Are there really people who think nuclear war wouldn't end poorly for everyone involved?

Are there really people who think nuclear war wouldn't end poorly for everyone involved?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    People with fancy bomb shelters

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You need more than just a shelter to live comfily in a nuked world
      You need an entire underground country with all the infrastructure

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        So Switzerland, Binland, and North Korea.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >People with fancy bomb shelters

      How do you get food for the subsequent years of isolation after mechanized food production has collapsed and fuel is no longer available?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        gonna plant some beans

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        You drink your own piss and eat your own shit of course!

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      If either the US or Russia used their entire stockpile and your shelter is anywhere near a target then all you will do is slowly cook to death.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I know this is objective, but living in a bomb shelter, fancy or not, probably qualifies as ending poorly.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        why would you live in a bomb shelter when the mast majority of fallout has a very short half life it's not like a reactor meltdown? You would be able to start reclaiming ground zero on an airburst nuke in five years but the fallout would have become completely harmless long long before that. Nukes are not the end of the world you know. You'r odds of survival are very high unless you are in the area of initial direct effect. Civilization would recover quite well and rapidly.We're already detonated two and a half thousand nukes on land sea and air including ones vastly bigger than anything i n use now and we are all still here, Nagasaki and Hiroshima are still there filled with people who get up and eat breakfast

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    a lot of westerners are moronic, anon. you don't have to listen to someone's opinion just because they're loud about it, are pretty, or are popular on twitter or instagram.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      moronic people are moronic.

      hey shills, yes the 'western quality of life' would obviously be impacted, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't pull through. meanwhile russia would get completely annihilated not only in the nuclear exchanges but also in the following conventional war, it would seize to exist forever and make the word 'holocaust' sound like a fricking joke in comparison

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        cease to exist* sorry esl moment

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >he thinks that the west wouldn't immediately lose 70% of its GDP and suffer tens to hundreds of millions of casualties
        You're one of those morons. Do not speak when adults are talking, thank you.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          hey shill. if you russia really was that confident in it's arsenal like your guidelines are saying, it would have already unleashed hell on ukraine

          now post gun with timestamp, birth certificate and proof of pigmentation

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >he thinks Russia, corruption, incompetence and AIDS capital of the planet, has mostly working nukes
          lmao
          lol even

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It's literally their trump card. Why would they not care well for the one thing that lets them do what they want?

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              They spend less on maintaining their nukes than China. China (officially) only has 300 warheads.
              Do the math.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                300 ICBMs + MIRVS is still a credible deterrent. We have the best ABM in the world and its really only capable of stopping a Nork or Iranian spergout right now. ABM that can stop a Chinese or Russian attack would be very very expensive but I think its eventually in cards. I wouldn't be surprised if the space force is working towards it.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Not 300 ICBMs, 300 WARHEADS.
                For more than Russian currently spends to maintain it's supposed 10,000 warhead stockpile.

                Shut the frick up when the adults are talking.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >China totally only has what they officially report
                lol ok, opinion discarded.

                https://i.imgur.com/zfYofAx.png

                so whats your cope going to be when it in fact does not happen, burgerland continues to function as the decentralized 51 membered union state system facilitates the persistence of institutions governing it. While vatnikstan and chinkistan do indeed implode into complete Cannibal Holocaust as soon as Beijing and Moscow stop giving orders and laying the jackboot on everybodies throat keeping the colonial oblasts/provinces under submission

                in living in your copeganda filled lala land where the tzar/emperor cant do nothing wrong you are completely blind how pathetically frail your constructs are

                I can't fathom the brain rot you must have to think my post was in any way pro Russian or pro Chinese. Nuclear war will be devastating we dont have the capability to shoot down that many warheads. modern society is dependent on interconnected supply chains for basic necessities like food and we know Russia and China would go for countervalue. Millions would die. But nothing ever happens so nothing will happen.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The most annoying shit about these morons is that it IS possible to build cities and supply chains that can withstand nuclear war, but because it's expensive and everyone's worried about shareholder value nobody does it.
                Make large shelters Finland style capable of holding thousands. Stockpile enough food to last months. Invest in air filtration and sturdier houses. Solar for everyone, resilient power grids (especially underground ones). Produce and give out actual hazmat/fallout suits for people so that they can work in the open after an exchange without having to accept a moderate radiation dose. Create entire factories underground for essentials like common household products, medicines, car parts, etc. Where feasible connect factories together with underground tunnels, so that entire companies can operate during and after a nuclear exchange without any impact to their operations. Invest in trucks with full NBC systems and light offroading capability so that the national highway network can still be used even if parts of it are damaged or covered with fallout. Get an actual emergency alert system going so that 95% of the population is in shelters or on alert before a single nuke hits, none of this "lol some people didn't get it oh well maybe next time" shit.
                You'd be able to tank a limited exchange this way. It wouldn't be pretty, millions would likely die of starvation, but you'd still have a United States at the end of it.

