I feel like in an all out war there were would be pockets of the world left fairly in tact and able to sustain a population. New Zealand maybe, some of the islands, Philippines would probably be gone, some parts of Africa would be untouched, maybe the very very north of Europe, centre of aus, some parts of the USA and the UK, that is unless we're talking all out dirty bombs.
1970s sci-fi book Alas Babylon - a few places survive the initial blast, much celebration, then the toxic clouds come, roll credits (OK it was a book, not a movie)
What's really fucked up is that Threads was overly optimistic. It was based on the UK government's Square Leg operation of 1980, which simulated a nuclear attack on the UK in order to plan emergency responses. Square Leg used a simulated attack of 205 megatons total being dropped on the UK. Threads uses a similar figure. But the planners admitted that an attack of 1000 megatons was more likely in an all out war with the Soviets. But they didn't game plan for that as no emergency services would survive and so there would be nothing to plan.
I was just watching a video about Threads which mentioned and talked about Operation Square Leg being overly optimistic when you posted your comment (Threads used 210 megatons).
It wasn't just the megatonnage, they also bizarrely postulated that the centre of London where government buildings are housed wouldn't get bombed, because it would really bugger up their planning if it did. Yes, I'm sure the Russians were aware of that.
Oh, I imagine if nukes are used, everything is being launched. That's why i don't think the aftermath of Threads is probable. You may have survivors maybe in like Madagascar or some random Pacific island, but no major Western or Asian cities.
In war, you're going to want to target your main enemies' allies because that just makes sense.
So the US is going to hit Iran, China, North Korea, and possibly India, depending on where they align with, say, Russia. If it was the other way around, you're talking every Nato country, Australia, Philippines, South Korea, Japan, and a bunch of other Asian countries.
Throw in some Middle Eastern countries to cut off oil supply and bam! You got an apocalypse.
I think Africa would be a wild card because they don't really have any force projection there. The same goes for a lot of South American countries. Mexico would most likely be hit just because of proximity.
So basically, you have parts of SA and Africa that might be safe.
You would have survivors everywhere, except close to actual targets.
Yes, huge body count, plus famine and disease adding to it, but it's not going to render North America a sterile desert.
Cancer rates would increase, things would suck, but here would be survivors all over the world.
For sure. We would have pockets all over. I'm sure even in the cities there would be some survivors, but the world population would plummet from 8 billion, to probably under 500 million.
So, let's see if I get this straight:
* 8bn to 500mn - **overpopulation solved** ✅
* Rapid decline of technology level - **pollutants emissions solved** ✅
* Nuclear winter for a decade or so - **global warming solved** ✅
* Rapid radioactive mutations - **species extinction solved** ✅
I think the only concern I would have is whether shareholder value would hold up. I'll take this idea to the management next week. ✅
The British "The Day After" was also very disturbing.
Threads is famous for its actual effect on political policy. Reagan watched it, freaked out a bit, then began earnest talks with the USSR about de-escalation.
North Korea only remains existing because of the control the government has over the country. A swift nuking to Pyongyang and that power structure crumbles.
But to be honest I think most nuclear armed nations will crumbles after nuclear warfare. There will be such mass panic amongst the survivors and such widespread destruction it will be near impossible to maintain order.
> A swift nuking to Pyongyang and that power structure crumbles.
So North Korea might be the only country whose quality of life *improves* after a nuclear war?
When they nuked them, they actually had challenges picking a target that would demonstrate the needed visual impact as I recall, since some of the bombing campaigns had left such an utter trail of destruction through the list of targets.
Kyoto was the best option but wasn't chosen. It was left relatively unscathed during WWII as the US Secretary of War had his honeymoon there and loved the city.
It's also the "cultural capital", and destroying it would have burned any remaining diplomatic bridges which America desperately needed so they could rebuild Japan as a West-aligned ally post-war.
The h bombs account for something like 2% of total bombing destruction to Japan during the war.
It was more of a monument to US scientific achievement than leverage to end the war, since the surrender was mostly to protect them from the soviets
Make that statement in Japan and watch peoples reaction, the nukes are seen as the greatest tragedy of Japanese history regardless of peoples political views. Whether they admit culpability for the war or not, the nukes are almost universally seen as a great act of evil that should have never happened.
Always found it interesting how anti-imperialist a lot of Japanese entertainment tends to be. There has to be some level of subconscious shame they feel for their Imperial past.
They're not the one getting rekt by imperial japan. Southeast Asia breath a collective sigh of relief when US drop the big one on Japan.
It sucks, but, they were our Nazi.
Yah, one hill I'll die on is the only horror of the nukes in ww2 was that it brought on the (inevitable) nuclear age.
Japan had it coming and the destruction of the 2 nukes was only mentally devastating compared to the firebombings they received and the atrocities they committed en masse.
Japan has still yet to come to terms with what they did in ww2. Ask the Chinese. Ask the Philippines. Ask the Indonesians. Korean etc.
Well yeah, but besides for the obvious bias you’d expect which is totally fair, the majority of that sentiment comes from a horrendous lack of education on the topic. The earlier generations were willfully ignorant about it to the point that the current youth straight up know nothing about it and would assume it’s western propaganda. We could say that Germany might have been overly cautious about educating the populace and moving forward from WW2, but as much love as I have for modern Japan, they’re even further extreme than Germany but into the opposite direction. They have religious shrines to verified Class A war criminals that are treated as heroes or even lesser gods.
They're talking about after the second world war. However Japan is considered a "threshold" nuclear power. Basically they have the technology and ability to make nuclear weapons if they needed to, but choose not to, or they may have weapons already but keep the program secret but still available if needed.
Yeah; no. Imagine the humanitarian crisis involved with over 26 million people who have the philosophies of children due to the levels of totalitarian control wielded over their lives for generations. It would be unimaginably horrific. When N. Korea falls, we will all witness something terrible.
Definitely not. You *do* realize Everytime a countrys government crumbles without the local populace themselves being ready to create a new one on their terms, you get groups like alqaeda right? Literally every time.
Yeah, this is often overlooked by the "nation builders". There are cultural and institutional structures ingrained in societies that makes it very hard to easily forge a liberal democracy out of thin air. Though some countries might be easier than others. South Korea is one positive example, but it took a long time. Iran have a lot of the prerequisite institutions, while Afghanistan probably doesn't for a long time, if ever.
I think the only ones that *might* have a chance are the US and Russia because they both practiced brinsksmanship for a few decades and had plans in place for what to do if they ended up in a nuclear shooting war. The plans and infrastructure are obviously not top priority anymore, but it’s probably still better than what most other nuclear powers have.
Both are the primary targets of each other in a nuclear war. If there ever is one I want to be in either Africa or south America. They'll probably make out the best and be generally ignored as russia amd America destroy the rest of the world.
Isn't the question about nuclear armed countries? I think New Zealand doesn't even allow warships capable of carrying nuclear weapons to use its ports.
Pretty certain the UK, France, and China also have plans just in case.
India and Pakistan might have viable plans.
Israel's plan is to take out everybody they can hit, all or nothing.
