If Russia does get trapped in a world war, and they launch their nuclear arsenal as last resort..
..Anyone here planning on becoming a warlord in the chaos in the aftermath? Government won't be functional anymore, likely police will disappear into the civilian population and army will be broken likely retreating to fortified zones as with navy, air-force.
I just don't see a plan that will work for large scale survival of the human race not without going backwards with our current tech and knowledge.
Nukes won't happen.
So you have no plans for that event? easy prey.
and you wasting your time and money planning on an event that will never happen makes you easy prey in the real world for actual competition in the professional and dating world, but go ahead bucko, stockpile those MREs
>never happen
It's literally inevitable.
It's literally inevitable that nuclear powers will look for literally any other option
Only untermensch betas like you actually want to die, anon, the rest of humanity has a survival instinct
>the political class are normal people
Normal people don't get a say.
Mate, 90 percent of the politicians even leftoids like BBC, CNN show dont look like that, aside from the occassional talkshow stunt no one except /misc/ gives a shit about these gays. The average politician look like lawyers because oh surprise they are.
The unfortunate reality of nuclear warfare which preppers don't really take into account is that if you are within 15km of the nuclear bomb when it goes off, if you are inside a building it is GOING to come down on top of you.
Prepping works on the assumption that you will be in perfect health, however for the vast majority of the people they will have multiple broken bones, horrible lacerations, severe concussions and having horrific third degree burns only 30 minutes after the bomb hits. In that scenario, all healthcare above applying a bandage, splint or antibiotics is completely destroyed.
If you go to work or live in a building with more than 2-3 stories on top of you, you are more or less fricked and will be buried under literal tonnes of rubble. I met this one prepper in the Netherlands who spent more than $1500 on gas masks, food, and iodine tablets despite living in a 13 story apartment. If he ever has to use that stuff, it will be buried (along with him) under 13 stories of rubble.
You remember that condo collapse in Florida a year ago? There were 145 people in the condo when it collapsed and after 6 weeks of searching they only found 3 survivors, all within 48 hours of the collapse. They ended up only finding 96 bodies, with the rest just being presumed dead. A nuclear war is going to have hundreds of thousands of people trapped under rubble, with the only caveat being NO-ONE is coming to save you. Look at pictures of Hiroshima after the blast. Nothing is left standing, and that's with a 15 kiloton nuke. Most likely you'll be hit with multiple 100kt nukes or a 700kt nuke.
Unfortunately, you can sum up all of surviving in a nuclear blast in one sentence, "The game was rigged from the start". If you live anywhere in Western Europe? You are dead. Anywhere on the East Coast? You are dead. Anywhere on the West Coast? You are dead.
Nice USSR propaganda lol.
>within 15km
lmao. Go
>https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/
And pick Russia's SS-25. Optimize for overpressure, show 5psi ring. Detonate. You'll find that even in optimal flat conditions it's a bout a 6.5km radius. Further
>within 6.5km
>Anywhere on the East Coast
holy frick are you moronic? US East Coast is like 880000 sqkm. To have even naive (ignoring all the mountains) 5psi overpressure over all of that would take 6600+ SS-25 warheads.
>buh buh I read russia has over 6000!!!!
Please don't tell me you think tactical shit in depots is the same as ICBM MIRVs ready to go.
I don't like that nukemap calls the 1.0psi zone a "broken glass" radius.
https://response.restoration.noaa.gov/oil-and-chemical-spills/chemical-spills/resources/overpressure-levels-concern.html
scroll down, noaa calls 1.0psi a partial demolition of houses overpressure event. nukemap doesn't simulate to 1>psi, but the "minor damage" pressure is about 0.5-0.7 psi, so add a couple more km to that radius to see what all gets turned to shit
It really, really depends. NOAA is conservative averages there, using old build worst cases. Modern building codes or just insurance reqs mean that lots of buildings are constructed with stuff like hurricanes and tornados in mind. 5psi is equivalent to around 165 mph wind, so like a cat 5 hurricane. That's definitely going to wreck anything not specifically designed for it, and while some people really do build their houses to be cat 5 safe, it's not impossible, it's uncommon.