                Again though this costs money, so morons like that anon just go "nah we'd win lol america best lol".

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Hey cool an interesting reply. In theory these things are doable but I think in practice it really isn't. People are unwilling, even the Finns, to structure every facet of their lives around the possibility of war. And I don't think they should have to. Its the military's job to defend them. Yeah kinetically defending from nukes isn't possible yet. But we've also gone 70 years without WW3. Deterrence is a really good defense and we have the track record to prove it. The main hole is that it doesn't defend against non-state actors. And it was a major fear in the 90's that some terrorists would get their hands on a Soviet warhead and nuke a major city with it. Fortunately the warheads were under better control than that. Even your petty kingdoms like Iran and NK are unlikely to start a nuclear war because the calculus is even worse for them than it would be for the Russians.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                totally only has what they officially report
                >lol ok, opinion discarded.
                You missed the point entirely. If China has even triple the claimed number of warheads it's still a fraction of what Russia supposedly has. There's no way Russia is maintaining all that shit with the budget they have.
                And they have no reason to undersell that budget-spending more makes them look stronger.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I accept that Russia is bullshitting their maintenance and their readiness isn't what it should be. But its moronic to leap from that to
                >lol none of their nukes work they aren't a threat.
                The reason we always kick everyone's ass is because we don't underestimate our opponents. You plan with the assumption that Russian shit works as well as they claim. Then when shit happens you out perform them because of course they lied. If we actually planned as if they were full of shit then eventually we'd be found lacking. Beyond that good practice, they do test launch missiles regularly as do we and the test launches do usually work. So even with the lies and corruption, probably enough do work that its still a problem. Even one nuke getting through is unacceptable unless you're general Turgidson.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I agree, we should spend more on our military and less on welfare, we should kick out thirdies, and we should bring back a president that reduced terrorist leaders to wet smears on the cement and would then laugh at them on live TV.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >nothing on welfare
                fixed it for you

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                You know, if the government just focused on facilitating commerce and the economy instead of welfare we probably wouldn't need nearly as much welfare. But we're getting off topic.

                https://i.imgur.com/rZ1H8Ax.gif

                >china has more nukes than it claims
                What is the point of nuclear weapons if you keep them a secret?

                They often do things that doesn't make sense to us westerners. While you're at it, ask them why they are building more ICBM silos than they need for their nominal warheads. Are they building decoy silos? If you are going through the trouble to build one, why not stick a real missile in it? The silo is far more expensive than the ICBM is.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >building more ICBM silos than they need for their nominal warheads
                they are building more warheads at the same time, I think they would like to achieve similar potential to US and Russia in the late 30s to not be limited to only minimally viable second strike options
                >The silo is far more expensive than the ICBM
                I don't think that's true unless you are building some ultra-hardened silos, for Minuteman III the silos were approximately 10x cheaper and the ratio skews even further if you include all the operating and maintenance costs over the decades

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >they are building more warheads at the same time,
                Agreed. That's what I was implying.
                >I don't think that's true unless you are building some ultra-hardened silos,
                Silos generally are hardened. But I was thinking from a TCO standpoint. large facilities, and silos are large and sophisticated. Have a lot of constant upkeep. Nuclear weapons do too of course I guess it depends on the relative costs of certain things for the Chinese.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Minuteman silos are some of the most hardened ones out there and for solid fuel missiles they can be mostly autonomous and unmanned, just like the missiles they house, unlike the liquid fueled missiles that require constant maintenance and inspections to not fail/burn and explode violently, which requires a lot of additional equipment and access tunnels for personnel which all also need hardening, leading to huge underground complexes that are ludicriously expensive.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Also, given the fairly recent chinese scandal with the missile command purges over the missiles filled with water instead of fuel, i strongly consider most of the new chinese silos as decoys with no useful offensive capacity, either intentionally or due to corruption. Imagine their uninhabited cities but it's silos instead.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >china has more nukes than it claims
                What is the point of nuclear weapons if you keep them a secret?

