If a nuke war was to start would it be any different if the civilian population was OKd to leave.

Like any country at risk its civilian pop. can leave town. Only ones left would be certain officials and military to you know do their biz.

Thoughts ATS?

reply to post by Ophiuchus 13


Talk about a logistical nightmare...

the sheer panic and chaos it would cause would be the equivalent of dropping another nuke.

reply to post by Lysergic


I see so do you think it would be any different w/o civilian deaths/targets?

reply to post by Ophiuchus 13


Nuclear warfare can be survivable. Chem/Bio warfare....not so much. To many variables with that. Whoever uses nukes just ensures their own demise. But Bio warfare? Without missles? Who do you blame if they keep mum?

And where would said populace go?
Who would feed and house them?
Most importantly what would they come back to?
As nuclear fallout travels the globe in the upper atmosphere:I fail to grasp the point of this thread.


Perhaps it'd be better if we didn't fight in the first place? and if those who didn't want to take a nuclear punch "square in the Jaw" mind their manners better?

Good question

To me I think there would be some relief in knowing that with a warning/evacuation, saved millions of lives, but at the same time, thats millions of homeless people with an entire city in radioactive ruins....and thats not even considering the mass chaos trying to leave the city, imagine the numbers trying to escape, and in the end, they are in the middle of the highway and streets with a million others and nowhere to go but to watch this show.

I'd have to say no, I dont think it will make a difference..... but I hope we never have to answer that question

thanks for the responses ALL. And they can be evacuated to near by country. I guess I am trying to verify whats more important the military people and targets or the population that will cry for new gov. So if Japan was evacuated during fat man and little boys activities. Would they have been bombed in the same manner or less? I cannot believe I am discussing this today smh...

I don't know why we don't nuke more often. A nuke would create jobs and solve our economic problems

reply to post by ImmortalThought


SMH REALLY HOW SO?

reply to post by Ophiuchus 13


Well, you have to pay the people to press buttons, you know to shot off the nuke and then more buttons to send anti missles. Then of course morgues and and the health care system would benefit. And talk about grave diggers getting a nice raise

yes a nuke attack is very survivable. The inital blast and the inital burst of gamma rays would be about 600 rads. However, emp pulse would disable all electronics. SO, I don't know what technology might be able to transmit after an EMP pulse. If you are in a underground place that would help shield against radiation. The contamination is another matter all together.....

reply to post by ImmortalThought


I see what youe are syaing now but... How can they access these areas if there are dead and radioactive fallout zones?

You ask the question as if it was one country verses the other, sadly I think it will be one 1/3 or half of the globe against the other 1/3 or half................would I want to survive, well sure instinct wants me to but logically I would rather be toast because the future sure wouldn't be pretty

Wolfie

reply to post by Ophiuchus 13


We don't. We die. Enough nukes and well positioned nukes will leave the majority of the planet uninhabitable and food supplies would be far and in between, leaving this world for the savages who created nukes to fight for the number one spot. After all thats everything they have ever wanted.