2psi is more like 70mph winds. Common residential failure modes there include roofs that aren't anchored to walls, so the roof acts as a wing, lifts right off the building, whole structure collapses. This is actually fairly trivial to deal with though. Flying debris damage will be real, but no most well built modern structures aren't at risk at 2psi, let alone 1. East coast has enough storm threats that significant parts of it are in fact built quite strongly though.
So tl;dr no, I agree with the atomic scientists and all the other analysis, 1psi over pressure is not remotely "partial demolition of houses".
fair enough, I just figured the NOAA data was useful as it comes from a group with a lot of experience in the field vs the sometimes optimistic data from the defense side.
regardless, you have to be within the instant death zone for a reinforced concrete structure to collapse
Sure, not unreasonable, it just falls off quicker than people think. Also we're assuming a blast that's optimized for overpressure, but conversely that means lower fallout. If they ground strike lots more fallout but greatly shrunk direct effect rings. Ultimately there's too many unknowns to be sure, but I do think it's reasonable to say that the damage would be simultaneously very bad yet also not existential for a country as large as the US even in the worst case. In the best case it could be almost nothing (worth remembering that the whole reason the US has never joined other countries in promising no first strike is that we absolutely plan to first strike with SLBMs if intelligence detected signs of an opposing strike being prepped, and the whole reason Russia threw such a fit over superfuses is how much more effective they make SLBMs vs hardened silos).
Anyway basically main thing is yes well worth avoiding, not remotely a "nothing burger yolo XD", but at the same time not something to be nihilistic about either.
>bankrupt instead of Bahkmut
Die
>PrepHole anon larper who believes USSR propaganda
>thinks government won't be functional
>thinks he's going to become a warlord
>thinks guns are a substitute for friends/social organization
lmao
lol even
Play fewer video games, join some volunteer groups in your community you underage homosexual.
lmao there’s no telling how long it will be until rule of law and food/shelter/water security is established again after a scenario like this because we don’t know the government’s plans
this is especially the case if you live deep rural or deep enriched urban with lots of doctors and lawyers, though there is a larger chance of it being resolved quickly in the latter
i know im replying to bait but if you unironically are betting your life on the government being competent for once you will be easy prey
>lmao there’s no telling how long it will be until rule of law and food/shelter/water security is established again
0 because it'll never be gone in the first place you absolute basement dwelling homosexual. US is massively federalized and decentralized. Almost all the direct stuff that affects your day-to-day life is purely local. Then comes state. Then finally vaguely comes federal. You get yourselves all wrapped up in bullshit thousands of miles away and ignore what actually affects 99% of your life. If Washington DC vanished it wouldn't be consequence free, but our state would continue right on. If our state capital vanished (really unlikely) then we'd still have all the structure of our towns, which is where the minimal centralized water/sewer and road stuff happens, as well as police, fire, and so on. For those in the village, not with their own well/leech field like I and most have.
>i know im replying to bait but if you unironically are betting your life on the government being competent for once you will be easy prey
lol what a fricking larping moron. Government is generally decently competent around here. Not brilliant, but not stupid either. Stuff gets done which is why most people get to not think about it duh. A few hundred nukes (if all were counter value, and Russia even has that many that still work) would certainly suck for the US but if you think it'd turn things into Mad Max you're as dumb as, well, a typical fantasy /misc/larper.
In fact amusing it'd be the opposite: biggest effect would be nobody tolerating edgy disruptive shit you get away with now.
Yes yes, however, states rely heavily on interstate traffic and government funding and materials to keep water, food, and power flowing, so once these stop coming through you suddenly wont have security. I’m assuming you’re some kind of federalist, but your idea of states being totally self reliant powerhouses that can continue housing and feeding their massive populations for time immemorial is just a pipe dream and having undue faith in the government. I’m sorry that you feel so angry about people wanting to ensure their security in a time of wanton destruction and insecurity, but there’s it nothing wrong with doing so. It is not a larp. It is preparedness. I hope you realize this and stop being so angry at people and assuming they are some kind of enemy to you.