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              you've never met a russian, have you

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Oh no not the GEEDEEPEES.
          They're not dead, and they still have their intellegencia, they'll be fine.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Yes. Stupid people like

        The end of life as we know it. Living in one of the surviving rural outlands will be feudal shit. Being in an urban zone will mean death.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Even if we go with the premise that you severely damage most US or European cities (and especially the economic hubs) it'd at most turn into an early 1900s type of deal until any kind of rebuilding could be done. There's too much institutional knowledge in the western world to completely lose grasp on every industrialism, and there's also abroad ones in SA, non-Sino Asia and so on.
          Now, what remains to be seen is if that's preferable to living under a despot or not but given what people say about communism in the former blocks I'd prefer the Russians to stay out of my continent if they ever challenged us.
          If they wanna annihilate themselves near-totally, that's up to them.
          As seen in Hiroshima and Nagasaki the cities are not unlivable for a lifetime either.
          So what's left is weathering the immediate damage, which the obvious eastern receivers of literally can't without enduring total collapse.
          Nuclear Winter is a meme by the way. There's no way that a couple of big fireballs are shooting more crap into the atmosphere than a supervolcano eruption.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >but also in the following conventional war

        If the missiles are flying, it's already stopped being a conventional war.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          After a full nuclear exchange the nuclear capabilities are spent, most targets hit, it will be years before you can use any nuclear weapons that are somehow left.

          In the meantime the remnants of the government will organize martial law and institute nightmarish totalitarism that will make anything that's come before pale in comparison. The population will be recruited for forced labor for food and part of it will be incorporated into armed forces to continue the war, however long that may take.

          If there is a war between the east and the west and there is a full nuclear exchange the conflict won't end until one side flat out totally genocides the other.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      That 99% intercept rate sure is making you thirdies salty today, huh? It's okay, just recite the following mantra:

      It's okay, my country is weak
      The USA will always be my hegemon
      Mohammed was a pedophile and a cuck
      Islam is a pedocuck religion
      I am grateful to the US for offering me freedom from Islam
      GOD BLESS THE USA!

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        i see the children have woken up

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Are you looking at kids in bed because you're a Muslim? Very Arabic of you.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Wordswordswords
        Obsessed
        Rent free
        Malding

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        We should invest in THAAD ER

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Chinks constantly scream that if they lose the war against Taiwan they'll nooook, but when Whites say "lol we don't care" we're supposedly the reckless ones and not the belligerent insects shrieking about how they'll nuke the US.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Westerners are geniuses when compared to any other *-erners.
      Do you think a sheep herder from Tajikistan or bicycle wheel repairman from Sierra Leone have better informed opinions about pretty much anything other than sheep herding and bicycle wheel repairing when compared to Westerners?

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    moronic people are moronic.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Yeah. Nuclear holocaust is a meme.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Are there really people who think nuclear war wouldn't end poorly for everyone involved?
    >poorly
    Really depends on your definition of this. For America, even losing one single city in the entire country and maybe a few (now empty) silos or AFBs would arguably be a very poor outcome. That'd be literally trillions of dollars in value along with hundreds of thousands to millions dead, then some amount of fallout causing additional trouble for decades after. It'd be the worst most expensive disaster in our history.

    At the same time though one single city and a few AFBs wouldn't turn into "Fallout" either, or even the various CW doomsday scenarios. It wouldn't at all mean the end of the country. Most people would only face mild direct effects (global fallout will probabilistically raise everyone's genetic defect risks somewhat) and shitty Great Depression level but totally survivable indirect effects.

    So nuclear war has ended up in a weird place of simultaneously over and understated particularly given how arsenals have shrunk massively and most of Russia's remainder don't work to design specs. The END OF THE WORLD EVERYONE UNDER RADIOACTIVE GLACIER stuff is definitely wrong. But some contrarian gays go the opposite extreme and pretend even one or two wouldn't still be an enormous horrible fricking disaster for everyone.

    So yeah it'd "end poorly for everyone involved" but not all sides would face existential risk.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Not to mention the psychological damage, most of the people wont feel safe anymore, knowing they are in range of an ICBM and the gloves are off. Even it could cause some insurgence groups and loss of order.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It does have one main benefit. Since the cities burn under countervalue the demographics get righted.
      In the case of the UK, it also causes several megatons of urban improvement to places like Slough and Birmingham.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Would it really? The downside of targeting dense urban centers and the nearby suburban towns is that you kill off the part of the population that is statistically, wealthier, more economically productive, better educated, and more intelligent.

        As far as human capital is concerned, It would be a shitty situation if the only people left alive are the toothless failures and rural subhumans that exist in flyover land.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          That was true 100 years ago. But in reality "education level" these days means nothing but "willingness to absorb and regurgitate political and ideological bullshit". Unless you have a STEM degree and are working privately I don't value your degree at all, of course I'm a geologist so keep my bias in mind.