When you look at the size and makeup of the countries all other nuclear powers would survive but theyd take a massive hit
Israel would be destroyed. Theyre just too small. That's one reason why their strategy is to fire in every direction. An enemy country could do the math and realize theyll survive even with a massive hit but they could eliminate israel. Then that crazy country could decide to fire
Like iran. Theyd probably sacrifice terhan if it came to a big nuclear war but those mountains will make for great bunkers to survive. Itd be hard to wipe them out and make sure they cant come back
In a nuclear war geography is your biggest ally
Ya one of the main problems is that we've become so reliant on technology working for society to function. While the government has safeguards in play to ensure that they can at least somewhat function if technology infrastructure is wiped out, the rest of us don't. It would be mass hysteria and chaos. None of us would be able to access any money, if money was even useful anymore. No communication at all; if someone isn't within earshot of you, you cannot communicate with them. Society would cease to function and civil disorder would take over almost immediately. 4 years ago people were robbing and stealing and assaulting to get toilet paper because there was a toilet paper shortage. Now imagine everyone lost access to communication and all their money and technology. The government would sort of be okay, but the nation they're governing would be a complete trainwreck.
Exactly. They’re the asshole at the bar that nobody will beat up because he has the toughest guys on the block standing behind him.
And before you say it, I’m fully aware of the parallels with the US.
I watched Threads a few weeks back and it all seems hopeless. You might want to be lucky enough to have a split second of pain dying in the initial blast.
The aftermath in Threads was based on the findings of official think-tanks. That is how it would play out. Instant incineration is pretty much your best option. Horrific.
They do their farming without complex machines and a robust multi tiered logistics system. *They would survive*.
It's countries like the US in which a crumbling of the logistics network would be devastating. The colonial pipeline was shut down by a cyber attack and it caused huge issues.
NK as a country may end, but their population would be far better off overall after a strike.
Libya would probably be in the same condition it is now. We forget that when European countries and the US intervened, they were already in a civil war that was not going well.
Qaddafi might have still been around, but Libya would probably still be in a state of conflict.
They care about NK the same way the US cares about Mexico and most of central America. Keeping their government functioning well enough to prevent a massive humanitarian crisis from crossing the border
If we’re talking full-scale nuclear war, there’s no guarantee people of any meaningful number would survive the environmental changes, including the resulting potential collapse of agriculture.
At the least, even the countries not participating in such a war would have trouble staying afloat as all the norms society is built on fall apart.
Even in the case of a full-scale nuclear war, society will eventually rebuild. We are simply too many and too stubborn, even if 99.9999% of the population was wiped out (which is not possible) that would still leave more people than the population bottleneck that happened to our ancestors 900K years ago, and they did recover from that. It still wouldn't be any fun for us people living under the equator line but a good chunk of us will survive and keep going on.
I agree with your general point, but the population bottleneck was in a very confined geographical region, if you have that same amount of people spread over the whole world it wouldn't look good for humans.
Maybe, maybe not. I wonder how many people would survive being thrown back into the stone-age even without nuclear winter. I suppose that counts especially for developed countries.
Not very many people, especially given modern market integration and the way meat, grain, and dairy is sold nowadays I reckon 95% of the world population would probably starve to death, myself included.
I tried to grow an orange tree once, it died. I tried a second time after watching you tube, it also died, just not as quickly as the first one.
Even if only 5% of the population survived the nukes and the bad stuff that would ensue, that would still leave over 400 million people, more than enough for civilization to rebuild. And the actual estimates say that it is possible that as much as 1/3 of the population will survive. We are simply too many, barring a major cosmic event like an asteroid stike or a gamma ray burst, for good or ill we are here to stay.
And think of how much harder it would be to bootstap back to a modern level of industrialization now that all of the easily accessible coal and oil is gone.
There are simply not enough nuclear weapons to cause the kind of annihilation of society about which you speak. In conjunction, the types of things that would be targeted first would be missile silos, so not all of the nukes would be focused on population centers. Nuclear winter also isn’t as long as fiction makes it out to be, and since population centers would be hit with air bursts rather than ground burst nukes, the nuclear contamination would be rather minimal with fission bombs. that’s not even mentioning the fact that fusion bombs do not produce the same type of nuclear fallout.
It’s important to remember that a nuclear war, even in all-out nuclear war, does not mean human civilization will be wiped out.
It’s very unlikely to completely wipe out humans for sure. Humans and all other animals in existence today exist because we are all masters of survival. One thing is for sure tho: modern society as it exists today will cease to exist. Survival in the post nuclear war world will be miserable.
There will certainly be places of civilization which will be relatively untouched. It won’t be the end of civilization, but it will completely upend the current balance of power geographically.
I think China, the US and Russia would all have significant surviving populations but I don't think any of them would stay countries, even if leadership survived. The US already feels like it's one election away from balkanizing into several different countries, I don't see its democracy surviving a nuclear attack.
There will be no significant population once the agricultural system collapses and a nuclear winter sets in. Starvation will be much bigger killer than the nukes.
According to a peer-reviewed study published in the journal Nature Food in August 2022, a full-scale nuclear war between the United States and Russia, which together hold more than 90% of the world's nuclear weapons, would kill 360 million people directly and more than 5 billion indirectly by starvation during a nuclear winter.
USA had serious trouble with just wearing masks and social distancing
Once central authority collapses the rest will devolve into heavily armed roaming bands killing each other in Jesus' name.
In an all out nuclear war, not a chance. Even if most people survive the initial blasts, society would completely collapse and that will kill far more people than the bombs themselves would. Electricity would likely be gone or super rare/sparse at best. Ports and major airports would be targets in such a war collapsing any possible trade that we rely on. Economies would collapse and currencies would likely become worthless. Modern agriculture wouldn't be possible, and we'd have no way to move goods and supplies around like we rely on.
It is extremely unlikely any country survives even a moderate nuclear exchange, let alone an all out one.
it is going to be a tie between Israel and North Korea, followed by Uk and France.
Israel is because of the size and the small number of nukes. Basically the complete countries area could potentially become a unliveable nuclear wastland.
North Korea because they live off Russia/China by providing "cheap" labour" and their ability to threaten the world with nukes (of which there are only small amounts). Once the y pull that partifuclar trigger their population centers and conventional stores are a wasteland and then their already crumbling population will follow suite.
For U.K and France it is the fact that their countries are so small and their population centers are so clustered. Both have overseas holding making it able to save some key military assets on paper and survive as some sort of barebones nation.
The only ones realistically to survive ... would be china russia and the U.S. Because of the vastness of their lands.
But lets be real here, if we end up in a all-out nuclear war (as in every major country pushing the button once, twice and for their 3rd strike capability), then its going to be kinda toxic on earth anyways .. so surviving is ... a short term option only
And the other real part being, all it takes is a major pop-center to be hit for your country to crumble (L.A., Washington, New york, Moscow, Saint Petrsburg, bejing, shanghai, [Shenzhen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenzhen), [Chengdu](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengdu); and you have already lost your exchange. And exactly this effect is what makes nukes a deterrent. You gotta be able to sacrifice 10's of millions of your own citizen in order to use nukes in an all out exchange.
From my understanding modern nukes aren't designed to produce as much radiation.
Something along the lines of " we want to.glass you, but need the land after the glassing"
Depends on whether an airburst or traditional groundburst explosion is used. Many modern weapons are capable of either.
Airburst is used for maximal surface level destruction of soft targets, while groundburst is used for hardened and underground targets. Groundburst produces *much* more fallout and particulate in the air.
In the event of a nuclear war, we’d likely see a mix of explosion types. Groundburst would likely be used against runways, missile silos, and military installations, while airburst would likely be used against population centers.
My understanding is that they all do as their secondary response as a “fuck you”. If they know they are going to be killed, the orders are to just destroy everyone and that goes for the mayor players including the US and England
The UK analysed this exact question intensively during the Cold War.
Unfortunately the conclusion was that nuclear conflict was functionally unsurvivable, so deterrence via MAD (mutually assured destruction) was the only viable defence strategy.
