In the event of a total nuclear exchange, does humanity have any chance of surviving, adapting, and rebuilding?

In the event of a total nuclear exchange, does humanity have any chance of surviving, adapting, and rebuilding? Or is it a extinction level event? I figured someone had to have crunched the numbers and data and figured out what would happen in a complete nuclear war.

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    It'd be not nearly as bad as everyone pretends

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      This, the main problem people would be having trouble with is infertility+miscarriages and radioactive dust cleansing protocols every time you go outside.

      We'll be fine-ish for the most part. Our offsprings will be fucked up though.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        If you want a sneak preview of what your great grandchildren might look like if the retard elite want to set off the nuclear boogaloo early, look up "Marshall Island Jellyfish Babies"

        Constant radiation exposure is not something our species can adapt to with time, just shorter lifespans and a fuck ton of hit or miss breeding with hopes of the good ones surviving long enough to procreate.

        >t. guy who used to live on the Marshall Islands

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      The immediate damage (the explosions, followed by the fallout) would not be nearly as bad as everyone thinks they would.

      The impact from the mass panic, disruption of supply chains, and loss of most trade (especially sea trade), however, could potentially be catastrophic to most nations--and even entire continents. It's really hard to make really accurate predictions, though, because so often, the details *matter*. What cities get hit, and how bad? Does the general public largely stay put and try to rebuild, or panic and fight each other to the death over scraps? For most of the world, whether or not the US keeps the Pax Americana going is a matter of life and death, because they need to import either food or fertilizer/fuel in order to avoid mass starvation.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Let's not forget that most of modern manufacturing is also predicated on a very complicated chemical industry that is, in large part, reliant on Russian natural gas. I think it's safe to assume that a functioning chemical industry will no longer exist after a nuclear exchange. Without this we can say goodbye to a lot of metallurgy and plastics, refining, water systems, and of course pharmaceuticals, to say nothing of the reliance on natural gas for fertilizers.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          The US can produce most hydrocarbon-based materials as long as Houston doesn't get nuked. It's just a matter of the federal government allowing domestic oil producers to... produce.

          Of course, the US can't produce enough for the whole world, so there would be a lot of triage and shortages, but it *would* still exist.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I sort of always forget the human element. like as far as radiation and shit, wait max two weeks, and scrape off the top 12 inches of top soil, done. don't play in the rain for a couple years.
        but when the people who work remote, online jobs, run out if money, door dash doesn't show up, and they have no marketable skills....
        shit would get real

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          I would not be worrying about people who have online jobs and are unable to eat a meal that isn't door dash.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        To expand on this anon's point, the entire western economy now operates on the just in time system. There are no local reserves, and this applies for fuel as much as food.

        Take Africa, for example. As [...] correctly deduces, Africans will (probably) not get nuked. Per the UN, Africa imports 85% of its food. After a MAD exchange between Russia, China, and the US, there will not be the logistical capacity remaining to keep this food flowing. Africa will suffer 0 deaths from nuclear detonation, and will suffer approximately 1 billion deaths after 2-3 months from a complete lack of food. The death toll after one year can be reasonably expected to reach ~95%, as the 85% that won't be getting food any more will take the other morons down with them in massive continental unrest (and cannibalism): final death toll approximately 1.3 - 1.35 billion.

        This applies to the west as well. Most refineries will no longer function. The logistical systems that service the functional ones will no longer function. The industrial capacity to repair the logistical systems will no longer function, and indeed the industrial capacity to repair the industrial capacity will no longer exist. A country might produce enough food for itself now, but that is predicated upon having enough fuel and fertilizer to both grow it and move it. There will not be enough of either. The deadline for getting these systems operational again will be measured in weeks. After 3 days you'll have dehydration deaths. After the first week you'll start seeing rising numbers of deaths from explosive diarrhea. Every day the system doesn't begin somewhat functioning the odds of restoring it diminish.

        Modern society and economy is the epitome of a fragile system. Humanity would not go extinct, but it would be thrust back hundreds and hundreds of years and would be unlikely to regain its current technological status.

        Of course, the magnetic field is failing. We'll experience this one way or another.

        two good solid posts that should be read and understood. Good job anon.

        In large part what we do to ourselves following a strike will be far more damaging than the bombs themselves.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        To expand on this anon's point, the entire western economy now operates on the just in time system. There are no local reserves, and this applies for fuel as much as food.

