Why nuclear war is NOT survivable

a reply to: Mianeye

Almost useless.

It's largely just there for morale purposes, like most nuclear defence things. Same for bomb shelters.

I wouldn't worry. Any nuclear exchange would be quite limited. MAD is political fiction. No one wins a war by mutual destruction, and militaries are in the business of winning wars.

originally posted by: Aeshma
a reply to: openminded2011

I think you need to research the amoubt of nuclear weapons that have been detonated on earth.... we are all still here... helll i have a fair shot your country has survived 100s.... many 100s already... no ill effects.

Um I have researched it, The weapons tests were in remote areas, underground or in the ocean, not directed at cities, or industrial or military targets. That will be a quite different outcome.The two cities they WERE directed against were totally destroyed with a large loss of life, and they were only rebuilt because the rest of the world was intact. And I wouldn't say we are all still here. The cancer rate is considerably higher than it was before and continues to rise, resulting in thousands ,possibly millions of deaths that would not have occurred otherwise. And the radiation is still working its way into the food chain. You can even find strontium 90 in teeth of children who were downwind from nuclear tests in the 50s. So even the testing is not benign.

Its funny every thing I have read says each side is waiting for an opening then they would strike but in a limited fashion to destroy all command and control capabilities to prevent MAD.

But since both sides have such a modular set up for their C&C the odds of preventing MAD are slim, so Nukes have stayed in their vaults.

I tend to think that if there was an exchange and nuclear reactors were hit, knocking out the grid and backup facilities then tragically we''ll have meltdown within those reactors.

Given the amount of reactors across the globe I'm sure our planet would end up baked.

Simply, reactors need to be supported and maintained 24/7. Take out the reactors and MAD is assured.

Who will respond to protect nuclear facilities. Public can't. Government can't. Doesn't matter if you don't live by one. Only takes a couple to destroy the planet.

My thoughts,

bally

Total weapons tested to date is 540,743 kilotons or 541 megatons .
en.wikipedia.org...
The US alone has 1027 megatons available to fire .
www.telesurtv.net...
Total between the US and Russia is an estimated 4000 megatons . Sorry no link .
The question is , can we survive 8ish times the radiation in one hit . Also keep in mind a lot of these test were underground .

Total U.S. and Russian inactive reserve (intact non-operational) nuclear weapons ~15,145 warheads Total yield ~ 4000 MT

Thats a lot of targets . Arlington in the US is the 50th biggest city at 383,204 . At number 100 is Birmingham; Alabama has
212,038 citizens . See where this is going . So survive , most probably yes , worth surviving is an altogether different question .
ETA www.biggestuscities.com...

Yep, the vast majority of nuclear tests have been conducted deep underground to minimise the fallout.

A change they made after the first few above ground tests where they suddenly went oh god, look at all the fallout, if we keep doing this we'll kill everybody.

a reply to: hutch622

I thought that most of these old nukes, on both sides, are mostly useless and they need to be carefully disassembled.
With quite a big risk factor involving the old age and minimal to no maintenance.

at least that's what I remember from some documentary I've seen long ago.

a reply to: hutch622

Aerial blasts spread less fall out.

Fall out is caused by the bombs distributing radiated earth sucked up in the mushroom clouds that then settles back to earth.

Deep underground tests also localize the radiation but it will be more concentrated. They are both bad in their own ways.

Your Title is the problem, it is possible to survive a nuclear war. The targets of the bombs will surely be destroyed, but that doesn't mean you can not survive. You could survive in a target zone, it is possible. You could also survive entirely unscathed in remote locations.

Most nukes the US, and Russia tend to employ are strategic, they are not hulking mega bombs of the past as they are impractical. The Goal is still the same whether conventional, or nuclear weapons are used. Destroying specific targets, to over power, or capture control of the enemy forces.

