Would you want to survive nuclear war?

a reply to: openminded2011
I would want to survive it as it is human nature to want to survive. So long as I have weapons and a food supply I would want to try and live.

a reply to: TrueBrit

That is assuming direct assault on the UK with nuclear weapons.

Yes, that is the assumption.

What, you think UK wouldn't be targeted with a combination of UK and US missiles pointing at Russia?

We'd be blitzed and no one would survive.

originally posted by: openminded2011
There are few survivors except for roving bands of lawless gangs who will do their worst if they find you.

Why would this be the case? I think that after a nuclear war the survivors would pull together. The "roving bands" would be the ones who suffer, if there were any. Too many Hollywood movies setting the worldview agenda.

I would be quite happy to survive a nuclear war. I would like to be a part of the future, because they would be a future and it would not be Hollywood.

Regards

a reply to: CJCrawley

I do not buy it. First of all, with things as they stand there is no reason to assume that the UK would launch its own nuclear weapons, despite treaties regarding them and their use, and the mutually assured destruction element. The fact is that in that scenario, if the US fired first for instance, I would not be surprised to find that the UK would not follow suit.

a reply to: TrueBrit

You do realise that the US have got a considerable arsenal of nuclear missiles based in UK, poised to be launched on Russia should it come to it?

You didn't miss that bit?

a reply to: CJCrawley

No I did not, but I do not believe for one moment that the British military intelligence community do not have methods they could apply to those sites to prevent them from being used, probably remotely, in the event of not wanting to be drawn into someone elses mess.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Then you are very naive.

We don't even have our own truly independent nuclear deterrent - Uncle Sam's thumb is on it.

We are a geographically convenient missile launch pad, as Russia is only too well aware.

originally posted by: CJCrawley
a reply to: TrueBrit

Then you are very naive.

We don't even have our own truly independent nuclear deterrent - Uncle Sam's thumb is on it.

We are a geographically convenient missile launch pad, as Russia is only too well aware.

We have subs CJ.
Russia is aware of that as well-they lauch at the UK and our subs melt moscow from anywhere deep in the sea.
Bad move for russia to attack-MAD is back baby!
Or did it ever leave?

I wouldn't only want to survive I would thrive. So yes. Any other thought process is suicidal and a sin to me anyhow.

Pimpintology:

I wouldn't only want to survive I would thrive.

In your dreams, pal! I truly believe that some people really do not know what they would be up against if a nuclear war occurred.

Perhaps, many of you will have already read Jonathan Schell's 'Fate Of The Earth'...

www.amazon.com...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1399313921&sr=1-1&keywords=jonathan+schell

...if you haven't, I would suggest you take the time to do so.

Here is an interesting NYT's article...

www.nytimes.com...

When it comes to a discussion on nuclear weaponry, the first thing we have to over come is that of fear of the possibility of nuclear war. We must not, cannot turn our heads away in the assumption that it would never happen. We can only discuss the subject from a position of pre-emptive historicity, before its history ever happens, because once it does happen, there will be no more history for the human race.

a reply to: openminded2011

I'm a prepper, I'll take my chances. I have plenty of stored food, extended family nearby, water source and a few guns plus swords and bows and arrows.

I want to live!

originally posted by: CJCrawley
a reply to: TrueBrit

That is assuming direct assault on the UK with nuclear weapons.

Yes, that is the assumption.

What, you think UK wouldn't be targeted with a combination of UK and US missiles pointing at Russia?

We'd be blitzed and no one would survive.

No, people would survive. The cities and areas around bases would be flattened, but after a few weeks the radiation would be tolerable enough. A nuclear winter would seriously prune the world population though.

originally posted by: deviant300
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

If you've never watched it, you should hit youtube and look for "Threads". Seems a little dated now but it's still an interesting "what if" scenario about a nuclear attack on the UK - and set in Sheffield, funnily enough!

en.wikipedia.org...

Threads is a BAFTA award-winning British television drama produced jointly by the BBC, Nine Network and Western-World Television Inc. in 1984.[2] Written by Barry Hines and directed by Mick Jackson, it is a docudrama account of nuclear war and its effects on the city of Sheffield in northern England.