        Take Africa, for example. As [...] correctly deduces, Africans will (probably) not get nuked. Per the UN, Africa imports 85% of its food. After a MAD exchange between Russia, China, and the US, there will not be the logistical capacity remaining to keep this food flowing. Africa will suffer 0 deaths from nuclear detonation, and will suffer approximately 1 billion deaths after 2-3 months from a complete lack of food. The death toll after one year can be reasonably expected to reach ~95%, as the 85% that won't be getting food any more will take the other morons down with them in massive continental unrest (and cannibalism): final death toll approximately 1.3 - 1.35 billion.

        This applies to the west as well. Most refineries will no longer function. The logistical systems that service the functional ones will no longer function. The industrial capacity to repair the logistical systems will no longer function, and indeed the industrial capacity to repair the industrial capacity will no longer exist. A country might produce enough food for itself now, but that is predicated upon having enough fuel and fertilizer to both grow it and move it. There will not be enough of either. The deadline for getting these systems operational again will be measured in weeks. After 3 days you'll have dehydration deaths. After the first week you'll start seeing rising numbers of deaths from explosive diarrhea. Every day the system doesn't begin somewhat functioning the odds of restoring it diminish.

        Modern society and economy is the epitome of a fragile system. Humanity would not go extinct, but it would be thrust back hundreds and hundreds of years and would be unlikely to regain its current technological status.

        Of course, the magnetic field is failing. We'll experience this one way or another.

        [...]
        two good solid posts that should be read and understood. Good job anon.

        In large part what we do to ourselves following a strike will be far more damaging than the bombs themselves.

        something about the industrial revolution I believe

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Indeed, and something about it’s consequences being disastrous.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >nuclear winter

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah that concept was debunked. Basically a pretty lie peddled by popular science to discourage nuclear war and power.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          It was never debunked. They did some gay ass conjecture and declared themselves right. Nuclear winter came from a commissioned study lead by nuclear physicists and took several years.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            If nuclear winter is real, explain the 2000 nuclear weapons tests that have been conducted since WW2.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            The study came from a bunch of peaceniks who's claimed goal was nuclear disarmament that used flawed models based on wildfires and the H bombs

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Practically guaranteed.

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Yeah

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    there's only ~7000 active nukes in the world (3000 each for the US and Russia, a couple hundred each for China, France and the UK, maybe a hundred or so each for Israel, North Korea, Pakistan and India). A full nuclear exchange would suck, it would cause widespread famine and the collapse of the financial system, but it's not 1970s "ten thousand ten megaton bombs" bad anymore.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >but it's not 1970s "ten thousand ten megaton bombs"
      bit low there bud. the US and Russia had over 30,000 nukes each at that time.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      The current yield of the combined value is something to the tune of five giga tons the last impactor to hit the planet was over at 120 Terreton‘s the last major eruption that has occurred on our planet was 120 Mt yet the largest explosive volcanic activity was something to the tune of 230 Gt the planet has been through far far far far worse than we can throw at it doesn’t mean we won’t be all dead though

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    If major port facilities and major upstream hydrocarbon infrastructure facilities are rendered useless for multiple years then human society will tear itself apart over the scraps, both micro and macro levels.

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    there are no longer enough nuclear weapons (Russian or chinese) to strike every city and military target in the united states. in Russia's case, over 900 of their 1,500 deployed nukes would be absorbed by the missile fields, which are in the middle of no-where and would produce very little casualties. the remaining weapons would be targeted at command and control and naval/airbases. i'd estimate 5 million dead in an exchange due to blast effects, radiation. Most targets would be struck with a air burst which produces very little fallout.

    The vast majority of the united states would be untouched, and its unlikely that the government would collapse due to the COG plans which are ruthlessly maintained and practiced. Supreme court is fucked though so dont expect to sue the government for overreach after.
    >the US postal service is the agency tasked with determining initial casualty numbers because they are the only agency that can be reasonably expected to reach every home in the US within a day.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >in Russia's case, over 900 of their 1,500 deployed nukes would be absorbed by the missile fields
      Why would Russia attempt a counterforce strike when they know American SSBNs exist? They'd escalate straight from "tactical" nukes against NATO in eastern Europe to city trading countervalue strikes.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        this. why target already empty silos when you can threaten to genocide your oponent.

        Ignore the silos. Turn NY and California into parking lots

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Turn NY and California into parking lots
          stop, i can only get so erect

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Why would Russia help us?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Youre a fucking idiot

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    A single MAD scenario would have almost no chance of wiping out humanity, it probably would be more like a speedbump in the broader historical trajectory, although an incredibly tragic one. A sustained nuclear campaign of powers lobbing nukes at each other over and over for decades, on the other hand, might be one of the only genuine threats to human civilization if not the existence of the species as a whole.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      No, that's brown people

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    It'll probably put the human population back below 1B after civilization collapses and most people give up on life, but even a 90% reduction in population would leave humanity with a comfy 700M people.

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    In worst case scenario- at least half of the total world population survives. In about half a century even the old hyper radiated sites like destroyed nuclear power plants become tame enough to enter. Sorry, no apocalypse and Fallout larp for you. In fact compared to real apocalypses like known extinction events nooks are laughably weak.

    Individual NOOKS are not chernobyls. The latter was the equivalent of a very dirty bomb.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      you think chernobyl is safe ? it has a fucking sarcophagus on top of it to contain radiation, if nukes hit any of the nuclear powerplants, no ones building any sarcophagus on them and nothing is stoping the meltdown from poisoning the planet forever

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        For that to be the case, grids must be struck and nuclear power plants must be struck but I see no reason for them to do that unless they are just going for morale bombing. Which realistically wouldn't happen, a lot of Russia and China's nukes would be used for destroyed our forward forward delivery systems our allies cities and foreign military bases.

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    No but it would mean the collapse of modern civilization for the most part. It would take X hundred years but humanity would recover. Whoever was the one who initiated the nuclear exchange, which at the moment would probably be Russians, would get genocided to the point that the Russian ethnicity would probably cease to exist.

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    the entire worlds nuclear arsenal couldn't even depopulate america

    the real world isnt a video game or movie or whatever

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Youre right, but the resulting famine and collapse of society from all major american cities being vaporized would come close

      Stop thinking of nuclear war in terms of the raw casualties from the nukes themselves. The resulting impact they have is going to kill far more people

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        To expand on this anon's point, the entire western economy now operates on the just in time system. There are no local reserves, and this applies for fuel as much as food.

        Take Africa, for example. As

        For one thing, the Africans would definitely survive, since they wouldn't be targeted in a nuclear war. Sure, there'll be starvation and wars over limited resources as the flow of food and goods from the West ends overnight, but frankly that's an improvement for them. Also South America would be fine, and they'll be in much better shape than Africa.

        correctly deduces, Africans will (probably) not get nuked. Per the UN, Africa imports 85% of its food. After a MAD exchange between Russia, China, and the US, there will not be the logistical capacity remaining to keep this food flowing. Africa will suffer 0 deaths from nuclear detonation, and will suffer approximately 1 billion deaths after 2-3 months from a complete lack of food. The death toll after one year can be reasonably expected to reach ~95%, as the 85% that won't be getting food any more will take the other morons down with them in massive continental unrest (and cannibalism): final death toll approximately 1.3 - 1.35 billion.

        This applies to the west as well. Most refineries will no longer function. The logistical systems that service the functional ones will no longer function. The industrial capacity to repair the logistical systems will no longer function, and indeed the industrial capacity to repair the industrial capacity will no longer exist. A country might produce enough food for itself now, but that is predicated upon having enough fuel and fertilizer to both grow it and move it. There will not be enough of either. The deadline for getting these systems operational again will be measured in weeks. After 3 days you'll have dehydration deaths. After the first week you'll start seeing rising numbers of deaths from explosive diarrhea. Every day the system doesn't begin somewhat functioning the odds of restoring it diminish.

        Modern society and economy is the epitome of a fragile system. Humanity would not go extinct, but it would be thrust back hundreds and hundreds of years and would be unlikely to regain its current technological status.

        Of course, the magnetic field is failing. We'll experience this one way or another.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Good post

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Most refineries will no longer function
          Why? There must be refineries away from military bases and supermassive megacity morale targets? For it to stop working it must be hit or damaged in some way by the nukes or civil unrest that comes out of the nukes dropping. I don't see that happening. I would bet most refineries are outside of targeted zones. It sounds like your just saying this to make it sound worse than it actually would be.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Nobody would nuke a refinery, it'd be suicide for everyone and everything. There's not many of them left to begin with and everyone relies on them, unless you're going full pissbaby table-flipping nihilist and just killing everyone and yourself because fuck it that's not really an option.

  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    For one thing, the Africans would definitely survive, since they wouldn't be targeted in a nuclear war. Sure, there'll be starvation and wars over limited resources as the flow of food and goods from the West ends overnight, but frankly that's an improvement for them. Also South America would be fine, and they'll be in much better shape than Africa.

  13. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    the global south would rise from the ashes and inherit the earth. hopefully they'll learn from our mistakes.

  14. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    (You) (gay)
    Yes, people have been "crunching the numbers" for 80 years. Perhaps (You) might google it up ..? There's a bit of controversy, so it might be Hard Mode. I suspect, for someone as dim as (You), it'll be Impossible Mode.

  15. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    It’ll suck absolute ass because of how interconnected the world is nowadays, but its not the total end of the world. It’ll be bad over most of the world as the ones that weren’t nuked do everything they can to maintain order since global trade almost certainly got turbo fucked. Governments and command will still be around, its just that things become much more violent and martial law filled if its all bad enough. And hell, it might just kick off actual resource wars as everyone struggles for control over all the valuable land there is.
    >tldr its not the nukes that are the problem, its the destruction of all the systems in place that’ll lead to global starvation and poverty because no more easy trade

  16. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    As soon as things get bad, I will rape you.

  17. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >In the event of a total nuclear exchange, does humanity have any chance of surviving, adapting, and rebuilding?
    Yes.

  18. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The entire southern hemisphere would be basically untouched. That's pretty much all of South and Central America, Africa, and Oceania. The only targets below the equator are parts of India and Australia, and those are very low down in the totem pole.

    USA is too broad to effectively cripple even with the combined nuclear forces of China and Russia, you'd be lucky to get 50 million killed and that's assuming complete collapse of infrastructure in the months following the exchange (unlikely).

    The geographically small countries of NATO, Israel, Japan, and Korea will suffer the most short-term (assuming exchanges are broad and not America-centric) owing to their high population density, but will likely recover economically, if not demographically, from foreign aid that is unlikely to be interrupted badly if nukes have to be diverted from the USA.

    The countries that have the most to suffer from a nuclear exchange are Russia and China, which are ironically largely kept alive by the USA's support. Russia's pitiful state of affairs as is would never survive a nuclear exchange, but you're still only really going to be killing Moscow, Petersburg, a few other cities, and their silos. Most of the population will survive just as shittily as they have for the past 1000 years.

    China however has a third of its 2 billion population surviving off the power generated by and within the drainage basin of the Three Gorges Dam; one nuclear missile disabling that shuts down the Chinese infrastructure grid and drowns 600 million people. Then the rest of the nuclear arsenal can be dedicated to their population centers like Beijing and Shanghai; that's bad news for the Chinese.

    In short, if every single nuclear weapon ever made were dropped for the purpose of maximizing casualties long and short term, you'd still only get maybe 1/8th of the world population, at most, which is chicken fed compared to the Black Death and Tamerlane.

  19. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Yes, they did a study in the early 60's that proved no one would survive. At best you'd have human lifespans shortened so badly that we'd be cavemen for millennia. Unable to mature past a society that could be conceivably be built by teenagers.

  20. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >tfw Australian
    Nuclear war would be a blessing at this point

  21. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    It would be over. All our old skills for survival are lost. If we got thrown back 100 years all the basedboy and hipster young generation won't be able to contribute anything.
    Entire civilization is built on a stack of cards. We cannot replace the stack at the bottom.. literally we are fucked.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >basedboy
      Kek. I meant basedboy*

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Fuck u PrepHole

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Good lord, first day?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Embarrassing

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        these are the people calling you "reddit"

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Rural areas will just devolve back to early-1900s level of civilization. Without having to worry about exporting enough food to feed city slickers and suburbanites, farmers will be able to get by with a lot less. Sure, it'll take an couple of generations to get back our ability to manufacture post-1950s tech, but it's not going to wipe out civilization.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >basedboy
      Kek. I meant basedboy*

      welcome newfriend don't forget to lurk before posting 🙂

  22. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Hunter gatherers at a minimum would probably not only be fine but better off due to hundreds of millions who would otherwise have continued to encroach on their habitat dying. And since nuclear winter is a meme there isn't any world-ending global climate impact that would affect them. But civilization itself would probably only be thrown back a couple of hundred years at most since there are plenty of settlements outside of large population centers which would be largely unaffected (supply issues aside) and could eventually rely on surviving caches of information like libraries to regain lost knowledge.

    The biggest issue would be reindustrialization since the easily accessible fossil fuels that enabled it the first time 'round are mostly used up and only the hard to extract stuff remains in large enough quantities.

  23. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Can we get back to the 80's, where there was a real fear for nuclear holocaust? 60k nukes in 1985 vs. 12k nukes in 2020. This is just boring.

  24. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    agriculture won't collapse in the united states. every american could be fed with less than 15% of just the grain production made in this country per year. if you've every lived in an area with an agricultural economy you would know that all factors of production from fertilizer, packing, and shipment exist out there. i'm not saying it would be a splendid state of affairs, but it wouldn't be a complete agricultural collapse.

    people have a tendency to either greatly underestimate or greatly overestimate that consequences of things they don't understand. what i'm trying to import to you all is that even if agricultural production drops by 50% or even 80%, every american would have enough to eat.

  25. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    thing to remember is that about 3/4 of both Russia and the US's stockpiles are in reserve, they're not ready to use. So to have a "total" nuclear exchange of 6000 warheads a piece, the real "extinction level event" that people talk about, the insanity would be that Russia and the US would use their 1500 active nuclear warheads on each other that are allowed by strategic arms limitation treaties, still be functional as a government and military, and decide, after having exchanged 1500 nuclear warheads, that that wasn't enough and they needed to get their reserves out of storage and use them as well.

    Now there's a non zero possibility that the 1500 each would get used on each other, and it'd be catastrophic, probably about 2 billion people would die world wide, but the chances of a 12000 nuclear warhead exchange that wipes out everyone? Basically 0. Because nobody's going to get out the reserves after we just blew each other the fuck up and hundreds of millions of people died in a matter of hours and with another half a billion people sure to die in the next 6 weeks from ARS.

    I'm 100% certain that in even a limited nuclear exchange, both sides would step back in horror at what they'd just done to begin with.

  26. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The prophesy of the Georgia Guidestones, keep world under 500 million would not occur. US only loses ability to have fast food on every corner.

    Air Force studied this in the 80s. We knew the US would drop to half population yet be back industrialized in nine months. Russia and China would suffer greatly and change governments. We keep command and control throughout with ability to continue to strike counter force if needed. Your tax dollars at work.

    If you're scared of incineration, move to Medford OR.

  27. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Yes, obviously. Move a few tens of kilometres upriver and build a new city. Done. We would have to go back to burning coal in steam engines for a while though, probably.

    The real concern is that a lot of the easily exploitable low-tech resource deposits are already tapped out. But this wouldn't stop anything, just slow it.

  28. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >big pop and bang
    >wat do now
    >no tendies on shelf
    >all must be lost

  29. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Something to consider:

    There is no humanitarian response to a nuke hitting a big city. From one moment to another millions are dead or on the direct path to death. The people who are not, are hurt and covered in radioactive aids. Hundred thousands of people will require medical assistance, but there's none coming because all big hospitals were in that city as well, and so they as well will die from perfectly treatable problems. Then famine sets in and the last percents of the city will violently struggle to defend their belongings, their neighborhoods or their food and women.

    So you see, even one nuke at a big city will wipe out 99% of the population there and by second hand effects in the direct vicinity. Now imagine that happens in every major city and do the math.
    The sheer chaos will also allow many questionable leaders to wage wars because nobody is looking making things worse. Things will go absolutely medieval.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      You forget, cities next to military bases enjoy an early warning system. I won't mention the exact numbers but let's just say we will have enough time to drive away from ground zero, get away from windows get to shelters, get to basements and/or prepare for impact as best you can. Obviously some of these reactions aren't going to help much but you should realize fallout shelters are intended to be used for a few months. After that you could theoretically get somewhat close to the impact point and be relatively okay.

  30. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Depends on who survives.

    There's a good chance the Chinese will survive and thrive as they're bugs to begin with. Meanwhile America maybe same as Fallout and thus trapped in haze of radiated land for the next 1000+ years as the remnants of civilization devolves into caveman mutants.

    China will grow larger and more prosperous and reach the skies to colonize space/mars thus creating a lasting human empire.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >fling one at three gorges dam
      >immediately kill a billion people, half basically instantly and the other half within a month
      It's like you didn't even read the posts in the thread and are paid to be here.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Whoever fires it will not exist, their race/ethnicity/identity/history will not exist in the future human history that the chinese will write about.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          I for one hope it's Taiwan that does it, as they're #1

  31. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Likely an extinction even for all mammals and most other animals, as well. Earth would probably be taken down to algae, fungus and other forms of basic plant life, and of course some very resiliant insects.

    It is possible that some humans might survive in very, very remote regions for a period of time, but they would have to be totally self sufficient and be able to last a really long nuclear winter. This scenario is unlikely, though.

  32. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The cope in this thread that a couple dozen megaton+ bombs going off on American soil wouldn't bring this country to it's end is astounding. A fucking hurrican in New Orleans took out the city for months. Imagine that in every major city and the city is leveled, not just flooded. It's game over, gays. Anyone not dug in like ticks in the boonies with 10 years of freeze-dried/canned food is fucked.

  33. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >In the event of a total nuclear exchange, does humanity have any chance of surviving, adapting, and rebuilding?
    Do you remember when you though a global pandemic would mean armed foragers navigating the decaying ruins of cities and we got covid and the closest we got was some deserted city 6AM drone footage of NY and London during lockdown and some half assed burger bong and frog commie riots about moronkneeling or something and some vatnik spam about this injection that no b ody took anyway that was going to make everyone into a zombie but never did? You remember that? Good because prepare for the same disappointment. Some people will die but everyone will forget about that 12 months later and aside form the equivalent of three months of lockdown for retarded fallout alerts and some cunt waving a geiger counter over you when you go to the shops and the fucking chip and pin ration cart thing that only recharges on a Thursday every second week if you are not one of the 3% that dies because you live one of the places that got hit and thrashed life pretty much goes on and everything is over with the radiation checks after a couple of years. In fact the biggest event five years later is the insider trading scandal on the investment land parcels. The population is already nearly 9 billion ten years afterwards, a billion more than when the war happened and the land that was in places that took direct hits is attracting speculative investment along with jokes about it because it is no longer too soon. What's left of Russia is a global national park with resource explorations franchises run by China Europe and the USA like Berlin. There are cool massive reindeers hers in parts of it now and eskimo like native peoples living primitive header lifestyles in Siberia no one had ever heard of are just about the only trace of people left there. Putin has become a word for suicide. His daughter changed her name and is a preschool dance teacher in Germany.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >t. Actual time traveller.

  34. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I don't get Fallout 4. What morivated them to make all the factions as boring as they possibly could?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Because
      A. They simply didn’t want to put the work into it, just throw in a slave allegory(the rail road), nasty racists(the brotherhood) irredeemable retarded slavers(the institute), and a neutral option with no substance to force you to choose the other three, and bam a game that will make billions
      B. The new fans that only knew fallout 3 don’t care, they just want to consuuuuume
      C. Nuance takes skill and Todd and team are about as subtle and skilled as writers as well a nuke, so we get bald faced allegories and the depth of a kiddie pool so the normies aren’t scared.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Money. Dumb down the game beyond even the level to which it was dumbed down for the previous 3d releases to the point it's no longer even an rpg, throw all of the money at making it look nice and having combat not be completely stilted dogshit, then run a hundred million dollar marketing campaign and make billions cashing in on your fans trusting you to not make a total disgrace of an entry to the franchise. Then do it again with the next release but make it multiplayer and have it run on servers held together by the intestines of the hamsters that power them and triple-dip on every absolute troglodyte dumb enough to even accept the game for free by charging for cosmetics, expanded storage necessary to actually enjoy the game and make real progress, and the ability to have it either not be a multiplayer game at all or be one where you don't have to deal with people running hacks blatantly and stealing everything from your inventory just by looking at you and hitting a key combo.

      I sincerely hope everyone responsible for the decisions that lead to what was released pass away as soon as possible of and only of entirely natural causes specifically because God was so disgusted with them he decided enough was enough.

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