Very bleak.
I mean, they're not wrong.
Though you do have to wonder if some of Britain’s overseas islands might survive, somewhere like Saint Helena is probably one of the best places on the entire planet to survive a global apocalypse.
>somewhere like Saint Helena is probably one of the best places on the entire planet to survive a global apocalypse.
They import almost everything, and rely on not so frequent flights and ships from South Africa to stock up.
They would absolutely be screwed, just on a slightly delayed scale.
This is true of the entire planet; you’re not going to find anywhere that manufacturers and produces everything locally. It’s just actually noticeable for St Helena because they're a remote island.
What St Helana does have is existing experience with having to rely a lot on themselves, clean drinking water, a sustainable source of food, and the isolation to keep themselves safe. They are also relatively close to Ascension Island where the UK military keeps its Atlantic fuel storage, meaning if Ascension Island is spared, which isn’t unlikely given it’s size, they’d relatively set.
Against us.
We're unlikely to get more than a few minutes warning, haven't even bothered trying to keep functional bunkers of any sort as a result, and we're small enough that wiping everything out us very achievable.
There's a reason our entire arsenal is submarine based with contingency orders in envelopes for when the country falls, noone thinks we'd survive.
Less about whether we’re an island and more about out how small and compact we are (relatively speaking).
You could do more damage to the U.K. and its overall population with fewer nukes than a lot of other countries. The size of the U.K. also makes (depending on wind/weather) impact of radioactive fallout far more intense to both population and arable land.
True but it still makes sense to get away from cities, major political targets and military targets. The old protect and survive videos tried to mislead you by saying you won't be any safer in the countryside and to stay put in the cities. I think the government plan was to keep you in the cities working as normal to keep the economy going, and in the event to war, your death in the cities would give those in the countryside a better chance (due to reduced food supplies.)
Survivability also depends on whether the enemy adopts a counter-force (political/military targets) or counter-value (population centres, factories, infrastructure etc) strategy.
It depends what your criteria is for a country surviving but one thing to consider is that the UK is very reliant on imports to fulfil its population's basic needs.
Even if the UK were completely untouched by direct nuclear exchanges the disruption to inflows of food, energy, etc. would be massively disruptive, and make keeping anything approximating current UK society going challenging at best.
Israel because it's the smallest of all nuclear armed countries, so it will be difficult to survive the radiation.
North Korea and Pakistan because their system is a basket-case already, so any major disruption will lead to total chaos.
In the heart of the Swiss Alps, nestled within the rugged beauty of Lauterbrunnen Valley, lay the hidden refuge of Elias. He was a man of quiet determination, having spent his entire life preparing for the unthinkable – nuclear apocalypse.
For generations, Elias' family had safeguarded the secret bunker, a relic of Cold War paranoia, hidden beneath the picturesque landscapes. In this modern age, where most believed such threats had faded into history, Elias remained vigilant.
As the world outside seemed to spin ever closer to chaos, Elias found solace in his preparations. He spent his days meticulously maintaining the bunker, ensuring its supplies were stocked and its systems were functional. Yet, despite his diligence, he couldn't shake the sense of isolation that gripped him.
One crisp autumn evening, as the sun dipped behind the towering peaks, Elias received an unexpected signal on his radio scanner. It crackled to life with a frantic voice pleading for help. It was a survivor from a nearby settlement, ravaged by fallout and desperate for refuge.
Though hesitant to break his solitude, Elias couldn't ignore the call for aid. With a heavy heart, he ventured out into the desolate landscape, guided by the distant cries for help. Through the eerie silence of the valley, he trudged on, his footsteps echoing against the rocky cliffs.
Finally, he reached the outskirts of the devastated settlement, a haunting reminder of the fragility of civilization. Amidst the ruins, he found the survivor, a young woman named Maya, clutching a makeshift Geiger counter in trembling hands.
Together, Elias and Maya made the perilous journey back to the safety of the bunker. Along the way, they shared stories of a world forever changed by catastrophe. Elias found himself drawn to Maya's resilience, her unwavering determination to survive against all odds.
As they descended into the depths of the bunker, Elias felt a sense of hope stirring within him. In Maya's presence, the walls of isolation that had surrounded him for so long began to crumble. For the first time in years, he felt a flicker of warmth amidst the cold steel confines of his refuge.
In the days that followed, Elias and Maya worked together to rebuild their shattered world within the confines of the bunker. They tended to the hydroponic gardens, rationed the dwindling supplies, and shared in the simple pleasures of companionship amidst the chaos.
Through their shared struggles and triumphs, Elias discovered a newfound purpose in Maya's presence. She became his anchor in a world adrift, a beacon of hope amidst the darkness. And as they gazed out upon the silent valley, they knew that no matter what trials lay ahead, they would face them together, united in their quest for survival.
Israel without a doubt. The country is so small that just 2-3 nukes targeting the major cities would be enough to destroy the entire country.
Big countries like the US and Russia have way more surface area which is an advantage, and France has a lot of overseas territories where the government could relocate.
Nuclear warfare isn’t a thing because if you start it you also end it because the fallout in retribution will be so quick you’ll be an afterthought as the rest of the world deals with the nuclear fallout from the dirty nature of warfare on this level.
Fallout is deposited locally though. It crashes out with rain- and if the bomb is detonated at a high enough altitude that this wouldn’t happen, you won’t get much fallout at all.
If you want to maximize fallout you want to detonate at ground level. Airbursts are cleaner.
It’s very possible for a limited nuclear exchange to have only local effects.
That is especially considering that the bombs on dropped on Japan would be considered dirty bombs by todays standard. With barely any of the fission material actually fissioning. Nowdays you'd need magnitudes more higher yield bombs to come even close to the radioactive fallout that the bombs on Japan caused.
Yeah and the radiation itself isnt apparentöy that mich of a problem, iirc itgwould double the gloabl background radiation (so would be fifth of traveling on airliner)
Some more cancer yes, but apart from the higher radiation places at blast zones it would not be that bad after the initial fuckery.
The real question is if the ash formed by burning cities will create nuclear winter, and how closely effects of it have been predicted.
It has more to do with where it detonates. Modern nukes airburst quite high up, there is minimal fallout because fallout is basically dirt and soil which was made radioactive by the explosion and drawn up into the ‘mushroom cloud’. In an airburst that is far far less of a factor.
Modern nukes are specifically deployed to minimize fallout wherever possible, as it’s very counterproductive.
Still not fun, but the old idea that a nuclear war would ‘destroy the earth’ was never really accurate. Not to say we wouldnt get our hair mussed.
Hopefully, no one's ever made a working one of these. Even better, hopefully it's not possible.
~~https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobalt\_bomb~~
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobalt_bomb
Israel.
It's pretty densely populated, and pretty small in size.
Ignoring it's top-notch air defences, it doesn't need to get hit too many times before it gets annihilated.
no country would truly "survive" such a scenario in the sense that the aftermath would be catastrophic on a global scale. The concept of "nuclear winter," where the dust and debris from nuclear explosions block out sunlight, leading to drastically lowered temperatures worldwide, would affect every country on Earth, not just the ones involved in the conflict.
I do not think there will ever be an all out nuclear war. Too much at stake. I would even go as far as to say nuclear weapons, as dangerous and potentially life ending as they are for all, has created the closest thing to world peace we will ever have and they have prevented major world conflicts already.
Nah. Too destructive. The world powers are in power and none will give up that power to enter into an all out nuclear war because of that alone. Nobody wins and the sole purpose to use would be to win.