>Yes yes, however, states rely heavily on interstate traffic
Yeah, and? It's not like that'd instantly turn off, people would just continue on the same rules and coast, and for that very reason everyone would just get back together and figure shit out. We put our entire government up to vote over the course of 6 years or so, everyone there came from the people in the first place. If congress got nuked governors would appoint replacements, next election would come around, and we'd get on with business.
>and government funding and materials to keep water, food, and power flowing
lol. Lots of states contribute more in than they get back anon, including mine. It's not "government funding" as some rando other it's our funding. Which we could still do.
>but your idea of states being totally self reliant powerhouses
That's not it, it's that they have their own governments and expertise and everything doesn't implode when some central body goes away. The US is not Russia. There's no reason losing DC would mean even changing the Constitution or giving up America, unless people actively wanted to. But why would most people want to, vs wanting to stick with the known system? It's a fantasy.
There is literally a backup government put in place, consisting of a bunch of high ranking officials and military in the event everyone in office gets taken out.
But more importantly we also have the society and structures to just recreate everything even without some special backup. It's not like all offices and career institutionalists are in DC either, there is plenty of decentralization. And of course tons of people who retired but could help get things back up to speed as well.
I know /k/ memes about Russia behind stuff but I can't help but feel the more I've learned that the whole nuclear apocalypse thing really was/is Russian/Soviet projection. Because they really ARE hyper centralized and top down.
Yeah thats more or less what Im getting at, shit would suck for a little bit while the infrastructure gets back up to running speed but it wouldnt take long for things to start functioning normally for the common person. Political systems are just there to give people some feeling of normalcy. Society and economy will start itself back up because there are too many people used to a way of living to just be like.. "oh shit, they blew up some shit..time to break out the bondage gear and go Mad Max in my neighborhood!"
>shit would suck for a little bit
I mean, make no mistake, we'd be a lot poorer for it. A lot of the luxuries we're used to might go away entirely, or become vastly more expensive (by relative purchasing power). How well we bounced back would matter a lot, but losing a few trillion worth of built up value and few million people (worth another few trillion long term) would absolutely be painful.
But of course the US existed in a far, far poorer state than now for, well, most of its existence. Going backwards 60 years in terms of economy to take an extreme really would feel shitty, but at the same time it's not like 1963 was a hell hole mad max world either. We were just much poorer overall. And of course some of our fundamental efficiency gains are pure knowledge stuff and that would stay. There's lots of things they could have done in the 1960s if they knew what we know now. So it wouldn't be that bad.
I guess I'm trying to say, doomerism is dumb, but that's not to downplay the suckiness either. Life would be less pleasant for awhile in a lot of little ways.
>it's that they have their own governments and expertise and everything doesn't implode when some central body goes away.
nah nvm
>A few hundred nukes (if all were counter value, and Russia even has that many that still work) would certainly suck for the US but if you think it'd turn things into Mad Max you're as dumb as, well, a typical fantasy /misc/larper.
Several hundred nukes hitting American cities would essentially destroy the United States as a country. You've just knocked off double digit percentages of the population, destroyed the major industrial and transportation hubs, destroyed major nerve centers of state power (making it impossible to do basic things like enact legislation or collect taxes), and validated every flavor of Doomsday cultist out there so their ideologies proliferate like a cancer.
>inb4 /misc/larper
First off, I'm not the guy you're replying to. Second, /misc/tards will die too. The only groups of people who aren't going to die en masse are those already living off the grid and extremely remote communities (even then, they would have to rely on the strictest rationing to forestall the loss of basic essentials like fuel and imported food).
>Most likely targets for nuclear wars are missile silos and communication centers.
