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

canada ;)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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 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.

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?

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).

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

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

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

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!

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

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