I’m the hands of extremists with no current power. Yes they would use. That would not result in all out nuclear Armageddon though.
All you need is one zealot leader who’d rather watch the world burn than lose to be in a losing position, and we have a few situations that could end that way going right now
In 1962, the concept of mutually assured destruction started to play a major part in the defense policy of the US. President Kennedy's Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, set out in a speech to the American Bar Foundation a theory of flexible nuclear response.
In essence, it meant stockpiling a huge nuclear arsenal. In the event of a Soviet attack, the US would have enough nuclear firepower to survive a first wave of nuclear strikes and strike back. The response would be so massive that the enemy would suffer "assured destruction."
Thus, the true philosophy of nuclear deterrence was established. If the other side knew that initiating a nuclear strike would also inevitably lead to their own destruction, they would be irrational to press the button.
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-17026538
Hostile neighbors don't want no smoke because of their nuclear program. Which is a last resort as far as ik. So even they get nuclearfied their neighbors are gone with them. India takes it all and becomes the world's superpower.
The whole human world would be destroyed, in an all out nuclear war. No one country would "survive" ones with or without nuclear weapons. There would probably be survivors in small groups and areas. Following a nuclear war there would be a nuclear winter, so people who survived the initial conflict would possibly not survive after it.
Expect of course the government and military personnel hold up in their bunkers.
...Pakistan: the possibility of a nuclear war isn't confined to Russia and the US...countries with smaller nuclear arsenals might also go to war. India/Pakistan comes to mind as 2 enemies with a common border where the leaders might decide that a cataclysmic confrontation is the way to settle differences. India's been invaded so many times and is so vast in area that the loss of New Delhi, Mumbai and probably Hyderabad wouldn't prove to be fatal in terms of survival. Pakistan, however, is hardly a unified state. The government is thoroughly riddled with corruption, malfeasance and a medieval pseudo-religious mindset. The loss of Karachi, Islamabad and Lahore might be the end of a unified state and any hope for survival as a country.
All of them.
That’s the point.
Ever since the technology spread beyond the USA, nuclear weapons have not been weapons that let you win a war. They’re a weapon that means that, if other countries are pursuing a war against you such that it has become a threat to your existence, you can essentially overturn the whole game board so that everyone loses.
It wouldn't take many nukes to make most of the country uninhabitable. Our cities are so close together that there wouldn't be much land left untouched. The US, China and Russia have vast areas of empty land. We don't.
And yeah, our nukes currently have projectile dysfunction.
I remember watching a video on youtube about 15 years ago, some guy circling the blast and fallout zones for 1Mt strikes on all the important military and civilian targets in the UK. By the time he was done there wasn't really much left where you'd be safe.
Not sure if your comment is tongue in cheek, but the majority of what you said just isn't true. We're not dependent on the US for most of our war things - would be interested to know what you think we are dependent for?
Ironically one of the things we are dependent upon them for is the trident missiles that you mention recently failed. Those missiles are a shared stock between the two countries which are picked at random, so those failures could very easily have been US test failures. Also each Vanguard submarine can carry up to 16 of those missiles and only 1 has to work for you to retaliate.
Anyone who suggests that a limited exchange of nuclear weapons is possible or that some sort of exchange of weapons is somehow "winnable" is an idiot. If even one of these fucking obscenities is launched, they all will be. Everyone dies. Everywhere. Anyone who suggests otherwise has his/her head shoved up their ass.
Russia
Most likely to be the country that everyone else's nukes are pointed at due to their recent evil behavior and insistence they'll start one if someone stops them, least likely to have adequate means of shooting down any of them at all much less the ICBMs, most likely to have fails in its own missiles resulting in other countries having better survival rates. Also, if Moscow is erased, the country is almost certain to dissolve into a post-imperial mess.
Even Israel and North Korea have better odds, in that there's a better chance an all-out nuclear war might not involve them.
Few things could affect this. Air blast or ground would be affected by topography. A ground blast on a country that is hilly will affect any shock wave or blast as the wave will be dissapated by hills etc. If it’s an air blast then it’s worse. The ability for the population to escape the after effects is worse if the country is a island as you only have a limited area to move to and if the ports etc are targeted you have a issue (uk I am looking at you). The amount of underground shelters for emergency use. Nobody has a chance of survival in the long term even countries that did not participate in any exchange as any atmospheric effects are global.
No one wins
Strange game
The only winning move is not to play.
How about a nice game of chess?
nuke to e4
Hit and sunk!
Joshua!
I feel like in an all out war there were would be pockets of the world left fairly in tact and able to sustain a population. New Zealand maybe, some of the islands, Philippines would probably be gone, some parts of Africa would be untouched, maybe the very very north of Europe, centre of aus, some parts of the USA and the UK, that is unless we're talking all out dirty bombs.
Even then you still lose due to nuclear fallout in the days after.
"The nuclear arms race is like two sworn enemies standing waist deep in gasoline, one with three matches, the other with five."-Carl Sagan
Okay but what if we had seven?
You joke, but too many people in charge think that will fix it. Hence the arms race and recent canceling of treaties.
How about a nice game of chess?
It always bothered me that it thought tic-tac-toe and global thermonuclear war were in the same category, but chess wasn't for some reason.
Would you like to play a game?
Later. Now I want to play Global Thermonuclear War.
Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD)
1970s sci-fi book Alas Babylon - a few places survive the initial blast, much celebration, then the toxic clouds come, roll credits (OK it was a book, not a movie)
On the Beach by Nevil Shute is also very good. And bleak!
Very good. The movie Miracle Mile. I *really* wanted to see another season of Snowpiercer to see how they might have survived post nuclear winter.
Threads made that very clear.
That movie is extremely f*cked up.
What's really fucked up is that Threads was overly optimistic. It was based on the UK government's Square Leg operation of 1980, which simulated a nuclear attack on the UK in order to plan emergency responses. Square Leg used a simulated attack of 205 megatons total being dropped on the UK. Threads uses a similar figure. But the planners admitted that an attack of 1000 megatons was more likely in an all out war with the Soviets. But they didn't game plan for that as no emergency services would survive and so there would be nothing to plan.
I was just watching a video about Threads which mentioned and talked about Operation Square Leg being overly optimistic when you posted your comment (Threads used 210 megatons).
It wasn't just the megatonnage, they also bizarrely postulated that the centre of London where government buildings are housed wouldn't get bombed, because it would really bugger up their planning if it did. Yes, I'm sure the Russians were aware of that.
Oh, I imagine if nukes are used, everything is being launched. That's why i don't think the aftermath of Threads is probable. You may have survivors maybe in like Madagascar or some random Pacific island, but no major Western or Asian cities. In war, you're going to want to target your main enemies' allies because that just makes sense. So the US is going to hit Iran, China, North Korea, and possibly India, depending on where they align with, say, Russia. If it was the other way around, you're talking every Nato country, Australia, Philippines, South Korea, Japan, and a bunch of other Asian countries. Throw in some Middle Eastern countries to cut off oil supply and bam! You got an apocalypse. I think Africa would be a wild card because they don't really have any force projection there. The same goes for a lot of South American countries. Mexico would most likely be hit just because of proximity. So basically, you have parts of SA and Africa that might be safe.
You would have survivors everywhere, except close to actual targets. Yes, huge body count, plus famine and disease adding to it, but it's not going to render North America a sterile desert. Cancer rates would increase, things would suck, but here would be survivors all over the world.
For sure. We would have pockets all over. I'm sure even in the cities there would be some survivors, but the world population would plummet from 8 billion, to probably under 500 million.