          Rural whites in America at least have more disposable income than their urbanite counterparts, are more involved in actual productive activity, and have more STEM degrees in total and per-capita. Remember the cities are full of darkies who have negative economic value, the cost the government more than they produce in all instances when assessed as an aggregate population.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          to be fair, not everyone that lives in ruraldom is a moronic illiterate who couldn't get out. Rural areas in the Northeast tend to be full of economically well-off individuals. Really, it's only in the south, midwest, and central states where rural life consists of methampetamines, poverty and hopelessness.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      There weren't enough nukes to make the US and USSR collapse from a full nuclear exchange at peak stockpiles. Partly because a portion of the stockpile was never ready to fire instantly and partly because so many of the weapons were either slated for countervalue strikes or against military formations and infrastructure. The USSR only really aimed at cities preferentially for a decade or so because their aim was absolute dogshit. So initial casualties would be low even at maximum throw weight. And countries have been flattened over and over again and came back. I like that we pretend the 30 Years War and Napoleonic Wars just didn't happen and didn't killer a higher percentage of the involved populations then WW2. And then we know the Chinks periodically murder 2/3 of China or get murdered by invaders.

      Would it be unpleasant and colour politics for a century to come just like the aforementioned wars? Yeah. Would it mean the end of civilization even in the nations being hit, nope. That's a load of bullshit cooked up by anti-war homosexuals, mostly israelites, who either oppose war philosophically or are afraid for their ethnic mafia losing control. Nuclear Winter for example is 100% bullshit and was made up deliberately by israelites like Sagan and various libtards for their own reasons. And when anybody questioned it they screamed bloody murder just like they always do when their ideologically driven bullshit is called out.

      Given who lives in cities rural whites would cheer. Many of us would rather this empire fall then share it with scum.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Kiwis, probably. Nobody ever pays attention to the southern hemisphere

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Of course it would end poorly, but that doesn't mean the west is going to back down whenever some shithole bluffs about nukes.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It would end badly for Russia and America. Badly as in they would cease to exist as functioning states. But there would be entire countries left untouched.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      From radioactive fire balls. What happens to a large portion of the 3rd world now on their own because the 1st world is permanently crippled or still trying to recover themselves?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Like in natural selection, after the top, specialized predators are taken out by an extinction event, the lesser ones will likely attempt to fill in the hole left by them. There will be lots of struggle obviously, but there would be certainly several countries willing(even if not capable) of replacing the previous powers.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          List a few good candidates.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Social upheaval, having to deal with fallout, extremely radical ideologies and broken supply chains yeah but not quite le fallout wasteland tier.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >What happens to a large portion of the 3rd world now on their own because the 1st world is permanently crippled or still trying to recover themselves?

        At least a few of them unironically experience a cultural renaissance thanks to their inevitably absorbing refugees from the 1st World who bring gifts such as the idea that your tap water should be drinkable

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          implying they wont simply eat them as they arrive because of their absurd numbers and significantly diminished food sources. Also never forget a turdie always blames their own shittiness on westerners. Combination of jealousy and inferiority complex. This is a widespread sentiment among their numbers

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >implying that half of the nuclear arsenal of the "west" isnt aimed at turdworlders to prevent any chance of their dominance right after

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >you can drink tap water in saudi arabia
          wack

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The third world, despite being a shithole, is with a few exceptions (Africa) self sufficient. Most food is grown and consumed locally. Some shitty village in Mexico isn't importing food from a continent away. First and Second World are the ones who have to worry about famine.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          lmfao even the tine, swampy Netherlands is a net exporter of food

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >The third world, despite being a shithole, is with a few exceptions (Africa) self sufficient.
          It's not it's dependent on world grain prices and the EU and USA feed the world, are the majority of global food exports and have the most advanced productive agriculture and horticulture on earth. Without them places like the middle east, Africa and India starve as prices skyrocket that is ignoring the vast amount of food aid, international development aid, medical programs etc that the EU and G7 and US fund

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    it would end up most poorly for countries that haven't maintained their nuclear arsenal and can't afford to or lack the expertise to do so, namely russia.

    Absolutely west has nuclear shileds that can intercept the warheads. Why wouldn't you develop the counter to the ultimate weapon. Why would you reveal it? So others do the same? Better have all projects attempting it dissapear with the developers go public stating "it is impossible"

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Yes

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    If we bring back serious civil defense (cadres of trained recovery teams, info pamphlets and classes on first aid and fallout) we could mitigate a total collapse. But that won't happen because nuclear war is so last century and will 'never happen'.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      homie no amount of preparedness can put any dent in whatever is going to happen when a nuke hits a population center.