You're operating off the American model for nuclear war where we already possess the capability to strike targets rapidly and with a very high degree of precision. Russian ICBMs have never been known for their accuracy, the Chinese even less so, and both require longer turnaround times from launch orders being given to actual launch. This means they're already inclined to simply expend their missiles on cities because they present easier targets that will have a longer-lasting effect (it takes longer to rebuild a city than it does to rebuild a destroyed nuclear launch facility). If the Russian nuclear arsenal has atrophied layer near to the degree as has been commonly claimed here, then counterforce isn't even an option for them, if it ever was to start with.
>Several hundred nukes hitting American cities would essentially destroy the United States as a country
By this logic the US couldn't have been a country for most of its existence.
>destroyed major nerve centers of state power (making it impossible to do basic things like enact legislation or collect taxes)
lol
>By this logic the US couldn't have been a country for most of its existence.
What the frick are on about? The US has had numerous major population centers since its foundation. New York, Boston, Charleston, and Philadelphia to name a few.
>lol
Can't pass nuclear war relief bills if half of the legislators are dead. Can't collect taxes if the local IRS building was incinerated.
>What the frick are on about? The US has had numerous major population centers since its foundation. New York, Boston, Charleston, and Philadelphia to name a few.
All of which were tinier than what we now consider tiny cities. We now have something like 350 cities >100k, and that's not "metropolitan areas" either. Nor does it include state capitals, many of which are vastly smaller. If you drop down to 40k, still quite sizable, it's thousands. And most of these are quite spread out. Go to nuke map and take a look at the actual area of effect a single warhead even has. Russia could cause a lot of damage and pain but no they couldn't take out the US. Remaining population centers would become new centers.
>Can't pass nuclear war relief bills if half of the legislators are dead.
Sure you can, just elect/appoint a new slate of legislators. Like we have, on regular and irregular special election schedules, for centuries without pause. Governors immediately appoint new reps. Governors dead too? Lt Gov. Etc etc. It's all bottom up.
>Can't collect taxes if the local IRS building was incinerated.
That you even refer to the "IRS" vs state agencies says a lot itself. We'd come up with solutions same as working up to this.
You know these things called organization charts? They have had literally centuries to plan for all sort of cataclisms and disasters, losing most of the government is implemented within the plan so even if you wiped out 90 percent of the state they will grow back in a couple of weeks at most.
You're not ruled by evil masterminds, you're ruled by evil morons.
Heaven forbid the State not have the ability to steal my money and give it to people that don't work. Please stop terrifying me with such an ugly, cruel world that might come to pass.
this. all fallout/stalker larpers are gonna get acked real quick
my plan for a shtf scenario is unironically to die
This. My options are:
>Bug out
>Compete with 1000 other autists to eat one squirrel a month
>Bug in
>Live off stored rations for just two weeks while my small town plays irl battle royale
My chances of surviving more than a month are maybe 2%
I don't think civilization will collapse even in a nuclear war event. Most likely targets for nuclear wars are missile silos and communication centers. The main point is to prevent the enemy from launching nukes, so you nuke their nukes or their ability to launch nukes. Only a few cities would get targeted.
It won't be something a la fallout. At this point I don't even know if anything could bring civilization back to the stone age.
I'm prepared just in case though. I'm a frog so most people in my country don't own guns, and those that do mostly own black powder guns. I own a few sets of armors, and a samurai one that's thick enough to not get penetrated by blackpowder guns. I also have a few antique weapons since they're legal to own. To get me, someone would need to manage to find actual firearms or charge at me with a knife which is very risky.
I'm far from Paris or Marseilles where most muzzies that own powerful weapons are located so these wouldn't be a huge risk.
I don't think radiations would be a problem where I am especially since most modern nuclear weapons don't have as huge of a fallout as the older ones.
I'm fit and I know how to fish in the sea and on seashore but I'm shit at growing things.
EMP kills your electronics.
DO YOU HAVE THE CAPACITY TO MAKE FIRE, MOST HUMANS HAVE ENJOYED THAT PRIVILEGE SINCE THE STONE AGE?
>EMP kills your electronics.
>he believes the emp meme
hahaha
>not having 10k matches saved with a couple thousand in strong m2a2 cans
900 matches is like, $10 anon.