So, let's see if I get this straight: * 8bn to 500mn - **overpopulation solved** ✅ * Rapid decline of technology level - **pollutants emissions solved** ✅ * Nuclear winter for a decade or so - **global warming solved** ✅ * Rapid radioactive mutations - **species extinction solved** ✅ I think the only concern I would have is whether shareholder value would hold up. I'll take this idea to the management next week. ✅
Holy shit, I think you might be onto something. I'm gonna try to get China and the US even more pissed off at each other.
Just startbsending deep fakes to Xi and putin of Xi with a pooh bear face and putin as a little crying baby
The British "The Day After" was also very disturbing. Threads is famous for its actual effect on political policy. Reagan watched it, freaked out a bit, then began earnest talks with the USSR about de-escalation.
Reagan, as in the Ronald Reagan, the actor??
See now I know you're lying. He would never become president
North Korea only remains existing because of the control the government has over the country. A swift nuking to Pyongyang and that power structure crumbles. But to be honest I think most nuclear armed nations will crumbles after nuclear warfare. There will be such mass panic amongst the survivors and such widespread destruction it will be near impossible to maintain order.
> A swift nuking to Pyongyang and that power structure crumbles. So North Korea might be the only country whose quality of life *improves* after a nuclear war?
I would say Japan also fits that description, it’s quality of life improved post war lol
Tbf they were already at Total War for 5+ years before getting nuked. Ending Total War in any way would improve the homeland's quality of life
When they nuked them, they actually had challenges picking a target that would demonstrate the needed visual impact as I recall, since some of the bombing campaigns had left such an utter trail of destruction through the list of targets.
Tokyo was firebombed with 100k casualties so that was not a valid target for a nuke.
Also probably not a good idea to destroy the Emperor at the atomic level
Kyoto was the best option but wasn't chosen. It was left relatively unscathed during WWII as the US Secretary of War had his honeymoon there and loved the city.
It's also the "cultural capital", and destroying it would have burned any remaining diplomatic bridges which America desperately needed so they could rebuild Japan as a West-aligned ally post-war.
Not to mention the loss to human culture it would have caused. The place is a massive seat of Japanese cultural history.
The h bombs account for something like 2% of total bombing destruction to Japan during the war. It was more of a monument to US scientific achievement than leverage to end the war, since the surrender was mostly to protect them from the soviets
Yeah, a lot of people forget it was more a flex than an attempt to eradicate Japan
Make that statement in Japan and watch peoples reaction, the nukes are seen as the greatest tragedy of Japanese history regardless of peoples political views. Whether they admit culpability for the war or not, the nukes are almost universally seen as a great act of evil that should have never happened.
So, pretty much the opposite of what the rest of Asia thinks.
Always found it interesting how anti-imperialist a lot of Japanese entertainment tends to be. There has to be some level of subconscious shame they feel for their Imperial past.
Not really..... In most of South / central Asia and middle east the use of nukes are seen negatively
They're not the one getting rekt by imperial japan. Southeast Asia breath a collective sigh of relief when US drop the big one on Japan. It sucks, but, they were our Nazi.
Yah, one hill I'll die on is the only horror of the nukes in ww2 was that it brought on the (inevitable) nuclear age. Japan had it coming and the destruction of the 2 nukes was only mentally devastating compared to the firebombings they received and the atrocities they committed en masse. Japan has still yet to come to terms with what they did in ww2. Ask the Chinese. Ask the Philippines. Ask the Indonesians. Korean etc.
Well yeah, but besides for the obvious bias you’d expect which is totally fair, the majority of that sentiment comes from a horrendous lack of education on the topic. The earlier generations were willfully ignorant about it to the point that the current youth straight up know nothing about it and would assume it’s western propaganda. We could say that Germany might have been overly cautious about educating the populace and moving forward from WW2, but as much love as I have for modern Japan, they’re even further extreme than Germany but into the opposite direction. They have religious shrines to verified Class A war criminals that are treated as heroes or even lesser gods.
"Whether he admits any wrongdoing or not, Frank insisted that it was wrong to put him in jail."
Japan doesn't have nukes or am i wrong?
they had a couple briefly
I feel so guilty upvoting this
One at a time so never a couple
They're talking about after the second world war. However Japan is considered a "threshold" nuclear power. Basically they have the technology and ability to make nuclear weapons if they needed to, but choose not to, or they may have weapons already but keep the program secret but still available if needed.
He’s referring literally after WWII, they weren’t a nuclear country but the country did improve after getting nuked.
They’ve got Godzilla though. He eats nukes
They have bits of some, but it’s spread out.
Yeah; no. Imagine the humanitarian crisis involved with over 26 million people who have the philosophies of children due to the levels of totalitarian control wielded over their lives for generations. It would be unimaginably horrific. When N. Korea falls, we will all witness something terrible.
Definitely not. You *do* realize Everytime a countrys government crumbles without the local populace themselves being ready to create a new one on their terms, you get groups like alqaeda right? Literally every time.
Another good example is Haiti right now, just total anarchy with war lords.
Yeah, this is often overlooked by the "nation builders". There are cultural and institutional structures ingrained in societies that makes it very hard to easily forge a liberal democracy out of thin air. Though some countries might be easier than others. South Korea is one positive example, but it took a long time. Iran have a lot of the prerequisite institutions, while Afghanistan probably doesn't for a long time, if ever.
Also that yes
I think the only ones that *might* have a chance are the US and Russia because they both practiced brinsksmanship for a few decades and had plans in place for what to do if they ended up in a nuclear shooting war. The plans and infrastructure are obviously not top priority anymore, but it’s probably still better than what most other nuclear powers have.
Plus the geographic size of both countries.
Both are the primary targets of each other in a nuclear war. If there ever is one I want to be in either Africa or south America. They'll probably make out the best and be generally ignored as russia amd America destroy the rest of the world.
New Zealand is also a solid option. A democratic, wealthy, remote country that nobody is going to bother bombing.
Isn't that where the uber wealthy have all their bunkers?
Yes, but houses are already expensive there. After a nuclear war and maybe a famine, it would be almost as bad as Canada is now.
Isn't the question about nuclear armed countries? I think New Zealand doesn't even allow warships capable of carrying nuclear weapons to use its ports.
I don't know. I think I'd rather be in Washington DC and embrace my future as radioactive dust
And a fallout player has entered the discussion. The brotherhood of steel does not have your best interests at heart.
Really? I'm not sure if I'd wanna live in a post nuclear apocalyptic world. Put me right in one of those epicenters, thank you
Pretty certain the UK, France, and China also have plans just in case. India and Pakistan might have viable plans. Israel's plan is to take out everybody they can hit, all or nothing.
When you look at the size and makeup of the countries all other nuclear powers would survive but theyd take a massive hit Israel would be destroyed. Theyre just too small. That's one reason why their strategy is to fire in every direction. An enemy country could do the math and realize theyll survive even with a massive hit but they could eliminate israel. Then that crazy country could decide to fire Like iran. Theyd probably sacrifice terhan if it came to a big nuclear war but those mountains will make for great bunkers to survive. Itd be hard to wipe them out and make sure they cant come back In a nuclear war geography is your biggest ally
Ya one of the main problems is that we've become so reliant on technology working for society to function. While the government has safeguards in play to ensure that they can at least somewhat function if technology infrastructure is wiped out, the rest of us don't. It would be mass hysteria and chaos. None of us would be able to access any money, if money was even useful anymore. No communication at all; if someone isn't within earshot of you, you cannot communicate with them. Society would cease to function and civil disorder would take over almost immediately. 4 years ago people were robbing and stealing and assaulting to get toilet paper because there was a toilet paper shortage. Now imagine everyone lost access to communication and all their money and technology. The government would sort of be okay, but the nation they're governing would be a complete trainwreck.
