If a worldwide nucleaur war happens...

russia has about 8,000 nukes

america claims it has slightly more than that number

who knows, but it is said anyway, that it just takes ONE nuke to destroy the world.

i agree, and it's a mouthful, tho

Well, lets see:
Suppose half of all the nukes out there are detonated in different parts of the globe. That makes about 10.000 nukes, call me crazy, but that's a lot of destruction. Not mentioning that today's nukes are hundreds of times more powerfull than the ones in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
So, the major urban centers will be not more than ashes, debris and rothen flesh. The unlucky ones to survive the nukes will suffer like hell in the following weeks. Can you imagine the very flesh of your body just unstick and fall down? Yeah, nasty and painfull.
The fortunate ones will be the ones living hundreds of miles from major urban centers, in the wild or even better in an underground cave. But their luck is not going to last. They depend on supplys from other places, even if you have supplies for about a year or two, the radiation, even if weak, will knock your door and make it useless.
Two or three years that's the time they(these survivors) have to live.
Now, imagine the ones that managed to escape from the major urban centers with some supplies to live. Will not take much for them to become as wild as hogs, rioting all small towns on their way, taking whatever they think its usefull, gas, food, ammo, clothes(it will be very cold because of nuclear winter). Well, it sounds pretty much like that movie "The Road", but a couple times worst.

Originally posted by MrKipling
Reminds me of the Fallout series of games..

Todays Tom Sawyer.

reply to post by Insearchofthetruth1987


I don't know if we'd actually get to 3 billion years for things to start happening again,for humans ,the sun might grow too large and make it not possible for earth to harbor much life again.

Assuming it actually took 3 billion years to go from bacteria --> mammals with brains

First Post but guys I believe its going to happen sooner than later. The way the US gov., is getting involved in every other countries affairs and "helping countries rebuild governments." It seems that we are taking all the smaller third world countries putting them on a list. One at a time finding reasons to step in kick some ass, and have a reason to have are military to occupy most of our planet. We force countries to submit or face the UN.
We make rules that other countries cant have nuclear programs but we can. Or that they have to be monitored by the UN. Face It America as much as I love her, the guys in the three peice suits" Our Leaders" are putting the pawns in play. Its about the One World Gov., eliminating the over population problem , and making the US the most powerful Nation in history. Look at every country we have invaded in the last two decades. Wasnt for justice it was for OIL. Why did the Pentagon and trade center get hit ? Trade Center was because they needed to sell the war. Pentagon was to get rid of loose ends( Accountants). Give us reasons to Piss off a bunch of religious Middle Easterners, by invading their contries killing their families and neighbors. Now we gave them a motive tio strike back and look like the bad guys. ... Next thing we know it is that we hear about a Nuclear war head that struck D.C. or a UN members country. The ones that did it was a middle eastern country with ties with Korea and AL-quida .... I bet this is was happens next. Lets all be prepared.

reply to post by FenderWolf


It well trigger a nuclear winter after the first five bucked go off and we well all die, or freeze for that matter

reply to post by TDawgRex


Agreed. There would be many long-term survivors in rural areas, even in the US, Russia and China. Fallout would be a problem, but lets not forget that we've literally had almost a thousand above ground nuclear tests on this planet in the last 60 years. We're still here.

I'd also point out that South America and Africa, as well as many other smaller regions, might not even be targeted in the event of a nuclear war. Some might die from the fallout, but most would not. Civilization would certainly survive in those places, perhaps largely unaffected.

Congratulations! You are one of only two posters on this thread who seem to have something approaching an objective idea about this topic matter...

Originally posted by vor78
reply to post by TDawgRex

 

Agreed. There would be many long-term survivors in rural areas, even in the US, Russia and China. Fallout would be a problem, but lets not forget that we've literally had almost a thousand above ground nuclear tests on this planet in the last 60 years. We're still here.

The large majority of America's citizens, with a strong but not massive bias to rural areas, would not only survive an initial large scale exchange between Russia and the USA but also the fallout effects. What may eventually lead to most industrial nations being 'destroyed' is not the nuclear weapons but the lack of organization&planning and preparation&storage of adequate food and basic health supplies. A nation the size of the US, Russia or China could even in a worse case scenario maintain the means to rebuild what was lost had they take minimum precautions such as having stored food for just one year; a much simpler thing than you would believe.

I'd also point out that South America and Africa, as well as many other smaller regions, might not even be targeted in the event of a nuclear war. Some might die from the fallout, but most would not. Civilization would certainly survive in those places, perhaps largely unaffected.

Targeting smaller nations with the limited stocks of nuclear weapons that still exist today would not only be politically speaking crazy but strategic folly. There is not enough nuclear weapons on earth today, or was or could be, to 'take everyone down with you' and trying would only result in the original enemy gaining by your suicidal choices.

The mythology coupled to 'nuclear winter' scenarios and the like has not been taken seriously for decades and even before the oil fires in Iraq and similar events there was little evidence to suggest that a large scale nuclear exchange would end human civilization or even destroy targeted civilizations. As always before those nations who have nuclear weapons are also in the possession of the human and resource capital to if not preserve their way of life then to preserve the means to regain it in a much shorter time-span than many here would consider possible.

The thing that most threatens some nuclear armed nations is the belief that there is no means of defense against similar armed nations and thus no reason to attempt it. Of pre-second world era bombers it was believed that one could not go to war as the enemy could lay waste to your cities with bombers against which there would be no 'practical' defense. As it turned out neither very fast bombers or very heavily armed and armored bombers were a match for single engine fighters or any combination of that plus AA and radar or other direction finding means; the large nations that best employed their resources won with the size of the bombs or means of delivering playing very little role in the eventual outcomes.

Stellar