Even in a nuclear war, you likely won't die....

page: 2
11
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by occrest
 


It is not the bombs themselves that were supposed to cause "nuclear winter". It was the dust injected into the atmosphere and the smoke generated by burning cities and forests. This would block sunlight and reduce the surface temperature. It would also kill plants because of reduced sunlight.




posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 07:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Gazrok
 


You're probably right. So if a bomb goes off in D.C. then I'd have time to get out of the city. Which is what everyone else in the city would be doing. I imagine if I didn't leave immediately I'd be stuck there. All of this also hinges on the belief that Baltimore wouldn't be a target, but since the city is a major shipping import city, it would be a toss up if I'd even have a chance to leave the city.



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 07:15 AM
link   
reply to post by occrest
 


Fair enough, but there is a lot of supporting evidence to show that climate change could and would happen. I mean ash obstructing the sun after an asteroid hit millions of years ago is the chief theory behind why the dinosaurs were killed off.



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 07:56 AM
link   
True, but the dinosaurs couldn't build greenhouses with UV lights either, for example...we can. So nuclear winter or not, there is no reason to assume we'll automatically go extinct.

On this map, we're at the orange circle area, so pretty out of the way. Wind patterns should take radiation southeast of most impact points. The one target to the northwest of us is actually no longer an active nuclear plant, so likely won't still be a target.

edit on 7-8-2013 by Gazrok because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 11:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Gazrok
 


The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

A number of factors must be taken into consideration. If you live in South Korea or Israel the real threat of nuclear attack exists. Geo politics are factor in any analyse of the threat from nuclear weapons or conventional war. A conventional war poses it own effects such as the loss of electricity due to power plants being knocked out,

From the New Zealand stand point the prospects of a conventional war in the Pacific in the next ten to fifteen years looms in my mind as does the general population ignorance to this fact. Our sheer ill preparedness for such a event is staggering. In New Zealand I fear what a outbreak of mad cow disease would do to the economy than a nuke going off.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Aug, 9 2013 @ 07:56 AM
link   
I remember attending Carl Sagan's 'Nuclear Winter' lecture sometime in the late 80's. I remember it was at Langford auditorium at Vanderbilt. His scenario was based on a thermonuclear exchange between America and then the still Soviet Union. He had the climate change, due to lack of sunlight, extermination the human race in about 2 years and most would not die of starvation but would kill each other in an all out scramble for what food was left.

However, he was quick to point out that if Yellowstone Caldera exploded the human race would be extinct much sooner, as little as 30 days or less. He said that if the Caldera exploded the force would trigger Teutonic Plate movement worldwide and this would set off explosions and earthquakes that would poison the atmosphere and displace all the oxygen. We would not have time to kill each other as in the Nuclear Winter scenario.



posted on Aug, 9 2013 @ 09:27 AM
link   
There's a LOT of criticism though, and many reports that refute Sagan's claims, even with the armament of the times.

These days, we're looking at a MUCH more limited exchange, lessened even more if our missile defense system even halfway works. There are a LOT less nukes pointed at us, and their reliability does nothing but degrade for the most part, with very few getting retrofit upgrades. With the limited exchange, the predicted nuclear winter is greatly lessened as well.

Isolated terror attacks or plant meltdowns due to electrical grid failure are a LOT more likely scenario, but the point of the thread is that it isn't game over like so many think it is.



posted on Aug, 10 2013 @ 12:49 PM
link   
The stopped using them because we're entering into a NWO. The newks will just now remain as the kill switch to wipe out most of the humans.
edit on 10-8-2013 by spartacus699 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2013 @ 01:40 PM
link   
There was a volcanic eruption in 1815, that one produced a really cold winter that year. Also as regards nuclear testing, I believe the American testing took place underground in Nevada? Those tests were for the trigger explosion for Hydrogen bombs. And yes, the Bikini atoll tests were actual Hydrogen bombs.



posted on Aug, 10 2013 @ 01:42 PM
link   


Even in a nuclear war, you likely won't die..


... but, would you really want to survive?




posted on Aug, 12 2013 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by redoubt
 


As opposed to any other SHTF event? The radiation isn't permanent, though some effects will be. Even still though, parts of Chernobyl even are safe way before they ever assumed they'd be.... Nature is a lot more resilient than we give it credit for, it seems.





new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1   >>

log in

join