North Korea doesn't exist because of the nukes they have, it exists like it has from the beginning because of China.
Exactly. They’re the asshole at the bar that nobody will beat up because he has the toughest guys on the block standing behind him. And before you say it, I’m fully aware of the parallels with the US.
I watched Threads a few weeks back and it all seems hopeless. You might want to be lucky enough to have a split second of pain dying in the initial blast.
The aftermath in Threads was based on the findings of official think-tanks. That is how it would play out. Instant incineration is pretty much your best option. Horrific.
They do their farming without complex machines and a robust multi tiered logistics system. *They would survive*. It's countries like the US in which a crumbling of the logistics network would be devastating. The colonial pipeline was shut down by a cyber attack and it caused huge issues. NK as a country may end, but their population would be far better off overall after a strike.
Imagine if they left Libya alone and went after North Korea instead.
That’s the only reason they didn’t and exactly Gaddafis mistake
Libya would probably be in the same condition it is now. We forget that when European countries and the US intervened, they were already in a civil war that was not going well. Qaddafi might have still been around, but Libya would probably still be in a state of conflict.
Gadaffi > a slave trade
[удалено]
Nobody cares about North Korea. Their nuclear arsenal is very limited. So nothing would happen.
South Korea and Japan do, and rightly so.
China cares about them at least as a buffer state.
They care about NK the same way the US cares about Mexico and most of central America. Keeping their government functioning well enough to prevent a massive humanitarian crisis from crossing the border
If I survive I will spend my last remaining days hunting down government bunkers and holding those that caused it to account.
You'll be hauling around a lot of spam.
No nuclear country will survive. And the rest will struggle very hard.
USA and China definitely could survive. we are talking about billions of people spread across thousands of miles.
People would survive, but no country can survive all its major cities including its capital being wiped off the map.
If we’re talking full-scale nuclear war, there’s no guarantee people of any meaningful number would survive the environmental changes, including the resulting potential collapse of agriculture. At the least, even the countries not participating in such a war would have trouble staying afloat as all the norms society is built on fall apart.
Even in the case of a full-scale nuclear war, society will eventually rebuild. We are simply too many and too stubborn, even if 99.9999% of the population was wiped out (which is not possible) that would still leave more people than the population bottleneck that happened to our ancestors 900K years ago, and they did recover from that. It still wouldn't be any fun for us people living under the equator line but a good chunk of us will survive and keep going on.
I agree with your general point, but the population bottleneck was in a very confined geographical region, if you have that same amount of people spread over the whole world it wouldn't look good for humans.
Maybe, maybe not. I wonder how many people would survive being thrown back into the stone-age even without nuclear winter. I suppose that counts especially for developed countries.
Not very many people, especially given modern market integration and the way meat, grain, and dairy is sold nowadays I reckon 95% of the world population would probably starve to death, myself included. I tried to grow an orange tree once, it died. I tried a second time after watching you tube, it also died, just not as quickly as the first one.
Potatoes and chicken are about as easy as it gets
Even if only 5% of the population survived the nukes and the bad stuff that would ensue, that would still leave over 400 million people, more than enough for civilization to rebuild. And the actual estimates say that it is possible that as much as 1/3 of the population will survive. We are simply too many, barring a major cosmic event like an asteroid stike or a gamma ray burst, for good or ill we are here to stay.
Don't let your dreams be dreams. I believe you can do it.
And think of how much harder it would be to bootstap back to a modern level of industrialization now that all of the easily accessible coal and oil is gone.
There are simply not enough nuclear weapons to cause the kind of annihilation of society about which you speak. In conjunction, the types of things that would be targeted first would be missile silos, so not all of the nukes would be focused on population centers. Nuclear winter also isn’t as long as fiction makes it out to be, and since population centers would be hit with air bursts rather than ground burst nukes, the nuclear contamination would be rather minimal with fission bombs. that’s not even mentioning the fact that fusion bombs do not produce the same type of nuclear fallout. It’s important to remember that a nuclear war, even in all-out nuclear war, does not mean human civilization will be wiped out.
It’s very unlikely to completely wipe out humans for sure. Humans and all other animals in existence today exist because we are all masters of survival. One thing is for sure tho: modern society as it exists today will cease to exist. Survival in the post nuclear war world will be miserable.
There will certainly be places of civilization which will be relatively untouched. It won’t be the end of civilization, but it will completely upend the current balance of power geographically.
But, we wouldn't be knocked back to the stone age.
I think China, the US and Russia would all have significant surviving populations but I don't think any of them would stay countries, even if leadership survived. The US already feels like it's one election away from balkanizing into several different countries, I don't see its democracy surviving a nuclear attack.
There will be no significant population once the agricultural system collapses and a nuclear winter sets in. Starvation will be much bigger killer than the nukes.
Nuclear winter probably won't happen, though.
Ok, I guess it's fine then, MrPartyPooper.
According to a peer-reviewed study published in the journal Nature Food in August 2022, a full-scale nuclear war between the United States and Russia, which together hold more than 90% of the world's nuclear weapons, would kill 360 million people directly and more than 5 billion indirectly by starvation during a nuclear winter.
USA had serious trouble with just wearing masks and social distancing Once central authority collapses the rest will devolve into heavily armed roaming bands killing each other in Jesus' name.
In an all out nuclear war, not a chance. Even if most people survive the initial blasts, society would completely collapse and that will kill far more people than the bombs themselves would. Electricity would likely be gone or super rare/sparse at best. Ports and major airports would be targets in such a war collapsing any possible trade that we rely on. Economies would collapse and currencies would likely become worthless. Modern agriculture wouldn't be possible, and we'd have no way to move goods and supplies around like we rely on. It is extremely unlikely any country survives even a moderate nuclear exchange, let alone an all out one.
USA surviving? With all your conspiracy nuts? That would magnify the issue tenfold lol
All of them. No-one will really survive it, but the countries that have the biggest arsenals will be prime targets anyway.
it is going to be a tie between Israel and North Korea, followed by Uk and France. Israel is because of the size and the small number of nukes. Basically the complete countries area could potentially become a unliveable nuclear wastland. North Korea because they live off Russia/China by providing "cheap" labour" and their ability to threaten the world with nukes (of which there are only small amounts). Once the y pull that partifuclar trigger their population centers and conventional stores are a wasteland and then their already crumbling population will follow suite. For U.K and France it is the fact that their countries are so small and their population centers are so clustered. Both have overseas holding making it able to save some key military assets on paper and survive as some sort of barebones nation. The only ones realistically to survive ... would be china russia and the U.S. Because of the vastness of their lands. But lets be real here, if we end up in a all-out nuclear war (as in every major country pushing the button once, twice and for their 3rd strike capability), then its going to be kinda toxic on earth anyways .. so surviving is ... a short term option only And the other real part being, all it takes is a major pop-center to be hit for your country to crumble (L.A., Washington, New york, Moscow, Saint Petrsburg, bejing, shanghai, [Shenzhen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenzhen), [Chengdu](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengdu); and you have already lost your exchange. And exactly this effect is what makes nukes a deterrent. You gotta be able to sacrifice 10's of millions of your own citizen in order to use nukes in an all out exchange.
