Would you want to survive nuclear war?

Absolutely. I know it sounds crazy, but armageddon is the last best hope for humanity. The social problems that plague our world run so deep that "the only way to fix it is to flush it all away". True story.

Everything must go. Only then will we be left with raw potential, unregulated by the immediate threat of coercive institutional interference, with which we can do anything we have the will to do.

Aside from the fallout and the roving bands of cannibals, I look at it as an opportunity for personal and social development.

a reply to: openminded2011

Well put, a flag and star for doom's sake.
Although sketchy, I have read and heard on alternative media
from some quantum physicists with ties to the metaphysical--
since the two realms in logical comparison have some parallels.
It was argued and put out there that the main reason for
developing the bomb was to erase and destroy matter at the
subatomic level (if such a thing is plausible? I'll insert doubt here).

Include the fact we're being herded into cities for possibly more
than just crowd control, and it makes more sense. Now this wild
speculation by some learned fellows the destruction of the soul
as well as the body... time to turn in my brain hurts. I can do that
on late Sunday nights now without even a kerchief over my head.

If only the provable was indeed the aftermath of a total exchange:
and we were left with an irradiated mud ball with at least a hundred
times the background radiation of Fukishima, much less Chernobyl;
I don't think anybody dancing around outside with guns should be
making long term plans. They could turn puffy and drop in a fortnight.

a reply to: NickK3

Well said apparently the wealthy elites and secret societies believe that they can survive after such an mass murder of mutual destruction.

They are sadly mistaken.

These threads seem to come up routinely. Either follow the zombie outbreak protocol or move into the wilderness if you are bear grylls ready.

I'm on the fence with that scenario. You're right I think, that if it were bad enough it would send us basically back to the Stone Age or worse.

I personally wouldn't want to live through it. You could argue that the remaining people could live a free life, live the lives of our hunter-gatherer ancestors, but you would get everything else that went along with it, like you pointed out, gangs of criminals etc.

a reply to: openminded2011

Yes, even though there would be nuclear winter, the Earth needs the best to survive, natural selection.

a reply to: openminded2011

No, for the reasons you outlined.

Those saying yes are deluded.

openminded2011:

Would you want to survive a nuclear war?

The straightforward answer to that question is no, as any survivors would be left having to deal with personal injuries, personal starvation, and personal sickness including radiation poisoning. They would be fighting for whatever food they came across, which would be very scant, and in many cases not fit to eat. Safe drinking and bathing water would also be scarce, with bottled water being the best option. Lakes, rivers and streams would be radiated and polluted with dead and dying animals and humans. Diseases following their putrefaction and decay would be rampant, with medical aid practically non-existent. The air and land will be toxic for months and years respectively, but will recover eventually, just not in a time scale for people in the Northern hemisphere. A survivors' best option would be to try to make it to southern regions, as that would be the only direction where aid could be available. By south, I mean way beyond the equatorial line. However, radiation fallout in the atmosphere will eventually find its way to the southern countries. Any survivor who stayed in the Northern regions would face a scenario as depicted in the film...'The Road', which I only refer to merely as a means of illustration and expectation.

Let's say there has been a moderate nuclear exchange between the US and Russia.

A 'moderate' nuclear exchange would only occur in a tit-for-tat scenario, as each side sought to equalize its losses, but such an occurrence would probably lead quickly to a full exchange, not just between Russia and America, but all countries that have them.

I know I am not relating anything new here to anyone. The nuclear arsenal is nothing more than a determined suicide weapon for most of the human race. The likelihood of nuclear war occurring from a pre-emptive surprise attack, or by accident is perhaps slim at best. The most likely scenario for a nuclear exchange would follow an escalation of political crises and large military losses, or to halt the advancement of a large military force that would knowingly overwhelm its enemy at crucial and significant regions.

Tactical nukes would be used first, with the 'user' believing that a nuclear response would not be forthcoming for fear of whole scale destruction to follow. However, the usage of tactical nukes would in fact signal to the enemy that an even greater escalation has occurred. They would have no choice but to use nukes in response to show their own determination. This scenario is the period of 'moderate' exchange, and the world would hope that if losses are equal, cool heads would switch it off at this stage? This is how I personally feel nuclear war would play out...a first small tactical exchange between the warring factions, followed by a brief pause, and then an all-out nuclear exchange targeting military and civilian centres.