>EMP
lol, anyways in the worst case scenarios I can make a fire, I usually have things that can help kickstart one too but in any case, I know of a dry brush hotspot near my place. A friend of mine that's an actual doomsday prepper has a shit ton of food stockpiled, she buys like one or two cans each time she goes shopping and she's been doing that for years. When we spoke about it we tried to strategize about how we could help each other.
this too
Yeah. The main part of radiation goes down very quickly. I don't think my region would even be targeted at all to be fair, riskiest target there is is a nuclear power plan but it generates power rather than nuclear materials to build explosives so it would most likely not even get targeted at all.
At the point we're at, could a solar flare cause a civilisation collapse, and if not, what could ?
>At the point we're at, could a solar flare cause a civilisation collapse, and if not, what could ?
Politics could. Everyone hates that answer because it's not some cool larp friendly thing where one BRAVE TUFF MAN gets to test himself against the harsh world or some shit, but if we actually look at serious collapses it was politics. Government got fricked, things turn into low trust societies, social bonds break down, people get cynical/nihilist etc. Humans always do it to themselves. Look at Russia, there is absolutely zero external reason of any kind they couldn't be a richer, more successful, happier and advanced people than the EU. They've got the raw area and resources. They've faced a serious external attack like, once, and even that barely got a small distance into their territory before running out of gas. Russia is a fricking shithole with collapsing civilization because it is a shit society.
Actually the other reason everyone hates that answer is because it forces confronting the fact that there is no inherent reason why happy successful countries couldn't frick themselves too. We can't take it for granted.
The other potential collapse causes are energy/resource, though that mostly goes back to above, and as far as future the Singularity could do it. A strongly super human intelligence is probably going to appear at some point, and when it does how it feels about us is going to determine what happens next. Ideally we'd probably try to set things up so that a few hundred happen at once, all under as good "upbringing" as possible, and hope that enough of them are at least mildly benevolent to avoid the worst. And again ideally we'd do that after having colonies all over the solar system and preferably in others as well. But we're not well enough organized to manage that I'm afraid.
Yeah, I feel like politics is a good bet, it's basically in their hands but it feels like when a civilization collapses because of politics, it just passes in the hands of other politics rather than get a phase where it becomes a lawless wasteland where everyone has to survive for themselves (basically brave tuff man, as you said). The society that collapsed is at a shitty point but you still have to pay taxes etc.
I also agree about your point on singularity, but I feel that if a super-intelligence decided that we needed to die, it would succeed so well that surviving would be near impossible.
Singularity is something I unironically fear.
>I also agree about your point on singularity, but I feel that if a super-intelligence decided that we needed to die, it would succeed so well that surviving would be near impossible.
Yeah unfortunately like I said, the most obvious two defenses to a hostile god are
a) non-hostile gods
Which by definition we can't ensure, but we could do our best and try to make sure that if nothing else there are hundreds that come about all at once so that no single one is dominant, and maybe some sort of balance of powers thing works our. Of course maybe instead they ALL decide that yeah we suck, but that's not a given. Humanity have lots of people who love and care about lower intelligences right now, as well as shithead who don't.
b) distance
Laws of physics still apply, if you're light days/months/years away then it's just as much of a pita for a super intelligence to get there as for anyone else. There is also some possible hope in that super intelligences would want lots of computation, which means lots of matter and energy, which means that some parts of the solar system/galaxy would be unattractive to them, and thus humans could eke out a living there. Just as there are parts of our world that nobody wants to live in even though in principle they could.
Both of these would require self restraint and organization that I just don't think we've got. I unironically fear it as well, though I can see the benefits if we lucked out with something that cared, so I try to temper fear with optimism and care about weaker/dumber stuff than me in a way I hope something else might about me. But I don't think some fear is wrong either, a really malevolent one would be a true unending hell (or not entirely unending, but billions of years for the sun to burn out would be close enough).
>DO YOU HAVE THE CAPACITY TO MAKE FIRE
Yes anon, and your primitive camping larp where you pretend a flint and steel is useful doesn't factor into it. It's called a lighter.