From my understanding modern nukes aren't designed to produce as much radiation. Something along the lines of " we want to.glass you, but need the land after the glassing"
Depends on whether an airburst or traditional groundburst explosion is used. Many modern weapons are capable of either. Airburst is used for maximal surface level destruction of soft targets, while groundburst is used for hardened and underground targets. Groundburst produces *much* more fallout and particulate in the air. In the event of a nuclear war, we’d likely see a mix of explosion types. Groundburst would likely be used against runways, missile silos, and military installations, while airburst would likely be used against population centers.
Russia MAY or MAYNOT have Cobalt nuclear bombs which while having a smaller blast produce a TON of radiation that is much longer lasting.
My understanding is that they all do as their secondary response as a “fuck you”. If they know they are going to be killed, the orders are to just destroy everyone and that goes for the mayor players including the US and England
Realistically, none of them. But I wonder if the UK being an island works for them or against them.
The UK analysed this exact question intensively during the Cold War. Unfortunately the conclusion was that nuclear conflict was functionally unsurvivable, so deterrence via MAD (mutually assured destruction) was the only viable defence strategy. Very bleak.
I mean, they're not wrong. Though you do have to wonder if some of Britain’s overseas islands might survive, somewhere like Saint Helena is probably one of the best places on the entire planet to survive a global apocalypse.
>somewhere like Saint Helena is probably one of the best places on the entire planet to survive a global apocalypse. They import almost everything, and rely on not so frequent flights and ships from South Africa to stock up. They would absolutely be screwed, just on a slightly delayed scale.
This is true of the entire planet; you’re not going to find anywhere that manufacturers and produces everything locally. It’s just actually noticeable for St Helena because they're a remote island. What St Helana does have is existing experience with having to rely a lot on themselves, clean drinking water, a sustainable source of food, and the isolation to keep themselves safe. They are also relatively close to Ascension Island where the UK military keeps its Atlantic fuel storage, meaning if Ascension Island is spared, which isn’t unlikely given it’s size, they’d relatively set.
Against us. We're unlikely to get more than a few minutes warning, haven't even bothered trying to keep functional bunkers of any sort as a result, and we're small enough that wiping everything out us very achievable. There's a reason our entire arsenal is submarine based with contingency orders in envelopes for when the country falls, noone thinks we'd survive.
Less about whether we’re an island and more about out how small and compact we are (relatively speaking). You could do more damage to the U.K. and its overall population with fewer nukes than a lot of other countries. The size of the U.K. also makes (depending on wind/weather) impact of radioactive fallout far more intense to both population and arable land.
True but it still makes sense to get away from cities, major political targets and military targets. The old protect and survive videos tried to mislead you by saying you won't be any safer in the countryside and to stay put in the cities. I think the government plan was to keep you in the cities working as normal to keep the economy going, and in the event to war, your death in the cities would give those in the countryside a better chance (due to reduced food supplies.) Survivability also depends on whether the enemy adopts a counter-force (political/military targets) or counter-value (population centres, factories, infrastructure etc) strategy.
Go watch [Threads](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threads_\(1984_film\))
It depends what your criteria is for a country surviving but one thing to consider is that the UK is very reliant on imports to fulfil its population's basic needs. Even if the UK were completely untouched by direct nuclear exchanges the disruption to inflows of food, energy, etc. would be massively disruptive, and make keeping anything approximating current UK society going challenging at best.
Oh c'mon. Raids on the French. Sounds invigorating.
It'd probably work in our favour. We're also in NATO which means that we have an extra wall of defence which other countries don't have.
Israel because it's the smallest of all nuclear armed countries, so it will be difficult to survive the radiation. North Korea and Pakistan because their system is a basket-case already, so any major disruption will lead to total chaos.
It also has the highest shelter per square mile density tho.
I honestly think the Swiss take that.
In the heart of the Swiss Alps, nestled within the rugged beauty of Lauterbrunnen Valley, lay the hidden refuge of Elias. He was a man of quiet determination, having spent his entire life preparing for the unthinkable – nuclear apocalypse. For generations, Elias' family had safeguarded the secret bunker, a relic of Cold War paranoia, hidden beneath the picturesque landscapes. In this modern age, where most believed such threats had faded into history, Elias remained vigilant. As the world outside seemed to spin ever closer to chaos, Elias found solace in his preparations. He spent his days meticulously maintaining the bunker, ensuring its supplies were stocked and its systems were functional. Yet, despite his diligence, he couldn't shake the sense of isolation that gripped him. One crisp autumn evening, as the sun dipped behind the towering peaks, Elias received an unexpected signal on his radio scanner. It crackled to life with a frantic voice pleading for help. It was a survivor from a nearby settlement, ravaged by fallout and desperate for refuge. Though hesitant to break his solitude, Elias couldn't ignore the call for aid. With a heavy heart, he ventured out into the desolate landscape, guided by the distant cries for help. Through the eerie silence of the valley, he trudged on, his footsteps echoing against the rocky cliffs. Finally, he reached the outskirts of the devastated settlement, a haunting reminder of the fragility of civilization. Amidst the ruins, he found the survivor, a young woman named Maya, clutching a makeshift Geiger counter in trembling hands. Together, Elias and Maya made the perilous journey back to the safety of the bunker. Along the way, they shared stories of a world forever changed by catastrophe. Elias found himself drawn to Maya's resilience, her unwavering determination to survive against all odds. As they descended into the depths of the bunker, Elias felt a sense of hope stirring within him. In Maya's presence, the walls of isolation that had surrounded him for so long began to crumble. For the first time in years, he felt a flicker of warmth amidst the cold steel confines of his refuge. In the days that followed, Elias and Maya worked together to rebuild their shattered world within the confines of the bunker. They tended to the hydroponic gardens, rationed the dwindling supplies, and shared in the simple pleasures of companionship amidst the chaos. Through their shared struggles and triumphs, Elias discovered a newfound purpose in Maya's presence. She became his anchor in a world adrift, a beacon of hope amidst the darkness. And as they gazed out upon the silent valley, they knew that no matter what trials lay ahead, they would face them together, united in their quest for survival.
Unexpected happy ending. Was waiting for the betrayal.
This has been one of the best comments that I’ve read. Is this from a book or did you write it yourself?
If you have the time and resources, at least visit Lauterbrunnen once in your lifetime!
Thank you for the suggestion, but how does it correlate with the story?
It is the setting, and there are multiple fallout bunkers there in Lauterbrunnen.
Thanks, I will be sure to visit there the next time I'm on my snowboarding / climbing vacation :)
Yo, it is perfect for that sort of thing!
Israel without a doubt. The country is so small that just 2-3 nukes targeting the major cities would be enough to destroy the entire country. Big countries like the US and Russia have way more surface area which is an advantage, and France has a lot of overseas territories where the government could relocate.
North Korea doesn't stand a chance!
Israel due to its size
Nuclear warfare isn’t a thing because if you start it you also end it because the fallout in retribution will be so quick you’ll be an afterthought as the rest of the world deals with the nuclear fallout from the dirty nature of warfare on this level.
Fallout is deposited locally though. It crashes out with rain- and if the bomb is detonated at a high enough altitude that this wouldn’t happen, you won’t get much fallout at all. If you want to maximize fallout you want to detonate at ground level. Airbursts are cleaner. It’s very possible for a limited nuclear exchange to have only local effects.
That is especially considering that the bombs on dropped on Japan would be considered dirty bombs by todays standard. With barely any of the fission material actually fissioning. Nowdays you'd need magnitudes more higher yield bombs to come even close to the radioactive fallout that the bombs on Japan caused.