      There is no humanitarian response against something like it.
      This is not le epin video game. If you're in that city when the bombs fall you are going to fricking die and there is nothing you can do about it.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >There is no humanitarian response against something like it
        Japan managed to rebuild and rescue Hiroshima in pretty good time for a country that was also dealing with the biggest war in history and critical shortages in every strategic resource

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          1. baby bombs
          2. the rest of the country wasn't nuked

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Most of it except villages and Kyoto was firebombed to shit though.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >1. baby bombs
            Modern nukes are less radioactive by an order of magnitude compared to fat man and little boy
            >2. the rest of the country wasn't nuked
            That other anon already mentioned the fire bombing, but another thing that needs to be pointed out is how most of their building were made out of paper. I went to the hiroshima museum and sure enough all the surviving structures were western style buildings made out of stone and concrete. modern cities would be far more resilient by comparison.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >Modern nukes are less radioactive by an order of magnitude compared to fat man and little boy

              Yet more kinetically destructive by several orders of magnitude

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Modern nukes are generally 10-20 times the power of Fat Man. As accuracy increased, there was no longer a need to use multi-megaton warheads, and lots of valid reasons to use smaller ones.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The most annoying shit about these morons is that it IS possible to build cities and supply chains that can withstand nuclear war, but because it's expensive and everyone's worried about shareholder value nobody does it.
      Make large shelters Finland style capable of holding thousands. Stockpile enough food to last months. Invest in air filtration and sturdier houses. Solar for everyone, resilient power grids (especially underground ones). Produce and give out actual hazmat/fallout suits for people so that they can work in the open after an exchange without having to accept a moderate radiation dose. Create entire factories underground for essentials like common household products, medicines, car parts, etc. Where feasible connect factories together with underground tunnels, so that entire companies can operate during and after a nuclear exchange without any impact to their operations. Invest in trucks with full NBC systems and light offroading capability so that the national highway network can still be used even if parts of it are damaged or covered with fallout. Get an actual emergency alert system going so that 95% of the population is in shelters or on alert before a single nuke hits, none of this "lol some people didn't get it oh well maybe next time" shit.
      You'd be able to tank a limited exchange this way. It wouldn't be pretty, millions would likely die of starvation, but you'd still have a United States at the end of it.

      Again though this costs money, so morons like that anon just go "nah we'd win lol america best lol".

      it's a whole different world from the sixties, total societal apathy. What works in Finland would not work in Belgium for instance. You could build all the shelters you want but nobody would go in. secondly public shelters would probably just overcrowd unless there is (enough) police or military to control it
      >produce and give out fallout suits
      doesn't work against gamma radiation, which is the primary component of fallout after a couple of days
      >Invest in trucks with full NBC system
      slow down mad max any road would be jammed up coast to coast, not to mention obviously raiders everywhere looking for their meal ticket
      but most of all there would mainly be logistics from the agricultural states outwards with grain, livestock and crops, which would create a very delicate balance between the amount of food you can produce in surplus and how far you can take it taking into account diesel and risk of being raided, kidnapped etc. no sense in bringing 2 cups of grain a hundred or 500 miles away. plus if its not enough anyway people will massmigrate quickly from the coasts to any of the producing states leading to all sorts of problems there

      homie no amount of preparedness can put any dent in whatever is going to happen when a nuke hits a population center.

      There is no humanitarian response against something like it.
      This is not le epin video game. If you're in that city when the bombs fall you are going to fricking die and there is nothing you can do about it.

      its not some black hole homosexual, whole areas are affected outside of its primary effects area where people are trapped in partially collapsed buildings, injured by flying glass or debris etc, and they deserve some help, again not apathy. Learn some shit about nuclear weapon effects with nukemap please. civil defense was in large part an effort to stop cities from burning for weeks on end, which would greatly increase fallout in downwind areas, extending the need to shelter in place a thousand miles from ground zero. Once its safe, they'd have to remove the top layer of soil, and start producing crops for a post-apocalypse america

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    People are dumb as shit, humans gained the ability to pass on knowledge but are unable to pass on lived experiences so after a few generations there's a societal hard reset, nuclear war is an inevitability sadly.

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I think it would benefit South America

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      And still the death toll was incredibly high, much higher than just through the blast. Also how many sky scrapers do you think were there? How high the population density?
      Where do you take the injured people? Your hospitals have just been destroyed, skyscrapers and large buildings are literally collapsing all over.
      You have to assume:
      1) any support structure that existed in the city is irreparably gone. All hospitals are in the city center. The few medical staff outside of the city will be outnumbered 1:1000 by people that need treatment - if they don't get the frick out in the first place.
      2) any logistical access has been destroyed. People who can't move out of the city at their own power will starve there
      3) this city will not be the only city that got hit, other city centers will not be able to help

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    People both over and under estimate it. One common thing I see from normies is the idea that WW3 will cause the total collapse of civilization or even extinction of humanity. That's pretty fricking moronic. The beligerents and their allies will be fricked. But the rest of the world will be "fine". Fine as in they aren't nuked and in immediate danger. Its still massively destabilizing and will tank the global economy. From that you're gonna have a huge power vacuum like we haven't seen since the bronze age collapse. Expect a lot of smaller wars in the global south as they try to fill that vacuum.