I sincerely doubt either side would exchange super bombs, or unleash an all out barrage. There would be extreme post war advantages to limiting the use of nuclear weapons to key targets.

a reply to: openminded2011

Disagree. Most of us would die initially, but a lot of us would live. We have bunkers and basements and caves and mountain villages and retreats and depressions and people living, literally in the middle of no where. Keep in mind all of those people that survived the direct strikes in Japan. We don't know that there will be second or third strikes. We don't know that every nuclear plant will be damaged and how badly. We don't know how that radiation will effect us long term over time like that.

You're seeming to say that there is no hope. Why would you say that? Never give up, never surrender until your last breath. We all die anyways. Make this life the best and longest it can be. Fight for as long as you can. Giving up is the worst advice you can give and the worst thing you can do. Be a fighter. Fight till the bitter end.

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: watchitburn
I'd push the big red button.

I'd push it so hard.

The button on the right makes coffee. The one on the left fires nuclear missiles. Or maybe it's the other way around.

Better press em both just to make sure.

a reply to: Aeshma

Your Title is the problem

Not my thread sorry .

a reply to: openminded2011

If a nuclear power plant was nuked, it would essentially be like a large dirty bomb having a nuke go off on it. There wouldn't be a meltdown, the reaction would just stop, and nobody would care about the radiation from the plant, because it would be a blip compared to the nuke itself.

As for fallout, highly radioactive materials have a flipside - they decay quickly (hence the high radioactivity) into relatively harmless materials. Shelter from it for a couple of weeks.

Water - never radioactive. Radioactive particles can be in water, but it's easy to filter it out. Same with air. The air itself wouldn't be radioactive. You can pull air into your shelter through a couple of furnace filters (keeping distance and mass between yourself and the filters catching the fallout particles) and the air would be fine to breathe.

Will life be hard? Of course. Will people eat people and wear spiked leather jackets? Let's hope so. Will another Bush or Clinton ever be President in a post nuclear apocalypse world? Alas, most likely. BUT! Life WILL go on, and humanity will survive.

Nuclear war is very survivable. It would be a hard life, with less population and most modern "conveniences" gone. As long as I can figure out a way to rig up air conditioning in the summer, I'd get by.

Fallout 2016!

originally posted by: openminded2011
Why nuclear war is NOT survivable

The 'New World', on the flip-side of this schizophrenic insanity of mankind, for the last 130,000 years, is all about Universal unconditional Love/Enlightenment!
That is about 200 years off.
Some there are today who are learning/becoming unconditional Love!
Many will not and cannot!
Nothing like a good nuclear war or three to thin the herd, dramatically!
Skim the gene-pool, as it were.

Some will survive to plant the 'seeds'...
The question in the mirror is what is so damned special about 'me' that I should survive, anyway! How is mankind better off with 'me' living?
Perhaps concerning oneself with those questions might bear more fruit than worrying if we are going to die by nuke.
We all die.

originally posted by: Aeshma
a reply to: hutch622

Aerial blasts spread less fall out.

Fall out is caused by the bombs distributing radiated earth sucked up in the mushroom clouds that then settles back to earth.

Deep underground tests also localize the radiation but it will be more concentrated. They are both bad in their own ways.

Your Title is the problem, it is possible to survive a nuclear war. The targets of the bombs will surely be destroyed, but that doesn't mean you can not survive. You could survive in a target zone, it is possible. You could also survive entirely unscathed in remote locations.

Most nukes the US, and Russia tend to employ are strategic, they are not hulking mega bombs of the past as they are impractical. The Goal is still the same whether conventional, or nuclear weapons are used. Destroying specific targets, to over power, or capture control of the enemy forces.

I sincerely doubt either side would exchange super bombs, or unleash an all out barrage. There would be extreme post war advantages to limiting the use of nuclear weapons to key targets.

Again, I will say that the biggest long term threat will not be the bombs themselves, but the damage they inflict on infrastructure and agriculture, but most importantly the damage to nuclear power plants. What is your plan for breathing air that is heavily contaminated by hundreds of nuclear meltdowns which the winds will carry everywhere? I dont care how remote a location you are in, or if you survive the initial exchange, the air will be totally contaminated with fallout from the reactors and that will go on for centuries. In the end we would all be dead from this. And I AM a survivor, but the only way to survive a nuclear war is not to have one.