It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

what would happen if england were nuked ( Threads 1984 )

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by theRiverGoddess
I think both of those movies should be REQUIRED VIEWING for any and al politically minded people. If someone runs for ANY office they should be made to sit down and watch both of those movies.


Amen to that.

As for nuclear survival, even those movies toned it down. They are as accurate as they could be back then...

A new one should be made with modern technology.




posted on May, 29 2008 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by hopea

Originally posted by hopea
Hey, that information about Venttiseiska and Sanla is classified!


someone trying to start flamewar
, by the way that info was from FDF official material.


Just joking... That information is public of course.

So are there any other nuclear war movies I can watch? Is Jericho 2nd season any good?



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by angryamerican

I don't know ware you get your idea of American Propaganda but America and Americans tend to be more in your face doom sayers then any other nation.


I disagree. I think Americans absolutely are happy ending junkies. If anything I think we are the most in denial about harsh realities of all nations. Even our mainstream News just sugar coats over unpleasant (war) issues so that we dont get our little selves too upset to go to the mall and spend, spend, spend.

In our movies, we beat the aliens, (Independence Day, War of the Worlds, etc.) we manage to evacuate our entire country to Mexico, AND get the Mexicans to let us in willingly to escape climate change, (Day after Tomorrow) We manage to find a cure for horrible diseases that have taken humanity to the brink of extinction, (I am Legend) save ourselves from asteroid impacts, etc, etc.

We definitely are a country who is optimistic (to the point of being incredibly UN-realistic) about our ability to make those happy endings a reality.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by hopea
 


Thanks for the vid I've never had the chance to see this

It paints a pretty dismal picture of what to expect lets hope this type of situation never occurs.

Also, can anyone remember that series called "the last train" wasnt that about post nuclear war or something, it was on about 1998?



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by hopea
I did not find this being posted here before (sorry if its allready). BBC made a docudrama in the 80's about the consequences of large scale nuking of england. By my knowledege best document about the effects of nuclear war. Worth to watch for anyone preparing for such event and shows what happens to the unprepared, as allso to those who have prepared. shows that its not about only the immidiate surviving of the attacks.

Threads (1984)

Unlike american probaganda stuff this has no happyendings. Ugly thing to watch. At my opion should be aired every new years eve around globe. would make couple less trigger happy.

[edit on 30/3/08 by hopea]


That TV drama/survival contains some of the grimest and disheartening scenes ever screened on British TV. Even worse than the film 1984.
I was very young then and my parents were quite liberal on movies they let me watch. Not that one though!

They described bits of it and mentioned the rats and total mess in the aftermath.
I think airing it could induce suicidal tendancies in some vulnerable folk. Don't forget this was filmed during the cold war.
Nowadays the risk of being nuked is, arguably, a lot lot less likely these days.

But in a way it's a good argument for being ready to bail at a moments notice.

As for being watered down, I think if you watched the original Threads (not the 1985 repeat which was edited) you'd think again.
A lot of the violence and realistic scenes of injuries and death were removed.
The closing scene suggests that the girl is raped and gives birth to a deformed child. The final shot freezing on her face realising this.
Also this film is still the only one that features a nuclear winter taking place after a nuclear attack. Not so watered down my friend


[edit on 29-5-2008 by WatchRider]



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 12:08 PM
link   
Have a read through some of the 'War with Iran' threads (s'cuse the pun) here on ATS and then watch the film 'Threads' again but pay close attention to the news story developing in the background, it'll send shivers down your spine at the parallels to today's geo-political situation!!



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by citizen smith
 


Yeah i noticed that to, quite disturbing really.

You wern't the only one who got shivers the first time I heard Iran mentioned I had to rewind it back to make sure I hadn't misheard.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 01:11 PM
link   
Wow. That was the first time I have seen the movie "Threads." Pretty realistic, though I think that in truth, there would be civil disorder on a much larger and more violent scale. They also forgot the cannibalism. I know that sounds dramatic, but look at plane crashes, and the Donner party, and other historical situations where people are starving. As ugly as that was, I think the reality would be far uglier. At least in the areas hardest hit.

They also should have shown the rich and powerful, (the REALLY rich and powerful) getting off to South America or some other place less likely to be hit, and sitting down to a nice meal while all that horror goes on. That might have driven home the point that those who will cause these sorts of disasters are likely to be the ones to fare the best.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by fred3110
 


what??? what did it say?

i cant be bothered to watch threads

david



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by drevill
 


This is as brief as I can make it.

America invades Iran, Russia wades in and nukes the hell out of the UK, then I'm guessing America and Russia square off and nuke eachother.

Near the end it says 3000 megatons of bombs have been dropped, I think only a few hundred megatons are dropped on the UK though so the rest must have been dropped on America and Russia (and Iran?).

You should take the time to watch it, I'm glad I did its probably one of the most realistic disaster films I've ever seen. Lets hope we never have to expirience something like this.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by fred3110
 


i watched it when i was at school, if i remember rightly there was a similar US film about the same time

Iran has always a bone of contention though. coincidental??

dunno

Thanks for laying out though, much appreciated



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 09:00 PM
link   
I watched threads a while back, I think if we were to be bombed with nukes to that extent then I dont think i would want to survive.

We have no facilities against a couple of nukes, You would just get radiation poisoning and die



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 03:06 PM
link   
Don't be so despondent Dar Kuma!

This is where your fantastic bridges of groove come into play



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 04:03 PM
link   
I know what your trying to say WR, But we've moved a hell of a long way from the early nukes, I don't think even the bridge would be safe enough due to breaches allowing radiation particles in.

I look at things realistically, I feal it is a situation that you realistically wouldn't survive anyway, Maybe in some other parts of the world, but not here.

Good thread



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 07:07 PM
link   
It depends on the proximity and the nukes they use. Tactical nukes are a lot smaller and the fallout is minimal and short lived (think months rather than years).
The bigger ones will mean its goodnight vienna before we now it so it's all a game of chance with degrees of safety locked in



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 07:22 PM
link   
That's where the 4-minute warning and the 'Boat-Twoccing' idea comes in..


I ran a simulation between a tactical Nuke and a Tsar bomb being dropped on my nearest city and kinda split the difference..

My thinking is..If someone were to use Nukes on cities in a war,it would be purely to destroy infrastructure..NOT to wipe out the population..They're sort of 'casualties of war'..

The bigger bombs being used to guarantee a 'hit' way back then..I'm sure the Russki guidance systems have improved a bit..

'Tsar size' bombs on Newcastle,Manchester,London,Edinburgh,Cardiff???

Ouch.. That would sting a tad..


Anyone fancy a crewman's life under ole Cap'n T??

Har..splice me mainbrace... is the sun over the yardarm yet ya swabs??



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 07:51 PM
link   
I was stationed on a 'v' bomber base during the cold war. We used to laugh at the so called 'four minute warning'. It was generally believed by the civilian population that it was meant for them and the Civil defense Authorities to get into shelter etc.
In reality it was given to scramble every bomber we had for the retaliatory attack on the USSR.
Our bombers would have been dispersed to other airbases before the first attack on the UK. I remember an exercise, we dispersed to Macrihanish in Scotland (now considered to be the UK's Area 51!!)
Threads was and is a good portrayal of what would have happened, albeit to one city.

Regards
Stingrayau



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 08:08 PM
link   
I remember when they made that. I live in Sheffield where it was filmed. I can remember seeing them shoot outside the City Hall. I also remember them filming Full Monty too as the supermarket was our local Morrisons - They've knocked it down now. Just thought I'd say.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join