Some areas of the country would not be affected in the immediate attack. However, the condition of the planet in the aftermath would devastate society. It is not a world in which I would want to live.

The question makes me think of the 1959 movie On The Beach. If you have not, I recommend you give it a view.

 

"The question makes me think of the 1959 movie On The Beach. If you have not, I recommend you give it a view. "

Fantasy.... seriously. The really bad stuff, for the most part, has a short half lives and will dissipate fast. People go into and out of the Exclusion zone in Pripyat.

Here's a real mess. This happened because Castle Bravo ran away. This map shows levels just after the test, taken in 1954. The test was conducted on a "shot cab" set on an island. The fallout came from the giant hole scoped into the ground.

These are horrible readings. LD50 for most of us is 400 REM. Back then. Sixty years ago.

People routinely visit Bikini Atoll. There are radioactives in the soil and well water. There are also caretakers and visitors.

This stuff is bad news, but it's not "On the Beach".

 

If the blast or radiation doesn't kill you the winter will.

 

yeah id hope for a direct hit on my house

 

Sometimes i think the world could use a reset

 

Yeah I get that train of thought. It's a sick and evil world, and a conscientious and honorable person can't help but sometimes wonder if it wouldn't be a good thing to cleanse it with fire and let Man try again. Obviously this concept has been around for at least since humans first achieved some primitive measure of civilization, as evidenced by the Flood Story which appears not just in the Old Testament but also ancient Mesopotamian texts. But then again, if it really happened .... wagabu.

 

I think of all the devisation. Would you really want to survive? I don’t think I would. It would be a Mad-Max kind of world.

 

Depends

 

Hope I happen to be wearing some if I ever see the flash and cloud.

 

Nope.

I seem to have a knack for living near potential targets.

Ellsworth AFB
Pensacola NAS
Wright Patterson AFB
Tooele army depot/ Dugway proving grounds.
and then my current location.
Not saying those would all be targets but it’s not inconceivable.

I do think it would be survivable for a decent amount of the population not immediately or directly affected.
but long term effects…..

 

Nope.

I seem to have a knack for living near potential targets.

Ellsworth AFB
Pensacola NAS
Wright Patterson AFB
Tooele army depot/ Dugway proving grounds.
and then my current location.
Not saying those would all be targets but it’s not inconceivable.

I do think it would be survivable for a decent amount of the population not immediately or directly affected.
but long term effects…..

I live 25 miles from "Ground Zero Cafe," so I have no survival illusions.

Run the numbers wherever you are. This will discuss your chances.

 

At that point who cares. It's gonna be mad Max for a while.

 

Even if you lived through the attack the radiation afterwards would be fatal for awhile. TThat would be a slow painful death. I would prefer to be gone in a flash.

 

I'm going to mix the blood of a spider into an open radiation sore so that I can develop super powers. The aftermath of a nuclear war could be a great opportunity...

 

Unless it's a limited exchange, I'm not sure if I'd want to. I don't think a limited exchange likely.

 

I saw a video illustrates the change between the nuclear forces of Russia today and from the Cold War. How we spend more in upkeep for just our nukes than Russian entire military and that no one really knows how many of their nukes would still work due degradation of the warheads.
We were worried about ours and that our Cold War warheads needed refurbishment . So did the Russian warheads ( unless they built new ones).
This in addition that their missiles themselves would have degraded as well. I read somewhere Russia started some crash program to address the issue but we know how those things can go.
Do I think my area would survive? Hell, no. Too many targets in one location but I thought it would be a good discussion about if and how someone and the country could “survive “ the current nuclear standoff as opposed to the cold war one

I’m too close to Fort Bragg. I’ll just bring my recliner to the front yard and watch the show.

 

Read "Nuclear War Survival Skills"; (NWSS) by Cresson Kearney, former head of US Civil Defense, I used to be able download it for free at Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM.org), haven't tried in years. When I worked on nuclear bomb problem at FDNY Strategic Planning I would buy the book by the case and hand them out at firehouses. All my family & friends were given a copy.

He believed an all out nuclear war with what was the USSR was survivable short of a direct or near direct hit on your location. The Soviet Union went broke building their civil defense infrastructure for civilians. i.e. Moscow subway system has blast doors, surgeries, kitchens, berthing areas. They had shelters for livestock. Their stated plan was to have 90% of their population survive. They lost tens of millions of people in WW2 and did not want that to happen again.

Book gives plans for what you can do where you live, with what you have, in a few days time, to give you and your family a chance of surviving. ( i.e. how to make a geiger counter with a tin can, some string, and crumbled up drywall) (BoyScouts used to teach this)

Recent book by Annie Jacobson; (2024) "Nuclear War: a scenario" is not as hopeful. She did use several of the sources I used 23 years ago, i.e Princeton, MIT, Stanford, DTRA.... I was lucky enough to talk with one physicist who worked on the Manhattan Project, and worked on and witnessed every atomic and nuclear detonation the US conducted. He wasn't listed as one of her sources. He was old when I was talking to him. He was referred to as "Yoda" of nuclear weapons by all of my academic sources. He believed there would be survivors of a nuclear war and the world would heal itself rather quickly, maybe years, but not decades. He stated that the most destructive part of a nuclear detonation was not the blast or radiation, but the fire, mass fires, firestorms created.