>b-but I played call of duty and muh EMPs
lmao
EMP is like the new quicksand they way you morons worry about it so much
>Quicksand bomb
WHAT YOU GOIN DO NOW homie?
>I don't think radiations would be a problem where I am especially since most modern nuclear weapons don't have as huge of a fallout as the older ones.
Even if you are in a fallout plume the main thing is just to stay in even basic shelter for a week or two, then return to it for eating and sleeping for a few months. That'll deal with the vast majority of radiation. Might still leave you getting cancer at 65 or 70 instead of 80 or 90, but not the end of the world.
you have a good chance at becoming an armchair warlord, if you're not one already
>Government won't be functional anymore, likely police will disappear into the civilian population and army will be broken likely retreating to fortified zones as with navy, air-force
that's only true fro russia though, so you are the only one on this board who should be concerned about this scenario
Nuclear war is such an overhyped meme, I would be genuinely surprised if a full scale nuclear exchange even disrupted the United States as it exists now. It would be shitty don't get me wrong but I doubt the government would even stop functioning.
This. They all go hiding in their bunkers until it is over and then martial law is declared and the remainders of the US armed forces will work to re-stabilize and organize. Rude awakening for lil jimmy to find out he will not be the governor-warlord of an irradiated wasteland but will instead be assigned to drive a medical HMMWV back and forth or be arrested.
Your local colonel will become the warlord and you will work for 1000kcal of food a day and no other payment until you are dead. Will literally happen to wannabe PrepHole warlords
Its pretty simple, the second Russia attacks NATO, we carpet-nuke the entire nation from St. Petersburg to Vladivostok and then move in with Einsatzgruppen to exterminate anyone who survived.
Sure we might lose a couple of cities but in the end the complete extermination of the russian people and history will be a great benefit to mankind.
Dangerously moderate, I approve.
This but use nerve gas instead of ground forces to minimize the risk to humans.
Im pretty sure every government in the world knows that the use of nukes, even small tactical ones isnt worth the risk. I dont know why that shit even exists any more. Governments are too pussy to use these things, and the larger more powerful ones are pointless because we would literally blow the planet to pieces.
They have always been a 'deterrent', just a piece of something so governments can flex on each other and stroke yheir egos but in this day and age who gives a frick. No one is going to push the big red button they are all pussies.
Honestly, being a warlord sounds way too stressful for the life I want in a world where I don't have to work for a faceless monolith in order to survive. I've got a secluded plot of land, nearby woods, multiple sources of water, a fortified living area and the ability to expand existing greenhouses. I would be so much happier just living my days growing my own food, raising animals and tinkering while catching up on all the great works of art I've missed over my lifetime and growing my family.
Its more likely the world will collapse due to socioeconomic bullshit than bombs. Natural resources, failing economies and moronic trannies and neckbeards more concerned about what they post online rather than functioning in society.
You will be scrounging in the rubble for a rusty can of spaghetti-os fighting off roaming bands of Black personhomosexuals with mutilated genitals. If they dont kill themselves first
>Its more likely the world will collapse due to socioeconomic bullshit than bombs. Natural resources, failing economies and moronic trannies and neckbeards more concerned about what they post online rather than functioning in society.
Nuclear war tends to destroy economies and natural resources you fricking moron
I'm sorry that societal collapse isn't as exciting as your israeli movies.
>Nuclear war tends to destroy economies and natural resources you fricking moron
Does it now? Point to all the examples if you would dumb frogposter.
>Point to all the examples if you would dumb frogposter.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK219185/
>Provided that these assumptions hold, one might expect a pattern of production and exhaustion such as that shown in Figures 1 through 4. The results indicate that the nation's stock of shelter and productive facilities can only be reestablished if other energy uses are drastically curtailed. For example, the reconstruction process would take 8 years to complete if the annual supply of petroleum allocated to activities other than rebuilding was cut to 15 percent of that observed prior to the war. In the event that these petroleum demands can only be reduced to 25 percent of the prewar level, total reconstruction would never occur; slightly more than 40 percent of the capital stock could be replaced.