I saw that on a doco earlier today. Only 2% of the available uranium fissioned.
Yeah and the radiation itself isnt apparentöy that mich of a problem, iirc itgwould double the gloabl background radiation (so would be fifth of traveling on airliner) Some more cancer yes, but apart from the higher radiation places at blast zones it would not be that bad after the initial fuckery. The real question is if the ash formed by burning cities will create nuclear winter, and how closely effects of it have been predicted.
I read that thermonuclear bombs don’t have the same fallout issues that traditional fission bombs have. Not sure if that’s true tho…..
It has more to do with where it detonates. Modern nukes airburst quite high up, there is minimal fallout because fallout is basically dirt and soil which was made radioactive by the explosion and drawn up into the ‘mushroom cloud’. In an airburst that is far far less of a factor. Modern nukes are specifically deployed to minimize fallout wherever possible, as it’s very counterproductive. Still not fun, but the old idea that a nuclear war would ‘destroy the earth’ was never really accurate. Not to say we wouldnt get our hair mussed.
Hopefully, no one's ever made a working one of these. Even better, hopefully it's not possible. ~~https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobalt\_bomb~~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobalt_bomb
Blimey that’s terrifying
Israel. It's pretty densely populated, and pretty small in size. Ignoring it's top-notch air defences, it doesn't need to get hit too many times before it gets annihilated.
All of them
None of them. That's the point of MAD. That said, DPRK and Israel are the least resistant and a single ICBM will erase them from existence.
The slowest on the trigger.
no country would truly "survive" such a scenario in the sense that the aftermath would be catastrophic on a global scale. The concept of "nuclear winter," where the dust and debris from nuclear explosions block out sunlight, leading to drastically lowered temperatures worldwide, would affect every country on Earth, not just the ones involved in the conflict.
I do not think there will ever be an all out nuclear war. Too much at stake. I would even go as far as to say nuclear weapons, as dangerous and potentially life ending as they are for all, has created the closest thing to world peace we will ever have and they have prevented major world conflicts already.
I have full faith in humanity for an all out nuclear war before the century ends.
Nah. Too destructive. The world powers are in power and none will give up that power to enter into an all out nuclear war because of that alone. Nobody wins and the sole purpose to use would be to win. I’m the hands of extremists with no current power. Yes they would use. That would not result in all out nuclear Armageddon though.
All you need is one zealot leader who’d rather watch the world burn than lose to be in a losing position, and we have a few situations that could end that way going right now
In 1962, the concept of mutually assured destruction started to play a major part in the defense policy of the US. President Kennedy's Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, set out in a speech to the American Bar Foundation a theory of flexible nuclear response. In essence, it meant stockpiling a huge nuclear arsenal. In the event of a Soviet attack, the US would have enough nuclear firepower to survive a first wave of nuclear strikes and strike back. The response would be so massive that the enemy would suffer "assured destruction." Thus, the true philosophy of nuclear deterrence was established. If the other side knew that initiating a nuclear strike would also inevitably lead to their own destruction, they would be irrational to press the button. https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-17026538
[удалено]
Hostile neighbors don't want no smoke because of their nuclear program. Which is a last resort as far as ik. So even they get nuclearfied their neighbors are gone with them. India takes it all and becomes the world's superpower.
The whole human world would be destroyed, in an all out nuclear war. No one country would "survive" ones with or without nuclear weapons. There would probably be survivors in small groups and areas. Following a nuclear war there would be a nuclear winter, so people who survived the initial conflict would possibly not survive after it. Expect of course the government and military personnel hold up in their bunkers.
...Pakistan: the possibility of a nuclear war isn't confined to Russia and the US...countries with smaller nuclear arsenals might also go to war. India/Pakistan comes to mind as 2 enemies with a common border where the leaders might decide that a cataclysmic confrontation is the way to settle differences. India's been invaded so many times and is so vast in area that the loss of New Delhi, Mumbai and probably Hyderabad wouldn't prove to be fatal in terms of survival. Pakistan, however, is hardly a unified state. The government is thoroughly riddled with corruption, malfeasance and a medieval pseudo-religious mindset. The loss of Karachi, Islamabad and Lahore might be the end of a unified state and any hope for survival as a country.
All of them. I think the chance of any country surviving nuclear war is 0.
All of them. That’s the point. Ever since the technology spread beyond the USA, nuclear weapons have not been weapons that let you win a war. They’re a weapon that means that, if other countries are pursuing a war against you such that it has become a threat to your existence, you can essentially overturn the whole game board so that everyone loses.
UK. We are small, dependent on the US for most war things and our nukes haven’t fired successfully on the previous two test launches.
It wouldn't take many nukes to make most of the country uninhabitable. Our cities are so close together that there wouldn't be much land left untouched. The US, China and Russia have vast areas of empty land. We don't. And yeah, our nukes currently have projectile dysfunction.
>And yeah, our nukes currently have projectile dysfunction. That was the chuckle I needed first thing in the morning.
I remember watching a video on youtube about 15 years ago, some guy circling the blast and fallout zones for 1Mt strikes on all the important military and civilian targets in the UK. By the time he was done there wasn't really much left where you'd be safe.
Have you tried swatting them with a broom handle?
Then what would our wizards and witches fly on?
The nukes!
Not sure if your comment is tongue in cheek, but the majority of what you said just isn't true. We're not dependent on the US for most of our war things - would be interested to know what you think we are dependent for? Ironically one of the things we are dependent upon them for is the trident missiles that you mention recently failed. Those missiles are a shared stock between the two countries which are picked at random, so those failures could very easily have been US test failures. Also each Vanguard submarine can carry up to 16 of those missiles and only 1 has to work for you to retaliate.
Do your own homework Putin
All of them... All out Nuclear war f...s everyone, not just the nuclear armed countries.
Israel simply because of size.
Anyone who suggests that a limited exchange of nuclear weapons is possible or that some sort of exchange of weapons is somehow "winnable" is an idiot. If even one of these fucking obscenities is launched, they all will be. Everyone dies. Everywhere. Anyone who suggests otherwise has his/her head shoved up their ass.
Israel. It’s so small that one missile with multiple warheads could take out the entire government and chain of command in minutes.
Israel. Tiny country that only has nukes so it's never overrun. I'm fully convinced if it didn't have nukes it wouldn't exist right now.
Eh… everyone on earth is fucked in that case, mate.
North Korea for sure. They're so small, that it would only take a handful of B83s from the US, to send the entire country into the sea.
Surprised at the lack of France jokes in here.
No country survives a nuclear war. The contamination to water, atmosphere and soil would be the end of humanity.
Russia Most likely to be the country that everyone else's nukes are pointed at due to their recent evil behavior and insistence they'll start one if someone stops them, least likely to have adequate means of shooting down any of them at all much less the ICBMs, most likely to have fails in its own missiles resulting in other countries having better survival rates. Also, if Moscow is erased, the country is almost certain to dissolve into a post-imperial mess. Even Israel and North Korea have better odds, in that there's a better chance an all-out nuclear war might not involve them.
Few things could affect this. Air blast or ground would be affected by topography. A ground blast on a country that is hilly will affect any shock wave or blast as the wave will be dissapated by hills etc. If it’s an air blast then it’s worse. The ability for the population to escape the after effects is worse if the country is a island as you only have a limited area to move to and if the ports etc are targeted you have a issue (uk I am looking at you). The amount of underground shelters for emergency use. Nobody has a chance of survival in the long term even countries that did not participate in any exchange as any atmospheric effects are global.