modern day cities won't erupt into firestorms. No firestorm means no soot and smoke blocking the sun. Other issues also with the assumption.

09-10-2014, 12:56 PM	#90
JA$ON Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: I'm from Downtown....Im from Mitch & Murry Posts: 1,329	Aint ever going to happen. NOW, you may get a nut job that buys a dirty bomb or small device, but that would just be a horrific tragedy, not the end of life as we know it. Mutually assured destruction is a 100% perfect deterrent. Why would a country fire off warheads at another knowing that by the time they were halfway to their target, the other country would have fired back themselves. All you'd get as the first strike country is about 30 min of being top dog before YOUR con tie was blown back to the dark ages as well thus....no major nuclear war will ever happen 2c

09-10-2014, 01:17 PM	#95
aka123 Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2014 Location: 64 00 N, 26 00 E Posts: 4,450	Now I got it: Bikini atols. It's nuked already and no one lives there, that it's great place to settle.

09-10-2014, 01:31 PM	#97
dyna mo The People's Post Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: invisible 7-11 Posts: 64,891	I've mentioned this to you before ********** in an effort to help you: the real world isn't like a Transformers/Michael Bay movie.