    People also underestimate it. Its common especially on /k/ for people to think they can survive and get to live in some post apocalyptic libertarain paradise. No you're dead. You either die quick in the attack or die not long after from any number of things. You get sick and cant do shit about it. You starve. You get shot as a bunch of basketball americans overwhelm you and steal all your shit.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >You either die quick in the attack or die not long after from any number of things. You get sick and cant do shit about it. You starve. You get shot as a bunch of basketball americans nobody ever mentions the inevitable martial law

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        In a full nuclear exchange with russia or china there wont be much martial law because the state apparatus will collapse in the US. Too many breaks in the chain. You might see some less affected parts of the nation manage to keep things together enough to maintain some order. But those are going to be low density areas anyways. Your major cities are targets and will get devastated. NYPD riot cops wont be in force because they will be dead. Same with all the new yorkers who would be rioting.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          post guns with timestamp

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You first.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >no argument
            lol you have to actually make a point before I bother doing that.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          so whats your cope going to be when it in fact does not happen, burgerland continues to function as the decentralized 51 membered union state system facilitates the persistence of institutions governing it. While vatnikstan and chinkistan do indeed implode into complete cannibal holocaust as soon as Beijing and Moscow stop giving orders and laying the jackboot on everybodies throat keeping the colonial oblasts/provinces under submission

          in living in your copeganda filled lala land where the tzar/emperor cant do nothing wrong you are completely blind how pathetically frail your constructs are

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >he actually thinks the US is some magical wonderland where the federal government can cease to exist and everything will be just fine
            Lmao no, a single lands on a moderately sized city and you will millions of people internally displaced, tens to hundreds of thousands wounded and billions in GDP lost. Stop thinking like a child.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              America's governing system is far more decentralized than Thirdiestan. We'll survive, you won't.

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Victory by forfeit.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      LOL no russia is a gypsy country that would get annihilated in a nuclear exchange. seethe more no gun brown homosexual

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >Still hasn't made an argument
    Is that all you do? Just show up and shit up threads?

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Third-world sperg-out gets wrecked, embarrassing thirdies again.
    >Obligatory "BE SCARED OF NOOKS" thread follows in short-order
    You children have no idea how behind you've fallen.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      post wall socket

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Why would a non-Westerner have posted what that anon did?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      They're making cope threads about how nuclear weapons are in play and Iran wanted to be intercepted. /misc/ and /leftypol/ (but I repeat myself) are both in shambles.

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Are there really people who think nuclear war wouldn't end poorly for everyone involved?
    more like:
    >Are there really people who think nuclear war wouldn't end poorly for everyone?

    even if one side would intercept all of the missiles there still will be radioactive debris falling randomly and if some nukes do make it trough there will be radioactive dust - it wont be end of the world but it will make life miserable for everyone on this planet as we still talking about thousands of warheads...

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The main issue will be the dust in the atmosphere causing rapid cooling and dying off of many crops, leading to mass famine and a whole fricking lot of dead people. Food will become the new oil for a long while, and you can bet your ass a lot o people will also die to secure it.
    Nuclear war will end up pretty shitty even for those not involved.
    We are, of course, discussing from a point of view where most, if not all, nukes still work, the missiles would launch, and the warheads could execute the detonation chains.
    There haven't been nuclear tests besides some nork fireworks, so nobody can know for sure.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      probably but they would be wrong
      except 99% of the population writes off nuclear conflict at any level, full apathy not gonna happen, if it happens i'll die so be it yadayada

      fricking sucks the tv serie Jericho went sideways, first half of season 1 is just a perfect example
      supposedly subcritical tests using lasers instead of explosives nowadays yields more valuable scientific results than any critical/chemical tests at extreme reduced costs so we'll probably never see atmospheric tests again. turdie countries know better not to, since they want to hide their isotope mix from the sniffers

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I honestly do not think that Russia has enough working warheads or missiles. They have shown themselves to be pretty shit. I think the US and it's allies would survive although fricked up and left to deal with the aftermath. Russia would be glassed.

    Eastern europed + Russia would be a waste land. Everywhere else would surivive. THAAD saves the day

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      They just need about 50 nukes, you bet they got a small batch of physics packages they keep in reliable condition
      although they only even need one to break the nuclear taboo.
      when that happens (lets say a tactical nuke on kharkiv) I don't think NATO would immediately respond against targets within russia, but rather put boots on the ground in Ukraine, closing the skies too.
      if putin then sees this as his long desired russia vs nato war it isn't inconceivable he'd put one on rammstein for instance. then they'd respond with conventional within russia against its nuclear triad and nc3
      then it's probably again a nuclear response with 50/50 US/EU distribution on capitals, ports, airports and military installations

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >wouldn't end poorly
    I wouldn't have to go to work anymore. Sounds like a win to me.