The primary plot centres on two families, the Kemps and the Becketts, as an international crisis between the United States and the Soviet Union erupts and escalates. As the United Kingdom prepares for war, the members of each family deal with their own personal crises. Meanwhile, a secondary plot centred upon the Chief Executive of Sheffield City Council serves to illustrate the British government's then-current continuity of government arrangements. As nuclear exchanges between NATO and the Warsaw Pact begin, the harrowing details of the characters' struggle to survive the attacks is dramatically depicted.

The balance of the story details the fate of each family as the characters face the medical, economic, social and environmental consequences of nuclear war.

Seems remarkably apropos at the moment! "When the Wind Blows" (sometimes referred to as The Nuclear Snowman) is also an interesting one to watch, if rather painfully sad

Paint the bike black. Round up family and friends and be one of those mad max gangs. Sorted.

a reply to: EvillerBob

Threads grossly overestimated the long term effects of radiation on kids. Japan never saw that many mutations as a result of the nukes, and even fairly ad hoc dirt shelters (3 ft) would do a good enough job against fallout. Fallout levels drop drastically after four days and are more or less background after a few weeks. It's not like Chernobyl.

The main problem is that people don't think to store basics like food and tools. I do.

Threads attack scene...

www.youtube.com...

...it is a little dated now, but is still able to provide a little example of what we would all face in our various parts of the Northern hemisphere. Of course, the real thing would be much more ferocious and devastating.

I would wait it out in the mines-I know of some old disused mines which I could hunker down in.
Vehicles and supplies would not be a problem,they are near the mines,
It would be horrid,but I would try to live to help folks and myself survive.

If the worst happens,we must try to survive rather than give up.
If we give up,we lose.

Never give up.

Antigod:

Threads grossly overestimated the long term effects of radiation on kids. Japan never saw that many mutations as a result of the nukes...

You do realise that those two bombs, each dropped on a different city, 'Little Boy' (Hiroshima) and 'Fat Man' (Nagasaki) had the yield of only 15/16 Kt and 21Kt respectively. In today's terms, those are just tactical nukes. The average yield for today's nukes are in the megaton (million) range, from 1Mt to 60Mt.

Cities would not just receive the payload from 1 single bomb, but multiple bombs, air and ground burst. Radiation levels will be extremely high for months due to the amount of dust radiated to high levels and thrown up into the atmosphere. It isn't just mutations you would be worrying about, but radiation sickness which will kill off most survivors over a period of years. Bear in mind, there will be no adequate medical aid to deal with any injuries or radiation sickness...ever!

In the eighties, the prospect of nuclear war was a real fear, and people educated themselves to it...I certainly did. Today we have a generation or two not educated to what it would entail.

Of course, the initial attack would be the most devastating, relentless in its ferocity. Nuclear weapons and their usage in an all-out nuclear exchange would not just attack humanity physically, but psychologically, too. Very few of us have any experience of dead and dying people, which in a nuclear war would number in the millions in each country attacked.

Survivors, varying from slightly injured to maimed, and radiologically sick, would witness scenes of complete and utter death and destruction, with no possible hope of recovery to how things were before the attack in their life time. By all means, cling to hope, cling to the survival instinct, if they get you through then fair enough. If that is how you want to face the prospect of nuclear war, who am I to beguile you of it?

I prefer to face things realistically, and I know I would not want to survive a nuclear war, because what would be left would humanity's descent into a prolonged hell of slow death and decay. There would be no aid coming to you from anywhere, and you will not have the resources to cater for yourself, individually or in groups. You simply won't have them.

Of course, you could prepare for things now, and you may indeed survive the actual exchange, but your stocks will not keep you alive for long, they will run out in weeks, but radiation levels will remain lethal for months. You will have to move to other locations, because wherever you are, the environment will become dangerous and perilous the longer you stay in one place.

You will never be able to farm, or grow produce. The soil will be toxic for years as radiated dust falls to the ground in radiated rain. Other survivors will want what you have, and if you are not willing to give it freely, they will seek to take it from you. Even if you share your resources freely, it will mean they will be gone in quicker time, you will have no means of replenishing them safely and toxic-free. Wildlife, particularly game, would have suffered even more than humanity, as it would have been left out in the open. It too would be suffering similarly as humanity. To get through a nuclear war, you would have to be still alive and not injured, sickness free for at least 2 years. Then you could make your way south, but I would not place to much to hope.