Granted, it's a study from 1986 but the same effects would be pertinent today.
That's not an example of nuclear war, that's an example of a theoretical study
>provided these ASSUMPTIONS hold
with technology, situation and so on from 37 years ago.
>but the same effects would be pertinent today.
But they aren't. Even ignoring that Russian arsenal has plummeted and likely a lot doesn't work.
>energy uses are drastically curtailed
Which we have! Our lighting is now 10x as efficient. Our vehicles, even ICE, are much more efficient. We can communicate and coordinate far more efficiently and massively more distributed. There was effectively zero fracking in 1986. Or terrestrial solar power, wind, or storage.
You can't use one study from almost 4 decades back for this anon.
>tranime
We know.
>Assumptions
>1986
Got anything from this decade not predicated upon 40 year old information?
I'm interested in what the world's reaction would be if Russia tried launching their shit but it failed.
Would nuclear detonations in underground silos cause psuedo-earthquakes?
>Would nuclear detonations in underground silos cause psuedo-earthquakes?
Yes, that's how we know about North Korean underground testing etc too. Big detonations underground are extremely obvious and easy to detect worldwide with existing seismographs that are everywhere. They're not "pseudo-earthquakes" though, the wave form looks totally different, it's really obvious it's an explosive and the magnitude makes it obvious whether it had to be a nuke or not. A fizzle failed nuke could be confused, ie, if it was 0.5kt or 1kt, that's within the realm of maybe it could have been explosives pretending instead. US did a bigger conventional explosion than that (Minor Scale) to test their computer models back in the 80s or something. But if it's 25+kT there's no doubt, it's a nuke.
Though honestly even for the Russians that's a basically zero chance failure mode. They won't arm at that point. The ICBMs themselves fricking up and exploding wouldn't set off the nukes too, just spray a bunch of molten plutonium etc around which would be unpleasant but that's it. And the more likely failure than that is exploding in flight, or failing to hit target trajectories and flying way wide, shit like that. Or the nukes themselves failing in a fizzle, or working but being 1/10 target yield or the like.
ICBM launches are super ultra obvious too though, impossible to hide from sats, so the instant they actually tried launching anything everyone would know regardless of what happened after.
Maybe? I dunno, I was stationed in Korea and we were doing a land nav course right up next to the Dmz when North Korea tested some underground nukes. I guess it depends how big they are and how far away
>Anyone here planning on becoming a warlord in the chaos in the aftermath?
idk what do you think nukes are or where do you think they'll be used, after a nuclear exchange most of the US and Europe will be drafted, Europe will burn again and after that we will have a new Cold War, China will most likely side with Russia too.
If Russia started a nuclear exchange it'd honestly make the most sense in a cold fashion to nuke China as well. They've supported Russia all along and started shit, if things get that bad then they bear responsibility too and there is no reason to leave them standing unharmed vs in recovery like everyone else.
After my family is safe, I plan to dedicate the rest of my days to killing leftists.
I don't know what new world will rise from the ashes, but I will ensure they are not a part of it.
Lost
>they launch their nuclear arsenal
I would feel bad for Belgorod
>If Russia does get trapped in a world war
You're a thirdie illiterate who imagines any war is a world war, and your implication using the word "trapped" proves you a vatBlack person.
Your post is a childish moronic slide thread of irrelevant babble frick off.
>all big cities get hit by nukes
>watch live on tv
>live in the middle of nowhere midwestern USA
>closest neighbours are the amish.
>plenty of farms
>plenty of water
>life goes on as usual minus the city slickers moving out to the countryside messing our shit up
my plan is to literally do nothing.
>/k/ discovers Continuity of Government has been planned in minute detail for the last 70 years
Well my point being that world collapse is a gradual process, eventually it will implode on itself after we have consumed and wasted much of our natural resources and living spaces. No one with the power to launch a nuke is crazy enough or ballsy eniugh to do it because those with the power are afraid of losing what they have. All in all the reason nukes will never be used is because of greed and fear, both of which rich people use to control the world and what controls them as well.
