If there is a partial nuclear war - what happens to $$? The "economy." Daily life?

People often think of nuclear war as total annihilation. But what if it's only partial?

Let's say various countries end up nuking each other. That might include some global financial capitals and/or political capitals.
Even if it does not, power will/may go out for prolonged periods in various parts of the world. Basic services in some places. Ok...so tens / hundreds of millions die from nuclear blasts, maybe even a billion or two, but that still leaves a lot of people. Besides - Central / South America / Africa / Indonesia would be untouched by nukes presumably - more of a Northern Hemisphere thing.

But everything is connected these days....some places are more dependent then others on things from afar.

Here are some observations / scatter brain thinking.

- Many places are reliant on electronic payment (Credit cards, Paypal, Apple Pay, Google Pay, etc...), govt stimulus delivered electronically, etc...

- What would happen to the Visa / Mastercard / Amex networks? Even if the network still exists, you still need people to run it.

- What would happen to payroll processing companies? ADP, etc...

- Many people won't have access to $$, save those who have saved it under their mattresses or in their safe boxes.

- Lots of people keep money in stocks. Obviously markets would crash, if there was even a market still left (Some would still exist definitely - see untouched places). Yes, I know they have backup sites, but again, that's all electronic.

- Banks would run out of physical cash. The whole system of moving $ around the world would be disrupted.

- Real estate market valuations would collapse. How would people buy/sell if they don't have access to $$?

What do you think happens then? How do people buy/sell things? Does it go to barter?

Has anyone written about this?

There are videos / sites about surviving a nuclear war...but those seem to talk about bunkers, etc...more "extreme" things. Let's say the US State / Canadian Province / place / country where you live is untouched by any nuclear blast or fallout of any consequence. Minimal Nuclear Autumn effect, if any.

What happens to daily life?

Just another add...some of us / "we" are conditioned by some movies to imagine a post-war / post-apocalyptic hellscape world.

Blade Runner maybe, Maze Runner, etc....but that's just not going to happen. That's not reality.

Yes, if say Los Angeles or Houston or NYC or Shanghai or Paris or Mumbai (for example) was taken out then the imagery for there would be appropriate. But there would be PLENTY of other cities - mega, large and small - that would look totally normal as today. Unaffected in a physical destruction sense.

Yes, fear / panic would spread all over the world even in Central / South America / Africa, but that's another story.

So...we have to deprogram ourselves from this Hollywood imagery / plot lines.

COVID has provided a small window into possible scenarios / effects.

a reply to: dontneedaname

No. It would be bad news, for your entire planet. See, destruction of a single city is just one of the many effects of a nuclear detonation against a city. But it is not the worst effect. At all. The detonation of a bomb will have a direct environmental impact, and it will affect up to the upper atmosphere, lowering global temperatures, with a disastrous consequence for crops.

The radioactive cloud would move, and the fallout would be unpredictable and with a long-range scope. Masses of waters would be contaminated, animals would die. You included. Bear in mind that detonating a nuclear bomb also means you will be nuked, too. The chain reaction is not just for atoms: societies fall, one by one, once one of them falls.

In fact, Hollywwod imagery is extremely benign in showing the real effects of a war.

if money disappeared,

economy would continue . . . people would find ways to exchange goods and services

that is what economy is

economist would disappear though

a reply to: dontneedaname

- Many places are reliant on electronic payment (Credit cards, Paypal, Apple Pay, Google Pay, etc...), govt stimulus delivered electronically, etc...

- What would happen to the Visa / Mastercard / Amex networks? Even if the network still exists, you still need people to run it.

- What would happen to payroll processing companies? ADP, etc...

Texas found this out during their ice storm.

Smart places have backups and backups to backups. It is usually another company that provides those services.
Those places should also have people to run it in different areas.

originally posted by: Direne
a reply to: dontneedaname

No. It would be bad news, for your entire planet. See, destruction of a single city is just one of the many effects of a nuclear detonation against a city. But it is not the worst effect. At all. The detonation of a bomb will have a direct environmental impact, and it will affect up to the upper atmosphere, lowering global temperatures, with a disastrous consequence for crops.

The radioactive cloud would move, and the fallout would be unpredictable and with a long-range scope. Masses of waters would be contaminated, animals would die. You included. Bear in mind that detonating a nuclear bomb also means you will be nuked, too. The chain reaction is not just for atoms: societies fall, one by one, once one of them falls.

In fact, Hollywwod imagery is extremely benign in showing the real effects of a war.

Animals are already dying en masse. Nobody cares, most people don't even want to look. [FWIW - I skip the religious aspect of that site]

www.end-times-prophecy.org...

2019...this is China...paltry relative # of views.



Nuclear winter fraud...




Sure, there will be environmental impact...but it's overstated. All the blasts in the 1960s...how did that affect the planet?

dhmontgomery.com...


Chronological Listing of Above Ground Nuclear Detonations - hundreds of detonations per this table. Did these affect the environment?

www.johnstonsarchive.net...

Again, MANY MANY, majority of cities would still be intact...Hollywood imagery is FAKEtion in a big picture sense.

Hunger Games - fake. Jericho TV show - fake. World War Z - fake (Yea, it's zombies, but it's still apocalyptic). Terminator series - fake. etc..etc...

Believe it or not the notion of nuclear winter is actually false…. The Russians drummed that up to help prevent nukes being used against them. There has been many many many nuclear tests and the earth is functioning. we could have 100 more nukes used in city’s around the world simultaneously and still wouldn’t go into nuclear winter.


a reply to: Direne

Nuke war / post-apocalyptic movies/tv shows.