 

I read those books and it appeared to me that they were all based on the Cold War arsenal level of exchange . With the new info and post- US/Russia treaty limitations, the number that would be exchanged would be significantly less.
My area would be saturated so it would be highly unlikely to survive the initial attack regardless of the reduction of working missiles/warheads.
But the rest of the country is the question and would Russia go for military targets or civil/ecomonic ones as the primary deterrent. Not that they would know which missiles would still work with a high degree of certainty and would have add more redundancy to their targeting . Therefore less targets would be hit .

 

The earth is a big place. Nukes are mainly a threat to the cities where they would be deployed. Humans have tested something like 2k nukes already. I’m not saying it would be a fun time, I’m just saying I don’t believe those that say it would be the end of all life.

 

If China sells a couple to Iran, you might get to find out. IDK
It will be called an accident, just like SK, dropping the bombs, sorry my bad.

 

Not quite sure that I'm going to worry about it... YMMV

 

I live within a mile of a USAF HQ. My mom once said, 'Does that mean you'd get nuked if we were attacked'. I said, yes and that I would get out lawn chairs to enjoy the best and last fireworks display I'd ever see.

 

Short answer: no, not in the Northern Hemisphere, primarily.

Multiple millions will die, either in the initial exchange, or in the resulting famine, fallout, radiation, chaos, riots, and without rule of law. Deaths will be from both direct and indirect causes.

Humans, as a species, will survive. Many in untargeted countries (Africa, SEA, etc) will be greated affected but will live to regenerate the population.

 

Hopefully not

 

From what I have read, the US and Russia each has over 5 000 nukes. If only 40% are functioning, that still leaves 2 000 heading in each direction. Doesn't sound good.

 

Just one or two doesn’t sound good either . The fictional book Warday goes over a limited exchange. The US would exist to be a superpower but be like Russia . Nukes but no economic power , a beggar nation for resources and help from other nations.
But I don’t think it would be a death sentence for the nation as a whole as a full exchange would have been under the Cold War .
If Russia had 5000 missiles , half of them would be used for redundancy or more- ie directed at the same target . Thats 2500 targets or less . Now if half didn’t work that’s 1250. Less because areas like NYC ,DC,LA etc would get dozens. Now if roughly half didn’t work . Surely the major targets would be eliminated but a lot of the country would be less affected by the blast . A lot of those targets would be military bases , cities with major airports etc.
If you don’t live near one of those things, it seems you would be likely to survive the initial attack. But I could be wrong

 

 

I saw a model once that demonstrated the effects of this scenario.

The short answer is, unless you live in the Southern tip of South America or New Zealand, your in for a really bad time.

 

If it happens,,,,,I hope I’m in the immediate blast zone. What the hell is wrong with Macron and the rest of the EU looking for a fight against Russia. They are playing with fire. I can remember my grandmother telling me stories about escaping from the Russians in WW1 being saved by the Kaiser and the rest of my relatives stuck behind the wall after WW2. They are playing with fire and I think Trump is on the right side this time. Well, Trump, Italy and Hungary. We don’t have Allies, we have Dependents…….least that’s the way I see it.

 

They are part of the Globalist cult that is hell bent on ruling over the ashes of humanity because they know better than the rest of us.

The rest of the rabbit hole, you'll have to explore yourself. It gets pretty wooly and wild. A lot of the Globalist conspiracy theories sound outright crazy, but then you look at policies.... and you have to ask yourself, maybe there's some truth to them?

 

Sure, it's survivable.

Just not for everyone.

And those that do might regret it in the short run.

And in the long run.

 

I would rather just perish in an instant holding hands with my family in prayer. Would rather us not endure the chaos and atrocities that will follow for the survivors.

 

No

 

Just random thoughts.
Generally, I think the average person won't survive, even if they survive the initial blast. Most average ordinary people don't have the know-how and survival skills (I'm one of them). I get my food from the grocery store. I couldn't gut a deer, let alone a squirrel or a rat.

The advanced preppers with stored foods (and guns and ammo) and who are hunters have increased chance of longer survival.

Now the homeless people in the streets of my big metropolitan area (I'm in the left coast-best coast), I give them the best chance of survival. They're scavengers to the extreme. My catastrophic concern isn't nuclear attack, but a huge earthquake where infrastructure is destroyed. Driving around the metro area, I think I'm screwed if we have a catastrophe. Looking at all the homeless people, I think, yeah, they'll survive... They'll be around.............. ¯\(ツ)/¯

Anyhoo, just a random thought.

 

Holy cow man. I’ve eaten rat, nutria and squirrel, can’t imagine it’d be that much harder to dress a deer.

I’m not so much an “end of the world” prepper, but I am prepped for temporary hard times, such as natural catastrophes excluding earthquakes. I also have the means to protect my stores.

And I’ve been homeless. Twice.

By your reckoning, I’m practically a cockroach!

 

It would not be survivable. Who told you the Russian nukes had degraded?