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    we built the damn things, let's get it over with and use 'em. only proven effective weapon ever invented yet never used in anger (hydrogen bomb/icbm). it's a matter of time.

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    considering i live in frickall nowhere in one corner of spain my guess would be id end up living a decent live at least, at the very least thanks to my two hunting rifles amd the machete i have around my house

  24. 1 month ago
    Q Smith

    Tritium Or helium3???

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    ate you implying a species reset isn't a desirable outcome.
    you know we all deserve to die, right?

  26. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I live in Guatemala, literally nothing worth targeting is close. Nuclear Winter? Yeah that's bad but im too moronic to figure out if its all hype or not. If things do pop off I'll be in my concrete shit house eating a bit of iodine once in awhile.

  27. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    i thought direct-energy weapons were supposed to make missiles obsolete.

  28. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I live in the middle of nowhere, I'll definitely survive an attack. It's the aftermath that'll be an issue.

  29. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Are there really people who think nuclear war wouldn't end poorly for everyone involved?
    Latin Americans, who would kick back and watch the world burn as they get their chance to become the emergent superpowers over the irradiated ashes.

  30. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Take the concrete pill, it only takes a few inches of concrete to negate almost any amount of radiation.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You've survived the blast. Now you get to survive the rest of your life in a radioactive waste land.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It takes:
      1" of lead
      1' of concrete
      3' of packed earth
      8' of water
      or a few miles of air.

      That's to reduce radiation by 99.9%. If you're close enough, you'd need even more, but you'd have to live near a strategic target.

      You've survived the blast. Now you get to survive the rest of your life in a radioactive waste land.

      Most of the radiation would be gone within 2 weeks (Rule of 7s). The wasteland wouldn't be radioactive; it would, however, be full of hungry, panicked people, who would be making lots of poor decisions. If you stayed inside for a couple of weeks, you'd be far less likely to die from radiation than from lack of food/water/shelter/sanitation/medicine or from violence as people fight over those things.

      With a proper Civil Defense program, a lot of that stuff could be mitigated by having spare necessities on hand, but that's not very common these days.

      In short, life would stink, and there's a fair chance you would die, but it wouldn't be from the explosion or even the fallout.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        You ever read Steven King's "The Stand"
        He specifically mentions of the ~1% of survivors the vast majority die of stupidity shortly after.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >muh people are DUMB
          Most people are interacting with the world through a film of delusion, but they're not moronic. I think you'd find that after a major nuclear exchange things would become a lot more sensible very quickly. Look at the first maybe 12 hours of the war in Ukraine for an example.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Fallout would be a massive problem because nuclear power plants are targets and nuking spent fuel would scatter long lasting radiation everywhere. Also, the massive firestorms that would inevitably ensue on a global scale and cover immense swats of landmass would no doubt mess with the atmosphere. Also, all industrial facilities with dangerous chemicals that would inevitably fail, even if not directly struck, and release vast amounts of dangerous/poisonous chemicals.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Oh, you're that guy that insisted a few weeks ago that power plants were primary strategic targets and that they'd poison the world for decades, aren't you?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            NTA. The nuclear power plants could be problematic after an EMP, right? The fuel rods need active cooling for a while and the generators won't last long after the power grid is fricked. With some civil unrest on top of that it feels a little uncomfy.

  31. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    If a nuclear war was to erupt between two states, wouldn't they also nuke the third parties that are their competitors? (USA and Russia go to war and nuke each other, nominally neutral China also gets nuked etc.)

  32. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Yes, and fortunately for us, they're also the ones in charge of our nuclear arsenal.

  33. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >nuclear war wouldn't end poorly for everyone involved
    I think it would be funny tbh

  34. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Interesting times

  35. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    id punch that fricking shockwave in the face if it tried to vaporize me

  36. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Nuclear holocaust is a preferable alternative to third worlders taking over the Internet.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Why?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >t. thirdworlder

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I look forward to your vaporization

  37. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Are there really people who think nuclear war wouldn't end poorly for everyone involved?
    nukes are stupid for their intended use
    high altitude nuclear EMP, however is more than likely startlingly effective and a total game-changer
    >doesn't create radiation
    >is nearly un-interceptable
    >extremely cost-efficient
    >doesn't threaten retaliation nearly as much as a full first strike
    >doesn't actually destroy assets, materiel and civilian centers
    >not directly lethal
    >absolutely FRICKS the power distribution network of like 1500 square miles and destroys transformers and sensitive equipment on the grid
    >creates a near immediate humanitarian crisis in the civilian population that severely hampers the country's ability to wage war
    >doesn't destroy valuable infrastructure that you can use later
    >possibly simply mission-kills the nation that you're targeting for between 6mo-5yr
    I mean, imagine all 390 million people in the US suddenly had zero power, the water shut off, no LNG, and their access to cable and internet just ceased for like 6 months. No one would be fighting a war at that point.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >anon learns about EMP but not about EMP hardening or resistance, take number 100000000