I've seen a handful of these...most I've never even heard of.

www.imdb.com...

www.imdb.com...

Not disputing fallout / contaminated areas. Just saying it's over-stated. I just made a map of countries that I think would be directly affected. Which then also reveals places which would not be directly affected. I post later.

a comnined reply to: dontneedaname/Athetos

I think you are both confusing atomic bombs with thermonuclear bombs. The boms used in tests were obviously of limited power, as they were used for testing.

Nobody use today atomic bombs (that is, fission bombs). All of the ICBMs today are fission/fussion heads, also known as hydrogen bombs. The power of the those ICBMs are vastly higher than the bombs used against Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the effects are also different.

Unless we are here talking about cruise missiles with limited nuclear capabilty. But then the title of the post is mischieving. If we are talking about nuclear war then, as per today's war doctrine, that means exchange of ICBMs, and that means thermonuclear war. It is the exchange of ICBMs what is limited. Not the effects, which are global.

if there was nuclear winter and people died, there would be no economy.
would not need one. dead people do not need economies

a reply to: dontneedaname

In our current socioeconomic climate, I would be very concerned if there was 1 nuclear detonation anywhere. Even more so if it was somewhere critical, it might take longer to all go south. If we start lobbing nuclear missiles at each other it's not gonna end well, if we don't turn ourselves into a glowing ball, the breakdown of the civilized world as we know it would be unstoppable.

nuke.fas.org...

I think the FAS is a pretty authoritative source on this subject.



210 above ground detonations.by USA.

Confirms earlier summary table. Now rough total of 35 above ground tests per year from US/Russia from 1949-1962.

Now these were done in remote areas...so fallout more limited. In an actual nuke war, detonations closer to populated areas,etc...so yes, fallout would affect a certain % of society. Not sure about megaton difference between these tests and current warheads (Which tend to be smaller, though more numerous).

Lots of water supplies are underground aquifers - so not affected by nuclear strikes per se unless the aquifer itself was destroyed / impacted.

I understand Bikini-atoll waters are teeming with life ( I think) ....not sure how long radiation persisted in ocean there...or how toxic it is now to human life. But those were underwater explosions. Need to research that more.

Would an above ground detonation on a coastal city affect the ocean much?

How would a distant lake be affected by a nuke strike far away? If not underground aquifers, then source of drinking water for many is - relatively - distant lakes / alpine lakes.

We are talking about the military using its biggest bombs to its maximum capacity yes.

a reply to: Direne

all that is necessary is enough EMP to shutdown Federal Reserve Data Centers.
they don't need to destroy anything or kill anyone.
the inability to spend money will leave most people confused to death.
probably should be a word for that - confusicated maybe.

a reply to: dontneedaname

The question is that if you destroy a city, you cannot expect the enemy to destroy just one, and only one, of your cities. If you punch a tiger once, the tiger will not bite you just once: it will kill you. That's the logic about using or not using thermonuclear weapons. Nuclear war is not about proportionate response. It is about whether there would be a response or not.

For you to guarantee there would be no response you need to use all of your ICBMs in order to first destroy your enemy's silos. Then you can proceed with cities. But learn this: even if one of the two superpowers were able to launch its full nuclear arsenal against the other without any retaliation whatsoever, Nuclear Winter would assure its self-destruction.

Near-freezing summer temperatures will be recorded for years, and that means it will eliminate most of your food production. You'll die. This is called Self-Assured Destruction (SAD), which is a step beyond MAD (Mutually-Assured Destruction). A thermonuclear war is always a terminal war. That's the first step in the Great Filter.

If someone stabs you, you shouldn't wait to see whether he will keep on stabbing you till death or he will stop: you simply kill the stabber. Nuclear war works the same.

It could well spell the end of the monetary system which would probably lead to a resource based barter system.

a reply to: dontneedaname


The best part about your post is the fantasy that the us and Canada also add Britain won’t be hit. Armegeddon is around the corner, Satans last stand and final offensive against mankind.


It would also lead to cannibalism and 666 tattooed on peoples wrists and foreheads to buy and sell human meat.

Already covered - bottle caps.
source:
fallout.fandom.com...

In more remote areas without bottle caps maybe teeth or something.



m.youtube.com...

every nuclear bomb in history.

originally posted by: Direne
a reply to: dontneedaname

The question is that if you destroy a city, you cannot expect the enemy to destroy just one, and only one, of your cities. If you punch a tiger once, the tiger will not bite you just once: it will kill you. That's the logic about using or not using thermonuclear weapons. Nuclear war is not about proportionate response. It is about whether there would be a response or not.

For you to guarantee there would be no response you need to use all of your ICBMs in order to first destroy your enemy's silos. Then you can proceed with cities. But learn this: even if one of the two superpowers were able to launch its full nuclear arsenal against the other without any retaliation whatsoever, Nuclear Winter would assure its self-destruction.

Near-freezing summer temperatures will be recorded for years, and that means it will eliminate most of your food production. You'll die. This is called Self-Assured Destruction (SAD), which is a step beyond MAD (Mutually-Assured Destruction). A thermonuclear war is always a terminal war. That's the first step in the Great Filter.

If someone stabs you, you shouldn't wait to see whether he will keep on stabbing you till death or he will stop: you simply kill the stabber. Nuclear war works the same.

and, of course, this all assumes that normal people are in charge of the nukes.

which is fine until you realize that if they were normal people there would not be nukes

a reply to: dontneedaname

Who knows how many bombs go off a year? They've been blasting away since ww2 with no lasting impact on anything but the political climate