All the rednecks know or suspect some hidey holes in their AO. They will raid them until they are empty after the nukes/chemical/biological weapons drop. Glowies this is another warning, stop this madness you will not survive for long after the destruction in what you think is a safe destination.
anon, the federal government is not communicating to you through PrepHole. The federal government also does not care about some rednecks finding their end of the world survival bunker, they'll just nerve gas you and jerk off as you and your family break apart at the seams, spines cracking as your muscles all contract at once ripping your body apart.
After you use CS gas on one redneck the rest will not take survivors. None of them are afraid of those of you larping as Matt Damon character. Your training is shit, your assumption of not being observed is garbage, and your pride will be your downfall.
>survivors
lmao you think you're the one taking prisoners here?
It doesn't matter if you and I both perish. There are over a million rednecks that will survive the destruction. All over the US they will descend upon hidey hole after hidey hole to get whats in there. Some will have good values and will attempt to take prisoners or let people flee, most will not. If you survive do you think the odds are good bubba will let you live?
>oh no the horde of rednecks!
>better release the genetically engineered anthrax that only targets sufferers of fetal alcohol syndrome
gretas btfo
Better use a different strain than you use for false flags on senators then glowie
Legitimately putin will probably go the way of saddam and get murdered by black ops long before shit hits that point so I'm not particularly worried and if nukes fly I'm close enough to Chicago to probably get instantly vaporized anyways so it's not worth worrying about either way.
>If there's nuclear war I'm totally going to survive fr fr
Most people will die if you live remotely close to a city. Unless you're a incredibly charismatic strong man nobody will legitimize your warlord status and you probably won't have the weapons to create one. The military/government probably will survive and form some junta and you will be under more restrictive circumstances with less liberty.
We won't lose technology and knowledge it may just stifle progress.
>anon, the federal government is not communicating to you through PrepHole. The federal government also does not care about some rednecks finding their end of the world survival bunker, they'll just nerve gas you and jerk off as you and your family break apart at the seams, spines cracking as your muscles all contract at once ripping your body apart.
I feel like something to add to this conversation is how moronic the people here are who think people won't organize themselves to provide community services. Throughout history people have done this, that is why we continuously have civilizations. It's in our nature to cooperate. Just because you're a malfunctioning freak who wants to jump on the opportunity to exploit some power vacuum that doesn't mean most people will do that. Another war with nuclear weapons isn't going to suddenly change human nature. Even if there are warlords in the scenario they're not going to have power without providing community services. Even shithole warlord factions like the Taliban do that shit. It's really shitty and you're not going to be able to go to Dunkin Donuts, but the idea that there will be pure unorganized anarchy is absolutely dumb as dicks.
That's what I've been arguing all along. And it's not stupidity it's autism/ultra introversion/basement-dweller-syndrome. People who have no concept of community themselves, no neighborly relations. The scenarios these people create reflect themselves.
Yeah, I agree with you. There are people jerking off to their fantasies here forgetting that even in natural disasters church groups and NGO's regularly support or replace government assistance.
Anons want to believe that they'll crawl out of their basements with a few mountain house freeze dried packs and become a mad max water lord. The reality is they'll get stopped by some bible bros trying to protect their kids who already have an organized structure and probably tons more weapons.
>The reality is they'll get stopped by some bible bros trying to protect their kids who already have an organized structure and probably tons more weapons.
the #1 top thing you can do if you actually believe in moronic fantasies like full on SHTF collapse is just convert to Mormonism. They're already ready for it.
matter of fact, if you try to assert yourself as a warlord in a community with any level of cooperation and leadership, you will probably get your shit kicked in unless you have massively overwhelming force, which you won't.
I hate how destruction obsessed this place is.
Urban morons don't even cooperate now, they'll eat each other as soon as thr electricity goes out.
>Government won't be functional anymore, likely police will disappear into the civilian population and army will be broken likely retreating to fortified zones as with navy, air-force.
That's a Russian problem, the rest of the world will continue as usual.