No country having nuclear weapons would or could wait to see if it was going to be hit, they would have to launch their own nuclear arsenal in anticipation of being hit. The West would go for Russia and North Korea and China; whereas Russia and China would go for America and Europe, North Korea would war against South Korea; China would most likely hit Japan; and India and Pakistan would exchange between each other. After all this, the toxic dust would take years to dissipate, and would eventually make its way down to the Southern hemisphere.

Would you want to survive a nuclear war? What would be the point?

a reply to: openminded2011

I live in the UK, so an exchange of nuclear detonations between those nations, assuming no other nations were involved (unlikely, but its your thread, and your parameters), the most we would suffer here would be dispersed fallout clouds, radioactive rain, and the like.

In my opinion, I would always choose to survive. If things went to crap here, and roving gangs of nutters took shape and started roaming about, I would await them, and kill them, and take their equipment and resources for my own, not to mention pinning their body parts to a wall at the ends of my road, as a warning to any other such groups.

Essentially anything you CAN survive, you SHOULD survive. Anyone who seeks your life, should die. Things become simpler, when life gets complicated. That is the way I see it anyway.

originally posted by: openminded2011
Would you want to live in such a world? What would your reasoning be?

It appears that radiation exposure has had both negative and positive affects on evolution processes. Is it the kind from EA*RTH or COSMIC 1 wonders that would play the most important part?

So to answer the OP yes.

Not to mention the underground dwellings builds by modern & ancient beings interlinked as well as Inner EA*RTH potentials. An exodus of remaining biological interest may be required however if too much damage is done... and not permitted within EA*RTH dwells or builds for what ever reasons.

NAMASTE*******

No look at the size of the UK I dont think the country would have a cats in hells chance in comparison to Russia, US and the EU

So ideally I would like to survive and continue to live a healthy life: yes
in reality: NO I would most likely perish

Lets put the UK in perspective:

the US landmass is 9,161,923 sq km and the UK landmass (not just England) covers 241,590 sq km, which means that you could fit approx 38 UKs into the US! It also states that the UK is slightly smaller than the state of Oregon.

with the size of the nuclear warheads being 5 times more powerful than their predecessors we would be toast.

For those who think their bug out bunkers would be safe haven then you better hope that your bunkers are not directly hit within 20 miles of a nuclear warheads epicentre. If your not at least 50 miles underground will you'll probably boil like a cabbage underground.

Sadly the the loonies would be under at least 200 miles below the top crust of the earth and when them blast doors close they will be stuck down there for the next 30 - 50 years or so.

a reply to: deviant300

That is assuming direct assault on the UK with nuclear weapons. If all we had to deal with was fallout, there is a pretty good chance that Londoners would take to the underground, as they did in the blitz. Although the entrances would have to be modified in order to make long term safety down there possible, there ARE things that could be done to mitigate the effects of the fallout.

Furthermore, the under city would be another place that could be utilised to house people in relative safety. The key thing would be how much time we had to organise, how well protected military assets in affected regions are, how well the plans for fallout survival and public protection have been crafted by emergency organisers, and how good the stockpiles of NBC suits, water purifiers, ration packs and portable hydroponics equipment are. If those things can be stockpiled and distributed amongst survivors in a decent fashion, then total oblivion need not be the fate of the residents of this fair isle.

Again, assuming that there was no direct assault, those in cities would have better chances of surviving the first weeks of an event of this nature. Those in rural areas, would likely be more screwed than anyone else, being cut off by miles and miles of radioactive rain washed land, and isotope ridden air. Unless people in outlying regions had prepared bunkers with food and protected water supply, they would likely die with significantly more rapidity than those who had managed to gather together under ground in cities.

Personally speaking, I think that it is hard to know how well the British government have prepared for such an event, or indeed a direct nuclear assault on the country, until such a thing actually happens.

a reply to: TrueBrit

I live close to two cities but as far as I know there is no underground shelters for people in Derby/ Nottingham/Sheffield

as in London they do.