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        none of the US power substations are hardened against EMP, and it's impossible to harden transmission lines against EMP
        do you really honestly believe that even if the military retains 100% functionality, the simultaneous popping of every residential line fuse and most, if not all substation transformers wouldn't create massive humanitarian crisis that functionally mission-kills the US?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I'm not one of the morons that believes that EMP kills phones and cars and that it's a magic "turn everything off" switch
          but simply downing the broader grid is a fricking tremendous impact. sure, phones would turn on but for 3-6 months everyone would be totally dependent on generators and without comms other than HAM/radio
          no one is fighting a war when all of their food has gone bad, there's none in a grocery store, you can't trust the water, and you have no idea where you're going to find more food or water.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            There's shit called "electromagnetic interference testing" and it not only tests how much a device radiates on unwanted frequencies, but also at which point it'll break down and/or become a door stopper. This is done to avoid accidentally frying the phone by, for example, going "too close" to your router, because you figured it would be a splendid place to lay your phone on top of.
            Now the pulse we can expect from an EMP of course varies a lot from where you are, because it decays with to the power of 4 per distance, which is quite a lot, but it'll still be a massive pulse, and there's a reason that military electronics take it into account.

            It's not "le magic light switch", but why would you expect that consumer electronics company do more than the bare minimum? (They don't)

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          power grids are easily repaired and restored, even on such a fantastically inflated scale as the one you describe it's likely that things will get fixed before some mass extionction can occur, let alone whatever your fricktarded word salad about "mission killing US" would.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >power grids are easily repaired and restored
            are you moronic? the Metcalf substation took $15 million and four months to be repaired after some rednecks shot at it
            it's not like energy companies or the DOE has some huge stock of transformers lying around ready to install
            at the end of the day nobody knows exactly what an EMP on that scale would do, but just observing the NYC and great northeast blackouts, and the storms that the US has had previously, the energy grid is very fragile because the margin where failover becomes systemic contamination is huge, and that's not even a situation where the actual hardware other than transmission lines are affected

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Russians are bombing Ukraine power infrastructure every day, and it's being fixed and maintained on a daily basis. In the meantime civilians are forced to use diesel generators.

  38. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It would also end poorly for the ones not involved

  39. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It's fine as long as all the anti-gun urbanite homosexuals get to puke up their guts.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      cutting your nose to spite your opponent is not a good philosophy.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Then please tell me anon, your solution to stop the anti-gun homosexuals.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Swords

  40. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Forget nukes, the weapons that are actually in use right now are fringe EMF and scalar wave weapons. You can achieve events such as the current and ongoing Ural regions megafloods in Russia right now, a year without a summer, a year with a scorching and dry summer (including induced wildfires), extreme cold and snow events, induced earthquakes and so on. Look into Col Bearden's papers. The flash melting of snowpack in the Urals region by a microwave heat pulse over a wide area is what lead to the current flooding. Various countries are in a state of proxy war with EMF weapons. By the way, random fact, a large enough Tesla coil will jam radio EMF.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Jesus christ take your fricking meds you nutjob.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous
  41. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Yes. Me.
    Glory to the Empire of the Rising Sun

  42. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Are there really people who think nuclear war wouldn't end poorly for everyone involved?
    it would be the end for Russia, the west would carry on and things might even be better with Russia gone, i has been a stone around the neck of mankind for a century

  43. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    You have define "nuclear war" first and foremost

  44. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >nuclear war
    never gonna happen because they are a $cam

  45. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >are there really people who think nuclear war wouldn't end poorly for everyone
    the israelites won't shut the frick up about their samsonite option, so yes

  46. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >NOOOOKS OOOOK OOOOOK
    Frick you, you moronic Russian homosexual.

  47. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It's probably worth any downsides to nuke Russia. Imagine how much harm their shit has done for 100 years now this putin bullshit. Might be best just to kill 'em all now.

  48. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    No, it's just that a lot of people are nihilistic enough about the future to not particularly care anymore

  49. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Russia existing is probably worse for humans than any effects from nuclear war.

  50. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Only if it's between the MENAs (including Pissrael), and between Pajeets and Changs

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      homie it took one freight ship blocking suez canal for everyone to start losing their minds.
      A nuclear exchange, even on a smaller scale, would send the world economy tumbling.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Short-term pains<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<manufacturing repatriation so the middle and working class of the first world can thrive and have power again + higher average world IQ + a severely weakened China + a great wall of irradiated wasteland that stops most if not all turdie attempts at invading the civilized world.

        It's eugenic.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *