Nuclear War And After Effects

What would be the realistic impact that a large scale nuclear exchange would have? How devastated would civilization be? How lethal would the ensuing fallout and general radiation be?

I'm not talking some small scale exchange either. Like two third world shitholes flinging a couple hundred bombs at each other. I'm talking from modern to height of cold war era stockpiles. Would there be anything left?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >all this spamming of muh nooks
    Don't you have anything better to do? like at all?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      At least I'm not trying to ruin yet another thread by making it about Russia and Ukraine like you.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >nuclear war
        >its not about Russia
        moron.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >he thinks russia has enough nukes for a nuclear war
          vatnik detected

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Ok, if you don't like the word "war" russia is still the most dangerous candidate for the potential nuclear exchange.
            Whose nuclear capabilities are you taking into account for making predictions otherwise? Pakistan? Nork? Israel?

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              North Korea are the only ones who have successfully tested an ICBM recently

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              nta but china will have a thousand nukes very soon. If just one country launched their nukes then everyone will. Which is why nuclear war will never happen. Even with smaller, crazier nations like best korea.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Even with smaller, crazier nations like best korea.
                They don't have enough rockets to get through our defenses. What is the strategical advantage of starting the nuclear exchange with Russia/China because of several downed rockets?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                maybe the US air defense can shoot down some ICBMs but Japan might be fricked. Or they can find some fanatics and put them on a cargo plane and just blow themselves up over a japanese city.

                There are like a thousand ways to deploy a nuclear weapon that doesn't involve an ICBM.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                basically best korea nukes japan or something like san francisco or LA and the US nukes them in return triggering china to launch nukes at taiwan or the US which triggers russia to launch nukes which triggers pakistan and india to launch nukes. And now ~~*suppposedly*~~ Iran has a nuke which they sneak into israel using a truck.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          You're clearly making it about Russia-Ukraine and all of its propaganda shitposting from both sides. Stop posting offtopic shit.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      At least I'm not trying to ruin yet another thread by making it about Russia and Ukraine like you.

      Quit blueballing us you homosexuals.

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Let's nuke Putin and find out

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Good times.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      We don't need to destroy our ancestors legacy for this to become a reality.

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >cold war era stockpiles
    What we can see of Russia's cold war stockpiles is in deplorable condition or decomissioned. Since Russia is more concerned about outward power projection and we can aleady see that failing, nukes themselves must be in even more miserable condition. This leads to the question if there are any operational Russian nukes left.

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Best case scenario? Massive economic upheaval. Tens to hundreds of millions dead in the initial exchange, 1-2 billion more dead around the world from starvation, lots of little wars from smaller states looking to settle old scores and achieve new ambitions now that the big players are distracted.

    Wait sorry, I said best case scenario didn't I? Best case scenario you have time to utter the phrase "what the frick was th-" just before you're instantly annihilated in atomic fire letting you finally escape the simulation.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Best case scenario? Massive economic upheaval. Tens to hundreds of millions dead in the initial exchange, 1-2 billion more dead around the world from starvation, lots of little wars from smaller states looking to settle old scores and achieve new ambitions now that the big players are distracted.
      That's not just the best case scenario for this situation, that's the best case scenario for ALL situations.

      >Best case scenario you have time to utter the phrase "what the frick was th-" just before you're instantly annihilated in atomic fire
      Ah, I see the problem. An urbanoid.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Ah, I see the problem. An urbanoid.

        Hey moron living in the middle of nowhere, guess where the nuclear silos that are going to get saturated by nukes are located.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Post gun

          even my small town of 15k in the midwest is considered a nuclear target because of some small fuel stockpile we have on the outskirts of town.

          Your small town will run out of resources just like the rest of the country. Especially since you will be forgotten for larger population centers and cut of logistically wise from being in the middle of fricking nowhere. You will have to pack up and move to makeshift cities where humanitarian aid can get to.

          There are 310 cities with populations over 100,000. There is no scenario in the fricking universe where China or Russia can even hit that many targets, let alone the some four thousand smaller cities you queer. China and Russia together would be lucky to score triple digit hits of any significance.

          >Your small town will run out of resources just like the rest of the country. Especially since you will be forgotten for larger population centers and cut of logistically wise from being in the middle of fricking nowhere. You will have to pack up and move to makeshift cities where humanitarian aid can get to.
          You homosexual noguns bugmen would die in your hives. The humans, the people who live far off from your hives, would not only NOT ship you the food and supplies you need every single day to survive, we'd wall you off easily and you'll gleefully tear each other apart for food like the homosexual garbage you are.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I live in a small farming town that produces mostly corn and basedbeans. Farmers just don't magically have the seed to produce anything other than what they specialize in and even then they have to buy it from retailers. Plus you need gas to run all those combines and tractors which you simply won't have.

            There are like 2 orchards in my town and a couple of nurseries that sell vegetable starts and seeds. There is one grocery store and one walmart. Where the frick do you think you are going to get the resources to feed 15k people practically overnight? Probably less than a thousand of us have livestock but feeding livestock would become a problem too.

            There isn't a large enough deer population to feed that many people and every hunter in the area would be out there trying to get a kill. And there are a lot of fricking hunters in my town. Most of the ponds and lakes around the reservoir are artificially stocked for fisherman so that's not a real source of food eiher.

            Only coastal cities and towns will be able to rely on fishing for food. anyone stuck in small towns midwest are just as fricked as the big cities.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        even my small town of 15k in the midwest is considered a nuclear target because of some small fuel stockpile we have on the outskirts of town.

        Your small town will run out of resources just like the rest of the country. Especially since you will be forgotten for larger population centers and cut of logistically wise from being in the middle of fricking nowhere. You will have to pack up and move to makeshift cities where humanitarian aid can get to.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Best case scenario? Massive economic upheaval. Tens to hundreds of millions dead in the initial exchange, 1-2 billion more dead around the world from starvation, lots of little wars from smaller states looking to settle old scores and achieve new ambitions now that the big players are distracted.
      That's not just the best case scenario for this situation, that's the best case scenario for ALL situations.

      >Best case scenario you have time to utter the phrase "what the frick was th-" just before you're instantly annihilated in atomic fire
      Ah, I see the problem. An urbanoid.

      I hope Israel's air defense protects them

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >nuclear war
    Every country except the United States would be destroyed. So I’ll still be on my couch eating chips.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I think most nuclear powers don't aim at the middle of the Amazon forest, people there are probably safe.

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Every time shit goes bad for russia we get a "wot if nook" thread, curious

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Devastation would be the loss of the global supply chain or, rather, the demand would completely bend over supply and frick it to death. Many states that have to be food importers would just fall into immediate anarchy. Easily tens of millions would be dead in the initial exchange, enough that it would cause substantial, measurable, and permanent changes to entire demographics in the countries struck.

    The big players would be crippled so every state with a frozen conflict (who more than likely wasn't nuked) would seize the opportunity. States like Russia during the cold war were fully committed to keep fighting after MAD because counter to all the art propaganda, there can be winners in a nuclear war.

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Minimal. It would take around 4 years to recover to prewar GDP, two weeks for radiation to dissipate and reconstruction to begin. It will be difficult for even a full nuclear exchange at peak 1980s arsenal to kill more than a million people in either the US or Soviet Union

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >nuke goes off in NYC
      >10-20 million dead
      >It will be difficult for even a full nuclear exchange at peak 1980s arsenal to kill more than a million people in either the US or Soviet Union

      homie wut?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Can you explain how a single warhead would kill everyone in the NY metro census area from Pike County to the end of Long Island?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        We have only ONE single example to estimate the death toll... that's it.

        And there like half of the death toll was because of the firestorm that came right after because the Japs still built everything with (mostly untreated) wood and were not exactly the most stable structures. A pure area of effect only tells half of the story for any resulting death toll.

        10-20 million dead... based on what?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Hiroshima: 15kt TNT
          >W87 warhead: 300-475kt
          >10 per ICBM
          >Russian warheads are of similar yield

          You are beyond fricking moronic.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Blast radius doesn't scale directly with yield
            The biggest problem wouldn't be millions being killed directly, it would be millions receiving what should be survivable injuries from light-moderate blast damage (splinters, glass, rubble and burns closer to ground zero) completely overwhelming triage services.
            Modern nuclear arsenals generally aren't numerous enough to be aimed at cities wholesale but even a few warheads lobbed at population centres would cripple any nation's medical capacity.

            The main hope would be that common sense prevails. The goal of a nuclear war isn't MAD, it's to remove the other player's nukes from the table while preserving yours. post-exchange the side that still has nukes can basically demand whatever they want.
            Randomly levelling cities doesn't help you win the game-it takes your bombs off the table and doesn't destroy any of theirs

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >post-exchange the side that still has nukes can basically demand whatever they want.
              Suppose the side without nukes stubbornly refuses? You already nuked them, it's not like it can get that much worse.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You can just keep nuking over and over again them until they comply, or even launch a conventional invasion after attaining air superiority (which should be easy enough since destroying air-bases is already a part of a counter-force strategy).

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >*detonates a couple kilometers above your city*
              nothin personal

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Inverse square law buddy. A 150kt nuke is actually only four times as powerful as a 15kt nuke. A megaton device is only 10 times as powerful as a 10kt device.

            Modern cities are also much more sturdy and fire resistant than one would think. Blast effects don't flatly radiate, they can be channeled and deflected by terrain. Likewise heat effects are going to be blocked by skyscrapers. Radiation from airbursts is almost a non-factor.

            Killing all of Manhattan would require dozens of bombs, not just one.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              A 400+ kt nuke can easily be detonated at the perfect altitude to create a 20+ psi mach stem. More then enough to completely destroy most buildings in nyc

              One MIRVd nuke focussed entirely on manhattan would easily flatten it

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Let me guess, you're using nukemap, aren't you? That site is nowhere near accurate.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                NTA but nukemap is good for getting a general idea of what to expect, it's just not to be understood as an absolute guaranteed rule, as the website's parameters take no real account of topography or weather.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Inverse square law buddy
              That applies to the radiation, not to the fricking blast wave dipshit. The fricking fireball alone from a 200kt detonation would probably be larger than the entire blast radius of Hiroshima. You can't be this fricking stupid.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              1.1 mill dead, 1.7 mill injured.
              250kt air burst over central park.
              Fireball radius 610m
              5psi range 4.4km
              1psi range 12.5km
              3rd degree burns out to 6.7km

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Let's be honest, the only real loss here is the destruction of the museums and the animals in the zoo.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Correct.
                Here's an estimated 15mt device.
                Here's your 2+million dead

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >an order of magnitude increase in yield only doubles the amount of casualties
                Kahn was right about the diminishing returns of overkill, it's no wonder modern warheads are only in the 1mt range.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                There's no need for massive bombs anymore as the cep we can achieve is an equal order of magnitude smaller than the 60s/70s so you don't need to compensate.
                Cities aren't the targets - silos are. You don't need a mt range device to take out a silo - all you need to do is damage the hatch operating gear and that silo is out of action.
                You can do that with high kt devices.
                Mt devices are retained for C2 node destruction (Yara mt, the Russian eqv of NORAD bunker)

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >3rd degree burns out to 6.7km
                And it's a hotter burn since it's an H-bomb with more calories/sq^cm.
                All the glass scrapers snap open and burn the paper, plastic, people. The asphalt catches on fire of the roads and roofs. The wood telephone poles smoke and may ignite also.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Hiroshima: 15kt TNT
          >W87 warhead: 300-475kt
          >10 per ICBM
          >Russian warheads are of similar yield

          You are beyond fricking moronic.

          No one who lives within a day's walk of a city is a Human.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Yes, but modern H-bombs project a hotter burn in a larger area with more cals/cm than the little 15-20 kt. ones in WW II.
          Modern cities are full of burnables like asphalt, glass windows break on skyscrapers and what's inside sparky? Fuel, people, paper, furniture of WOOD, and a shit ton of plastic things.
          Plastic burns you know and 80% of the commodity shit we buy is plastic.

          Nobody looks into what the forests would be like near these fire stormed cities. Who is going to be around to stop that ?
          That leads to the nuclear winter scenario where the smoke just blots out 70-80% of the sunlight.

          Consider the dams being busted from possible impacts. There's a crowd pleaser of secondary damage to a whole river and the cities downstream.

          And worst of all, Japan didn't have any nuclear reactor plants. But if one was struck today, it's Chernobyl 2.0, super fallout boogaloo. A few nuke plants being struck could poison a multi state area or a small country permanently.

          EMP takes out the grids, welcome to 1900 tech levels except some parts of the military left.
          The amount of engineers and technicians have been reduce to 1-10% of current manpower. Good luck rebuilding a civilization/society with that.

          Others have noted that just a 100-250 tactical nuke exchange between India/Pakistan might just do the rest of the world in.

          Updated weather models from smoke from nukes projected into the stratosphere shows that it heats itself from the sun.
          Creating it's own weather and jet-like stream, spreading across from the Northern hemisphere to Southern in 1-2 weeks.
          So the idiots talking about being in the Amazon or New Zealand are done for.

          We are still drinking in the fallout from the 1000 or so above ground nuke tests from 1945-1969. Only about two half lives gone of 5-10 to be zero safe for Cesium-137 and Sr-90.
          Tritium levels from H-bombs tested has gone to 4.5 half lives, and is barely a threat now. 54 years later since 1970.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Scientific American
            why not cite National Geographic or the New York Post at this rate

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >counterforce only
              >fallout radiation pulled out of butthole
              lmao

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >It will be difficult for even a full nuclear exchange at peak 1980s arsenal to kill more than a million people in either the US or Soviet Union

      150,000 people were killed in the initial vaporizations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. You are seriously trying to get us to believe that a full exchange and depletion of the US and Soviet stockpiles would have struggled to kill 7 times that. Are you fricking serious right now

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        New York City isn't made of wood and paper. You'll notice in a photo of the damage at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the few concrete buildings are in relatively good shape. Real life is not Fallout 3.

        Denial of nuclear winter is pushed by armchair war hawks who are totally fine with subjecting much of the planet to devastation to maintain the image of supremacy. It is literally a form of denialism born forth from the uncomfortable but persistent possibility that their entire world could be unraveled if geopolitical opponents were to act irrationally, which is uncomforting.

        Nuclear winter is a leftie talking point so thoroughly debunked that even global warming shills won't touch it.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >New York City isn't made of wood and paper. You'll notice in a photo of the damage at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the few concrete buildings are in relatively good shape. Real life is not Fallout 3.

          ...What? No, of the buildings left over at all most of them were concrete. They were verifiably NOT in relatively good shape, most of them collapsed and the people inside them were largely killed. These weapons were incredibly inefficient and the blast released by a modern nuke has a yield 30 times higher. If you think the high-rises and shitty apartment buildings in the NYC city center wouldn't be totally fricking obliterated then you are an absolute grade A brainlet. I mean what kind of fricktarded delusion do you have to be in to seriously believe this shit

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Nuclear winter is a leftie talking point so thoroughly debunked that even global warming shills won't touch it.

          Ah I see, the reason you don't believe the possibility of a nuclear winter is specifically politically motivated, and not informed by analyzation of the data. So we can really discount all of your posts, being that it's just talking points and not an actual opinion.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Da, my name is Mikhail Amerikansky from Arizona oblast and I agree. We should stop provoking the mighty Russian bear and disarm to save ourselves from their retaliatory vengeance.

            >New York City isn't made of wood and paper. You'll notice in a photo of the damage at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the few concrete buildings are in relatively good shape. Real life is not Fallout 3.

            ...What? No, of the buildings left over at all most of them were concrete. They were verifiably NOT in relatively good shape, most of them collapsed and the people inside them were largely killed. These weapons were incredibly inefficient and the blast released by a modern nuke has a yield 30 times higher. If you think the high-rises and shitty apartment buildings in the NYC city center wouldn't be totally fricking obliterated then you are an absolute grade A brainlet. I mean what kind of fricktarded delusion do you have to be in to seriously believe this shit

            As a gauge of your intelligence, can you tell me what is wrong with this image?

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              The only thing wrong with this image is that its unfortunately not real
              >TOTAL CITY SLICKER DEATH

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              As a gauge of your intelligence, explain how in the frick a 450kt nuclear warhead wouldn't totally destroy everything in its initial blast radius of the airburst. Go ahead and explain the documents in its creation where it was judged to be capable of withstanding a fricking nuclear bomb moron

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Da, my name is Mikhail Amerikansky from Arizona oblast and I agree. We should stop provoking the mighty Russian bear and disarm to save ourselves from their retaliatory vengeance.

              QED. This is entirely political in nature. You are incapable of actually explaining why it is false other than that the notion is Russian disinfo, go ahead and say more stupid shit I like listening to the monkey ooks

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >can you tell me what is wrong with this image?
              Nta, the middle burst looks more like an underwater shot than a ground burst. For that matter, the mushroom cloud on the right looks like it’s got a base surge going on.

              Then there’s the isolated smoke plume, middle left, with no apparent reason. The “firestorm” at the top is too uniform. It’s the result of several hundred bombers dropping thousands of incendiaries over a period of maybe a couple of hours. Probably thermite incendiaries, since it looks like a lot of concrete is burning.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Man I wonder whatever happened to the Peak Oil Schizo poster from a few years back. Maybe he finally took his meds.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Lol, you are a fricking moron.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >fricking moron
            is how you were conceived

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I kind of want to see it

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >What would be the realistic impact that a large scale nuclear exchange would have?
    1) Nuclear Winter
    How long exactly it would last and how low temperatures would go is open to debate, but it is real and if anyone says it is a Soviet conspiracy they are a gay.
    2) Destruction of the Ozone Layer
    Even once the cloud cover dissipates there would be significant damage to the Ozone Layer resulting in unfiltered UV exposure that could last for a very long time.
    3) Rebuilding
    With most people dead, sick with radiation, or injured; infrastructure smashed and transportation collapsed; stockpiles destroyed or quickly depleted; etc etc it would be nigh impossible to organise reconstruction.
    4) Breakdown of civilization
    The British tv film Threads is based on a study the government did a few years before production of the effect of an exchange between America and the Soviets, Britain would be utterly devastated and effectively wiped out.

    It's like trying to build an ambulance while you're on the side of the road in an upside down car with a broken hip.
    >How lethal would the ensuing fallout and general radiation be?
    The biggest issue with fallout is it being in the soil, it will go into the ground water and your food is grown in it. So you have to dig it up all that soil and bury it. Millionaires acres in the scenario you are talking about. People are dead, sick, or injured, the able bodied are maybe working on 1000 calorie rations, there is no fuel, the roads and railways are smashed, and where do you bury it?
    >Like two third world shitholes flinging a couple hundred bombs at each other.
    A study a few years back determined that even a small exchange between India and Pakistan, 50 warheads each or maybe it was 50 total I forget, could trigger a Nuclear Winter because of their position on the equator.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Nuclear winter is a Russian/Soviet lie deliberately falsified and based on bogus theories that was circulated in order to support groups in the west calling for western nuclear disarmament during the cold war. It is most often posted here knowingly by Russian disinformation spammers. There have been two and a half thousand nuclear weapons detonated on land sea and air, including ones far larger than any that are in use today and we are all still here.

      Generally nuclear winter has also become a very tedious topic here, its repeatedly spammed as something 'real' primarily by people who are fully aware it was a soviet here disinformation hoax to support groups such as CND that were soviet proxies administered by Russian quislings. and there were many such Russian controlled quisling groups, such as the greenham common women in the UK. It would be refreshing in this new era if the deliberate Russian disinformation posters were actually killed, they are mostly fully aware of what they are doing, support the Kremlin and have made a conscious decision to play the role or traitors. There were always such quislings on the extreme left (and now also the MTG populist qanon right). The suppositions of nuclear winter are based on theories that everything on teh surface of the earth burns and goes so high into the atmosphere that it does not fall down but circulates for years. In the theory oil wells were postulated as a causal factor. However during the gulf war Saddam lit his oil wells and none of it stayed in the atmosphere. Early in its history the nuclear winter lie actually fooled a few people including Carl Sagan all of whom subsequently stated it was not credible.

      https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp87t00413r000100170003-9

      This type of thread is spammed enough by paid Russian spammers and groups that are controlled by them. Fascinatingly enough Russia is trying to resuscitate the nuclear winter lie. This indicates Russia is afraid.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Denial of nuclear winter is pushed by armchair war hawks who are totally fine with subjecting much of the planet to devastation to maintain the image of supremacy. It is literally a form of denialism born forth from the uncomfortable but persistent possibility that their entire world could be unraveled if geopolitical opponents were to act irrationally, which is uncomforting.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Nuclear winter was proven false multiple times by analyzing everything from massive wildfires to volcanic eruptions to the torching of the oilfields by Saddam in 91. None of the real results from those things came anywhere close to the predictions made by the theory of nuclear winter. You would require literal cataclysmic events like 10km wide asteroid impacts or Flood basalt eruptions over hundreds to thousands of years to get nuclear winter like conditions.

          As for any "leftie talking point" mentions. It is true that Western proponents of nuclear winter used it to try to deter nuclear war and was also used as a fear tactic by the Soviets as well. It's just another case of actual science being swept away for politically driven scientism. Which is to say:

          Science:
          >2+2=X

          Scientism:
          >2+X=Our predetermined answer

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          it's amazing to me seeing this sort of inane shit parroted on /k/ of all places. the facts do not support, and have never supported nuclear winter. if you dumb fricks were right, we would be still fricked from Mt St Helens. and yet, that never happened. there are much more measured and practical answers to this question, but it doesn't sound as scary or interesting. I could maybe understand it if you were doing it from the stand point of explicitly just dissuading stupid shit with nukes, but you're saying it has to be true because it hurts your feelings that someone might suggest it isn't. this sort of communist style attempts at thought control are fricking stupid anymore in the age of the internet.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            t. diversity hire government shill

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              I don’t think the media would pay so much attention to Russian nuclear drills if the “woke left” had some Vault Tec ambition to downplay nuclear war.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Where is the global cooling you morons predicted would result from the burning Kuwaiti oil wells? Where is it?

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              explain to me how you think the effects of nuclear winter are real, but millions and millions of acres burning in Canada didn't cause any problems in the same vein. you're not applying consistent logic. you're just acting on cold war instilled hysteria.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                it's amazing to me seeing this sort of inane shit parroted on /k/ of all places. the facts do not support, and have never supported nuclear winter. if you dumb fricks were right, we would be still fricked from Mt St Helens. and yet, that never happened. there are much more measured and practical answers to this question, but it doesn't sound as scary or interesting. I could maybe understand it if you were doing it from the stand point of explicitly just dissuading stupid shit with nukes, but you're saying it has to be true because it hurts your feelings that someone might suggest it isn't. this sort of communist style attempts at thought control are fricking stupid anymore in the age of the internet.

                They are actual paid Russian operatives, or worse, ideological stooges (who do it for free) who reflexively support the Soviet Union at any cost to lessen America's position of superiority.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I just don't get it, man. I really don't. no one could possibly be sane and imagine coming here to piss in an ocean of piss is a worthwhile endeavor. and yet, here we are. why can't we just be left alone to our autistic analysis of shit like this. why?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                imageboards allow free discussion which can counter promoted narratives that could take think tanks millions of dollars to push with just shitty memes and autism. Everyone from Mossad to the FBI/CIA to Ukraine to Russia and beyond come here to flood this site. Both to push their narratives and also to shit up all of the boards to discourage conversation and destroy community via destruction of board culture. I said this years ago and now it seems to be true, even the mods and jannies seem to have been infiltrated and will gleefully delete and ban anon's on false pretense like being offtopic when in reality, they're just disagreeing with shills.

                Welcome to the nu-internet. It's a cyberpunk hell but even worse because it's just gay.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Demoralization and propaganda can never, ever cease. This is the marxist-leninist mindset, subversion must go on incessantly, you can never let up for even a second or you lose, therefore you must constantly die on the most outrageous of hills and never admit defeat even when demonstrably proven wrong and public embarrassed beyond reckoning, you just have to go onto the next agitprop narrative.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I saw Mt. St. Helens in person from 45 miles away. The ash did land in Moscow 3-7 days later. It was equivalent to 1 10MT detonation without nuclear fallout.
            However, it was not cast to the stratosphere like a nuke, where it doesn't rain up there.
            That's the difference.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Particulates shot up from a nuke are heavier than air and will fall, regardless of how high up they go unless they reach Earth escape velocity. What little would actually stay up in the upper atmosphere after a nuclear exchange would disperse due to winds which would have virtually zero effect on the climate. You would need Mt. Everest sized asteroids or a super volcano type of event to fling up enough shit to have any effect on the climate. Nuclear winter is a meme in every way.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        why is this vatnik subversion always only one way? where is the burger subversion rotting puccia from inside out poisoning it with stupid self annihilating ideas

        most importantly, why do burger stubbornly since pre ww2 times refuse to acknowledge this asiatic cancer and what a absolute poisonous wienerroach nest it is

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Take a wild fricking guess

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >where is the burger subversion rotting puccia from inside out poisoning it with stupid self annihilating ideas
          "All is okay. Russia is winning. I wouldn't worry about it."

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >why is this vatnik subversion always only one way? where is the burger subversion rotting puccia from inside out poisoning it with stupid self annihilating ideas

          Communism is already a suicidal ideology, no need to help them along.

          >most importantly, why do burger stubbornly since pre ww2 times refuse to acknowledge this asiatic cancer and what a absolute poisonous wienerroach nest it is

          Russia is too far removed from North America for most Americans to grasp the depth of their Oriental depravity and barbarism.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Did you ever stop to think why the Soviet Union dissolved? Haven't you wondered why there is so much Russophobic sentiment in Poland, Ukraine and the Baltic states? It is because of the CIA. They have poisoned Mother Russia’s children against her.
          So why did the CIA succeed where the KGB failed? I don't know, but personally I think it's because Stalin didn't kill enough people.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It was scientists at MIT, Cornell, that met the Soviets in 1983. Even newer weather models updated in 2005-2010 show even worse effects and confirms the 1983 hypothesis.

        Next thing you'll say is that it's a liberal subversion conspiracy. right? Science is right whether you believe it or not.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >TRUST THE SOIENCE!
          Nothin' doin' Lousy Fauci.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Since you are a liar propagating (glowingly) disinformation for a Russian dictator I think you should be killed.

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >What would be the realistic impact that a large scale nuclear exchange would have?
    About the same as covid lockdown and 911, there would be a large recession and inflation, fallout would cease to be a threat to most people within a relatively short time for most of it a month or too. Lockdowns and martial law. However things generally should be relatively normal after a year in the US/G7/EU and even ground zero sites could begin reclamation in five years/ The economic shock to china, india and Africa and the delay in food exports and trade from the US and EU would result in mass famine in brown nations. Russia as a protagonist would cease to exist as its population is 87% concentrated in a small number of towers with populations over 50000. No one would care. Airburst nukes are not particularly dirty and the fallout form them has become pretty much harmless unless you eat it after a month. Equally large reconstruction occurred in Europe post WW2, places like Berlin and Warsaw were effectively flattened for example. Yet by the 1970s they had been rebuilt. People live and work in Hiroshima and Nagasaki today. For most people it would be lockdown covid 2.0 plus great recession. There would be a massive economic boom after that though due to the stimulus from the reconstruction.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >There would be a massive economic boom after that though due to the stimulus from the reconstruction.

      America would straight-up collapse into civil war in the aftermath of a large-scale nuclear exchange.

      You wouldn't have reconstruction, you would have government authority disintegrating due to 90% of the line of succession at least 50% of the military being dead and a bunch of successor governments (i.e. bandits LARPing as a government) killing each other for control of dwindling resources.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Finally, my dream to become a warlord of the plains who controls the corn and its ethanol can become reality.

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Demographic time-warp back to 1850, RETVRN of tribes.

  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Semi related but has anyone ever written a story about the global south reacting to a nuclear exchange? Imagine you're just vibing in Argentina and suddenly NATO and Russia nuke each other. Aside from some issues with fallout you're basically untouched but the two largest world powers just basically commited suicide.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The global south still suffers heavily from the sudden collapse of global trade. Very few nations are actually self sufficient as-is, and most of them are in the northern hemisphere.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You should watch on the beach.

  15. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    globohomosexual superior would emerge and dominate

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >I am mutant man homo
      brutal self takedown tbh

  16. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I'll break it down by region/country

    >United States

    Collapses into civil war the very next day

    >Russia

    Ceases to exist as an entity entirely

    >China

    Decisive Tang Victory

    >United Kingdom

    Threads IRL

    >rest of Western Europe

    Substantial, but comparatively less severe damage and loss of life thanks to a relative lack of strategic targets

    >Africa

    Entire continent descends into cannibalism in less than a week

    >Japan

    Kyushu and Honshu sustain massive loss of life thanks to the majority of US Forces Japan's bases being housed there, the other two islands offer less severe damage.

    >South Korea

    North Korean nukes thankfully fizzled out in their launch tubes

    >South America

    Becomes the new hub of global culture due to being the only part of the planet to sustain no direct damage, followed by a subsequent mass exodus from Western Europe and the US of surviving human capital

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Africa
      >Entire continent descends into cannibalism in less than a week
      Who would waste nukes on Africa?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Depends on how far it goes. If its just Pakistan and India chimping out I personally don’t see things going much further outside of that sphere of shit. Russia would be seen at a level even worse than North Korea and either have immediate counter strikes launched if not a full invasion to the Kremlin itself, but considering how so much of their power historically relied on their image over anything else I also doubt much will come of that, as their stockpile is almost certainly completely degraded and failure to mass it at any significant levels will pretty much place them as some monkey country forever. As far as China goes that depends on how bad Taiwan fever strikes it in this decade, but given that a lot of PRC apparatchik types just want to sit on their laurels and get those fat stacks that all boils down to Xi himself. As far as anything afterwards, I’d say expect immediate martial law should anything strike the US itself in any significant levels. Anyone who seriously thinks DC is just going to up and go away in such an event is either a coping hillbilly or moronic. Global economy will also suffer hard since trade will be all sorts of fricked any way you look at it, but its not like things will go Fallout or some shit.

        Probably from outside trade just stopping overnight.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        See

        Depends on how far it goes. If its just Pakistan and India chimping out I personally don’t see things going much further outside of that sphere of shit. Russia would be seen at a level even worse than North Korea and either have immediate counter strikes launched if not a full invasion to the Kremlin itself, but considering how so much of their power historically relied on their image over anything else I also doubt much will come of that, as their stockpile is almost certainly completely degraded and failure to mass it at any significant levels will pretty much place them as some monkey country forever. As far as China goes that depends on how bad Taiwan fever strikes it in this decade, but given that a lot of PRC apparatchik types just want to sit on their laurels and get those fat stacks that all boils down to Xi himself. As far as anything afterwards, I’d say expect immediate martial law should anything strike the US itself in any significant levels. Anyone who seriously thinks DC is just going to up and go away in such an event is either a coping hillbilly or moronic. Global economy will also suffer hard since trade will be all sorts of fricked any way you look at it, but its not like things will go Fallout or some shit.

        Probably from outside trade just stopping overnight.

        Africa is gripped by famine and poverty on a good day brought to you by USAID, the moment the bombs fall, the aid packages stop.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      otra coronacion de gloria

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This can't be allowed. We should all agree to point some nukes at the Latinos so they don't catch an ego or something.

  17. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    depends on how much countervalue is done, I honestly am of the belief that a nuclear conflict would be mostly counterforce with countervalue being limited

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What is that in Louisiana that requires a counterforce strike?
      >Everything else makes sense, being either a silo or sub base or the nuke plant in TX.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Barksdale AFB, home of the 2nd Bomb Wing and 44 B52s.

        Looking at that map there's also no was JBLM and San Diego aren't catching warheads as well

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Hopefully they hurl a couple of missiles at Nog Orleans and Baton Rouge while they're at it.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          JBMDL would also probably catch one because of the massive airborne tanker fleets they have

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          No way in hell Norfolk, Newport News and Langley AFB aren't either.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Barksdale AFB, home of the 2nd Bomb Wing and 44 B52s.

            Looking at that map there's also no was JBLM and San Diego aren't catching warheads as well

            Herman Kahn posits in a counterforce exchange that in a "rational" nuclear war, particularly if the United States is struck first in a "surprise" attack, that Russians (or Chinese, such as it may be) may leave certain strategic targets that are in close proximity to population centers or the government/economic infrastructure (e.g. DC and NYC) untouched as part of post-attack blackmail, holding these combinations of force projection and demographic value hostage in order to obtain a negotiated peace in a purely ideal scenario (for the Soviet Union at the time of writing).

            Obviously, Kahn admits that this is an extraordinarily optimistic outlook on a Soviet first strike, but it is pointedly plausible; the USSR (or, by now, Russia) decimates the USA's force projection ability at zero to minimal loss to itself while browbeating their adversary into a cautious, fearful, and defensive posture, hesitant to engage in any further conflict and effectively defanged and rendered "neutral" in order to avoid any such catastrophe again, if not rendered potentially suzerain. Of course he was arguing by the standards of 1960; the odds of such an event occurring in the present are astronomical but are not to be discounted totally.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              DC and NYC are too valuable targets NOT to destroy. Incinerate just those two and America would suffer an economic malaise from the aftermath that lasts decades easily.

              Anyone who thinks Russia or China is going to pass up on that opportunity is straight up delusional

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              How many authoritarian governments are going to keep the idea of "if we cause enough damage the weak Americans will just surrender!"?

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >suzerain
              Learned a new word. Thanks.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                NTA but I get a chance to post one of my favorite Cormac McCarthy posts:
                >The judge wrote on and then he folded the ledger shut and laid it to one side and pressed his hands together and passed them down over his nose and mouth and placed them palm down on his knees.
                >Whatever exists, he said. Whatever in creation exists without my knowledge exists without my consent.
                >He looked about at the dark forest in which they were bivouacked. He nodded toward the specimens he’d collected. These anonymous creatures, he said, may seem little or nothing in the world. Yet the smallest crumb can devour us. Any smallest thing beneath yon rock out of men’s knowing. Only nature can enslave man and only when the existence of each last entity is routed out and made to stand naked before him will he be properly suzerain of the earth.
                >What’s a suzerain?
                >A keeper. A keeper or overlord.
                >Why not say keeper then?
                >Because he is a special kind of keeper. A suzerain rules even where there are other rulers. His authority countermands local judgements.

                >Toadvine spat.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I’ve always wondered if Wright Patt AFB would get smacked hard — big base but not many bombs, fighters, or missiles. Mostly support stuff I think

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >counterforce only strike
      If you're firing the nukes, you fire all of them and target everything.

  18. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why is this exact thread repeated a million times?

  19. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Counterforce vs Countervalue theory of nuclear exchange suggests that the primary targets of nuclear delivery systems is...other nuclear delivery systems. The goal of the nuclear country is to avoid being nuked, hence nuclear bombs and missiles will be dedicated primarily to destroying nuclear equipped submarines and carriers, nuclear bombers on airbases, and nuclear missile silos.
    Since, for the most part, these are typically held very far away from any sort of sizeable population center or major infrastructure network, this means that the primary consequence of a (rational) nuclear exchange for the average person is an interruption of electronic services as a result of high-altitude EMP bursts and a probable change in government. Estimates of dead will range from the hundreds of thousands to 5 million, at most, and that's assuming the very bad luck of those few urban centers that also happen to house major military facilities.

    An IRRATIONAL nuclear exchange is one in which countervalue is the primary motivation: maximizing population destruction versus the ability of the enemy's military to destroy you. If this were the case, you still would not want to target the cities; you'd want to target the communications, electrical, and transportation hubs (most of which are in Texas) and the agriculture of the Midwest and Californian Central Valley. In such a situation you would have virtually the entire American population subject to de facto extinction in the space of a year or two. No ability to obtain medical care, no ability to heat your house in winter, no ability to EAT FOOD.
    Of course, the problem with doing this is that you also have to accept all America's nukes removing you from the planet, and the permanent poisoning of America's breadbasket also causing half of the rest of the planet to starve to death. Counterforce nuclear exchange will, at worst, plunge the world back to the 1930s. Countervalue will turn the entire world into tribal Africa.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Russia has something like 2,000 nuclear weapons ready to fire at any given time. Even if we axed that number by half (just assuming that they either don't work or will be lost to interceptions) and arbitrarily capped the number of warheads that could be used on population centers at 10% (100 warheads), they would still be able to hit every American city with a population of 400,000 or more (Arlington, TX is the 50th largest US city with a population of 398,000, Tampa is 49th at 403,000) with at least two bombs each

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Shit gets crazy that not even with 80s stockpiles, but even with modern stockpiles, if most of their missiles work and warheads find their targets, they could nuke cities with as low as a population as 50,000. Again, PK% factors in and I'm sure nuclear powers want to make sure the big targets get fricked so they will probably saturate those targets with multiple ICBM's worth of warheads "just to make sure", but still. The potential that even Nowheresville, US or Cyka Oblast, Siberia could still potentially by viable targets in an exchange is just fricking wild.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I think it's safe to assume in any nuclear war, the 10 largest cities of any participating country can be written off from the very outset because at the very least, those cities WILL have multiple warheads targets on them as a redundancy. Russia might not waste one warhead on Sacramento but they will expend five to make sure New York becomes the Big Apple Crisp.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            and what about the hundreds of smaller cities? unless you try to irradiate everything with cobalt bombs they will still be around

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              the average american relies on grocery stores and gas stations to survive. once those run out of supplies its over for them.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Quintessentially eurangutan post.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                so the average america is self sufficient, grows their own food to feed their entire family year around? we both know thats not true

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                More of America is rural than urban, city-slicker.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                rural doesnt mean you are 100% self sufficient. and majority of people live in cities

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                In land? Yes. In PEOPLE? No. Most people do not grow their food and haven't for almost a century. A disruption in logistics vis a vis nuclear war would mean death for tens of millions of Americans. All of you people arguing against this likely live in some shit flyover state in a city of 50,000 thinking you'll somehow be spared the exact same problems as everyone else by virtue of smaller number, as though you don't survive off the same trucks hauling resources.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Nothing that lives in a city is a "human" or a "person".

                Urbus Delenda Est.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah have fun losing all your food stamps and meds you dumb frick. I give you a week before your gam gam turns you into the feds when she realizes you dumb fricks are the reason she can't get her insulin and upgrades to her mobility scooter.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Post gun

                We don't need to destroy our ancestors legacy for this to become a reality.

                If you're an American, your ancestors' legacy was shooting at cops carrying out their legal orders.
                Show any one of your ancestors from all of human history a modern city, give them a nuke, and they'd drop it the second they picked the area that would do the most damage.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                the rural morons think that simply by virtue of the fact that they live next to farms, that those farms will magically produce food out of nowhere. i dont think they quite understand the concept that the entire supply chain that enables those farms to even exist begins in the cities

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                but you don't understand anon, once the cities full of brown people are vaporized America will be a perfect utopia!

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Well, it wouldn’t hurt.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Shut the frick up dipshit.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              salted bombs require massive saturation i.e. a shit ton of nukes as each salted bomb would only make its immediate surroundings a hellscape. For any real nuclear exchange, salted bombs don't really have a place.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Assuming only 2 warheads per target and 0% attrition? That's an extraordinarily optimistic war plan!

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      In the end population is the most irreplaceable resource and least protected.

      Mandatory counter force nuclear strategy is cope trying to create nuclear war strategy that allows to US come out of it relatively unscathed. When Russia nukes US cities boomers can't do anything about it only cope and seethe.

  20. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I miss Oppenheimer

  21. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    A quick practical breakdown of fallout and its decay:
    - If you are indoors at all in a fallout sensitive area, and the building hasn't been incinerated by the thermal blast, you are essentially protected from any serious radiation, though I'd recommend having the blinds or drapes of windows shut.
    - If you are in a fallout sensitive area and you go outside within the first hour after detonation, you will almost certainly die horribly.
    - If you are in a fallout sensitive area and wait until 2 hours after the detonation to go outside, if you spend about 15 minutes out of doors you can probably survive a bout of severe but temporary radiation sickness, with all-but-certain death from cancer years down the line.
    - If you wait until 7 hours after the detonation, you can spend about an hour out of doors before getting sick as above.
    - If you wait until 14 hours after detonation, your primary concerns are short-term radiation sickness or increased cancer risks for any amount of time spent out of doors.
    - If you wait until 48 hours after detonation, if you don't care about dying from cancer before you're 60, you have basically nothing to worry about.
    - If you somehow manage to shelter yourselves safely with minimal to zero exposure for 14 days, you are essentially at no risk from radiation sickness or cancer effects.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >applying a tourniquet is more likely to kill you than save you
      Into the trash with this infographic. If you have a minor hemorrhage you NEED to stop the bleeding (or you will die) and the most expedient way is a tourniquet unless you’re one of the lucky few who live with a trauma surgeon who keeps a fully stocked operating room in their basement.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Unfortunately that's the perspective we have gained over the last 2 decades of GWOT, and in the context of a full nuclear exchange it does not hold up. Our trauma care has evolved to such levels, that most immediate consequences of throwing a tourniquet on to mitigate most levels of bleeding has been reduced or straight up eliminated.

        But it requires prompt and advanced follow on surgical care after the tourniquet application. If you've got dedicated medevac assets and a well oiled evacuation chain all the way back to the states from some shithole in Iraq over the course of 24 hours, it's a non issue. But if that chain is nuked to dust and you've got no help to rely on for the next two weeks, and possibly no advanced medical help for significantly longer... That TQ that you threw on in order to stop a bleed that could have been stopped with a pressure dressing instead can very well make it so that you lose that limb, or maybe even die if you can't get it amputated.

        tl:dr TQs need advanced follow on medical care if left on for any extended length of time or you lose the limb/die if you can't get the limb lopped off.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Medic here. Applying tourniquet buys you time enough to provide life-saving measures that will lead to better outcome. If struck badly that you're leaking juice everywhere, throwing on a tourniquet for under 2 hours will have these immediate benefits.
          >You will stay alive for these 2 hours.
          >You will have time to douse the wound with sterile water or weak disinfectants to get the dirt and surface bacteria out of it.
          >You will have time to apply pressure bandage.
          >You will have time to take antibiotics
          >You will have time to take medication that thickens the blood or promotes clotting.
          >You will have time to splint the limb to prevent it from damaging itself by movement.
          >In these 2 hours, your body's natural clotting factor will kick in.
          >At the 1:30 hour mark, and with a well-made commercial tourniquet, you might try to slowly release the pressure on the wound by 1/3rd and observe the wound for 10 minutes, making sure the pressure of the bleed does not wash the clot out.
          >at 2:00 mark you've hopefully released the tourniquet windlass fully without bleeding out, and while still receiving pressure from tourniquet strap and pressure bandage, you may try to seek help or try extreme medicine to save yourself.
          >Depending on wound severity, in 5 weaks you'll be OK or dead from infection. Some large wounds will never heal on their own.

          Alternatively
          >You don't throw the tourniquet on and lose conscience in 1-3 minutes, spared the agony of the above, since at all points of the process you'll be in terrible pain.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            As I've said, for a TQ to do something a good pressure dressing/chemical clotting aid won't do, it has to be severe enough that you'll need follow on surgical care. Definitely worth throwing on a tourniquet in that situation anyways, as what the hell else do you have to lose in that situation?

            But to just do the same shit we have been taught the last two decades, throw a TQ to solve any extremity bleed unless it's small enough for a bandaid to fix, is simply not a viable strategy in a situation like an all out nuclear war where follow on surgical care will simply not be available.

            If you're a medic, pull up some protocols that we have geared towards LSCO for peer/near-peer conflicts that should be floating around. They're quite descriptive about the difference of care and priorities between COIN we have been fighting, and a peer conflict.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Is it really hours after detonation or is it hours after the fallout has touched down? I always assumed you’d have some time to move before the fallout started falling (15-30min if close)?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        That's actually a good question. I'm not exactly sure.
        Radioactive fallout is determined primarily by particles which have come into direct contact with the nuclear fireball; an airburst detonation has virtually no relevant fallout problems because it explodes like 10000 feet above the ground in order to maximize the damage from the shockwave and heatwave. It's when a ground-burst detonation results in the fireball coming into contact with buildings and people and earth that all those irradiated particles and ash gets sent up into the air by the explosion when fallout becomes a serious problem. Ground bursts are likely to be extremely rare except against hardened targets (i.e. missile silos) so you wouldn't have to worry about them so much in theory, but there's no accounting for Russian or Chinese incompetence, so you'd have to keep track of the prevailing winds and watersheds.

  22. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    it's basically nothing.
    but that's not fun for larping and fear mongering, so.
    read a book.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Books are the primary source of MISinformation about nuclear war, or at least the popular ones written by New England ivory tower intellectuals in the 50s and 60s, which are the ones that get most of the attention.
      What are some good books that actually say something meaningful about nooks?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/nuclear-war-survival-skills-updated-and-expanded-1987-edition_cresson-h-kearny/286389/#isbn=094248701X&idiq=6530371
        this dispells a lot of those intelleshual theories and bullshit, which were really just taking checks from the CIA to push that stuff. the amount of psy oping around this topic, and the cold war in general I suppose, explains a fair amount of why boomers are so fricked in the head.

  23. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Stop worrying about fallout which dissipates in a few weeks and start worrying about dying from lack of access to insulin and clean water burger-kun. Majority of deaths will be due to the complete collapse of modern supply chains and infrastructure and not from radiation.

  24. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    nothing would really happen. Nukes arent strong enough to destroy concrete and rebar buildings. The only people who will be killed in cities are those who are caught outside

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >create artificial sun
      >artificial sun creates extreme air pressure difference dozens of psi in strength over a radius of a few kilometers within fractions of a second
      >"nothing would really happen"

      I'm tired

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >uhhh akshialy science says
        spotted the tourist.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >uhhh nukes are like pillows, they dindu nuffin they wouldn't even be able to knock over buildings

          lmao

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Yeah, and the Imperator class Titan is just Imperium propaganda

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Somehow, cities have survived hurricanes instead of falling to pieces every winter.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >somehow
          155mph winds is only 0.4 PSI. moron

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >F5 tornado windspeeds greater than 200 mph can completely level entire towns in their path
          >typical windspeeds from nuclear detonation at sea level can easily reach supersonic velocities (768 mph)

          You can't actually be stupid enough to try to compare the effects of a hurricane to that of a nuclear detonation anon? Surely you jest?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Hurricanes are dangerous because of sustained wind speeds. Try to imagine the Hurrican Katrina strength winds suddenly blowing winds 40 times faster. You fricking idiot

  25. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    A large-scale nuclear exchange would have catastrophic and far-reaching consequences. The immediate effects would include:
    Massive Death and Injuries: The blast, heat, and radiation from the explosions would cause widespread destruction and loss of life. Estimates suggest that tens to hundreds of millions of people could die in the first few days.
    Global Firestorms: The massive amount of soot and debris released into the atmosphere would block out sunlight, leading to a prolonged “nuclear winter” with temperatures dropping by as much as 20-30°C in some areas.
    Radioactive Fallout: Radioactive materials would be spread across the globe, contaminating the environment and posing a significant risk to human health.
    Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP): The electromagnetic pulse generated by the explosions could damage or destroy electrical grids, communication systems, and other critical infrastructure.
    Short-Term Consequences
    Global Food Shortages: The nuclear winter would lead to crop failures and food shortages, exacerbating the immediate death toll.
    Economic Collapse: The destruction of critical infrastructure, including power plants, transportation networks, and financial systems, would lead to a global economic collapse.
    Social Unrest and Chaos: The loss of life, infrastructure, and social structures would lead to widespread social unrest, looting, and chaos.
    Long-Term Consequences
    Environmental Devastation: The nuclear winter would have a lasting impact on the environment, leading to long-term climate changes, altered ecosystems, and potentially even the extinction of some species.
    Global Governance and Stability: The collapse of governments, economies, and social structures would lead to a global governance crisis, potentially plunging the world into a new era of instability and conflict.
    Key Findings
    In conclusion, a large-scale nuclear exchange would have catastrophic and far-reaching consequences.

  26. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Here's the part everyone misses that matters the most: Every fricking single nuclear facility across the planet going fricking Fukushima. Every fricking storage pool failing, full of fricking spent and fresh cores boiling the frick off and not one god-damned person doing one god-damned thing about any fricking of it.. So most will go full fricking critical and burn and explode. The radiation of that many facilities failing will fill the biosphere up with so much fricking radiation, that the earth will become a sterile mud/ice ball. The planet would go anaerobic.. Oxygen no longer being made, locked up into stable chemicals as fires burn and oxidation with no life breaks those chemicals back into O2. Little to no oxygen, radiation in the multiple sieverts in every cubic inch of the biosphere for several thousands of years.. There's no wasteland story. No life after the bombs. Many of the dead won't even decompose.. Just fall apart as they mechanically break down and apart. Others perfectly for the most part intact. Especially in dry places. A nuclear war is the end of humans and of life on this planet. Those who actually think about this subject came to the brutal truth decades ago when enough nuclear facilities came online. Chernobyl is NOTHING compared to storage pools cooking off. They're fricking lying about how bad Fukushima is and as far as can be deduced, humanity got very lucky at Fukushima, maybe.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >muh spent fuel pools
      It's just a bit of hydrogen you pussy. Open a couple windows and it'll went away on its own.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The rest of the world doesn't operate RBMK reactors Dyatlov.

  27. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The end result would be a return to literal Heaven on Earth.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What if they decide to nuke all our farmland and missile silos instead?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        They will most definitely go after the silos but not farm land. They will go after factories, infrastructure, fuel storage and production. All of which are in cities.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Sure. Unless they don't want to colonize and instead just want to drastically reduce our prominence on the world stage for a few dozen decades. Most of the countries that would nuke us can produce their own food and probably wouldn't be interested in the work involved in actually physically taking over the US. Imagine how fricked we'd be if the majority of people left alive are coastal liberals, their useful idiots, and their pet minorities.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I posted earlier in the thread that the surest way to destroy the American population would be the irradiation of the country's farmland. That would guarantee a reduction of the population of the USA from about 350 million (where it's currently at, give or take 50 million) to less than 15 million, optimistically. Possibly it might set back the country's demographics to 1750s levels. Obviously there would still be arable land outside the major agricultural centers of the midwest and Californian central valley that could not be reasonably affected by the amount of nuclear weapon stockpiles of the world short of a colossal arms race, but we're looking at a total degradation of America's ability to keep itself fed.

        The problem with this, as I also stated, is that America is called the Breadbasket of the World for a very good reason; almost every other country on the planet - China and Russia in particular - are heavily dependent on the food output of the United States. Roughly 1/3 of China's pork and rice consumption is imported. You heard that right, CHINA imports AMERICAN rice. This is far more thorough Mutually Assured Destruction than any phony baloney hollywood Doomsday weapon is. Everybody has a major incentive not to attack US agriculture on any significant scale, even in a countervalue exchange.

  28. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Read the 1979 Charlottesville scenario.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Starting at a moderate level of about 40 rems an hour
      >didn't die down until two weeks later
      I feel like unless you're in a target zone like next to nuclear silos where groundbursts might be common. Most radiation would just get flung up into the atmosphere, not to fall back down until it has already decayed to irrelevance.

  29. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I just called my congressman to demand an immediate capitulation to PUCCIA MIR

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