But I understand where your coming from if the case of not getting directly hit. It's most likely we would as we do nuclear warheads so in an exchange of fire we would most likely get one back if not hit first.

Firstly they'll knock out industrial cities I think.a reply to: TrueBrit

originally posted by: KnightLight
a reply to: openminded2011

No, but I already didn't want to live in this world already.

Caveat.

If I had kids I would survive as long as possible. Every extra day I could wake up and still see their faces...

Might not be long until I have a real reason to survive.

Plus if you had kids you can live longer..since you have something to eat..

Of course I would want to survive.

I'm of the mind that whatever life throws at you, you have to survive it. Saying you would rather die after nuclear war is like saying you would die if you lost your job and career or you got cancer or someone in your family died. We don't give up living just because life gets hard, we dig down deep and keep going, roll with the punches and do our best.

a reply to: TrueBrit
I think the UK Government has a detailed plan for nuclear war-at least they did back in the cold war,no reason to doubt they still do.
I read somewhere that they have a secret command center staffed with civil servants/government people in some bunkers where they would wait out the worst and then divide the country into sectors which they would send government people to to rule after the event.

I highy doubt that would work though,as if all our major cities were hit the UK would mostly die off.

a reply to: openminded2011

my answer would most definitely be YES,
for the simple reason that i personally would rather want to live and make the best of what's left, or at least have the choice to go out by my own or somebody else's blade or bullet then by some government suit, hiding in a bunker, pushing a button.

i'd want that to be my choice, not somebody else's.

great question,by the way

deviant300:

If your not at least 50 miles underground will you'll probably boil like a cabbage underground. Sadly the the loonies would be under at least 200 miles below the top crust of the earth

Well, you have given yourself a very apt name, as you deviate from reality by some immense margin. The deepest man has ever gone is nearly 4000 metres, not miles, and that was with a drill leaving a hole that would not accommodate a single human being. The pressures at that depth are immense, and so is the heat.

The crust of the earth is no more than 6 kilometres deep, so where you get 200 miles (321.8 kilometres) from I just cannot fathom! Are you incapable of doing a single ounce of research?

deviant300:

For those who think their bug out bunkers would be safe haven then you better hope that your bunkers are not directly hit within 20 miles of a nuclear warheads epicentre.

Government nuclear bunkers are built to withstand near-miss nuke detonations, but will fare very badly with a direct hit from a ground burst...no one would survive.

Here in the UK, a single 20 megaton bomb air burst over London would knock out all electronics in the UK, and with thermal and pressure effects experienced in Manchester, as the bomb's blast wave and heat would be channelled up either side of the Pennines following the topography, with there being no mountainous region to shield the effects. The blast and burns would not be too serious in Manchester, but of course, the further south you go towards London, the more serious the injuries.

London and surrounding provinces would receive a fair few nukes in various yield strengths, in both air burst and ground burst configurations, and would be utterly annihilated. Just with the attack on London a third of the UK's population would be wiped off the face of the earth in almost an instant.

However, the whole of UK will will receive anything up to 300 megatons of nuclear devastation, but the south will receive more than its fair share. Yorkshire will certainly be hit with a considerable amount, and may in fact be attacked first to take out Fylingdales Early Warning Centre, and a few of the big cities, York, Harrogate, Leeds and Sheffield, and nuclear reactors.

Manchester would be hit with up to 20 air burst and ground burst nukes varying in the 1 megaton to 5 megaton yield. In essence, the UK hasn't a snowball's hope in hell of surviving.

Military installations and cities in America would most likely receive up to 2000 megatons, and around a 1000 megatons for the whole of Europe. Russia's nuclear arsenal is not as accurate as the American's, but carry far greater payloads to compensate for this.

America would deal out similar megaton payloads on Russia and China, and probably North Korea. Japan would be annihilated similarly as with the UK. Practically all big cities in America, Europe, and the UK would be completely destroyed. There is no counter supposition to this, there is no rationale that could realistically present a soother picture or scenario. It really will be as bad as I conservatively state it. Survivors will be those already in the process of dying a death filled with the sights and sounds and smells of self-suicided species.