Could You Handle Fallout Conditions?

rowanherb10

rowanherb10

The Eye Destroyer
Could You Handle Post-Apocalyptic Conditions?

Yeah i'm just wondering how you would handle a nuclear war e.g mentally, physically. Of course we don't know how we'll handle the horrific conditions of a post-apocalyptic environment, but we can speculate. Discuss to your comfort.
*don't give me nightmares* :sad:
 
Last edited:
Let's look at places like Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Dresden, Cambodia, Congo, London, The Netherlands, The Osfront, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

The familiar pattern is to not be in the wrong place at the wrong time.


First things first, GTFO. If you've been nuked and aren't dead or so wounded you are immobilized, you still have the option of mobility.


It's not necessarily the worst fate that can happen to you. Being surrounded by wanton thugs that rape and pillage your town is more than likely the worst case scenario you are going to encounter.
 
I probably wouldn't be able to handle it. The isolation and total distrust that I would have to have towards other survivors would probably drive me and most other people crazy, unlike Fallout about 99% of people would be trying to backstab/kill each other over supplies, ammo, etc. and this idea of being on your toes 24/7 would be degrading.

Dopamine brought up the idea of staying mobile, but I doubt that in a real post nuclear war scenario it would be that easy. I think we take it for granted that in Fallout 1 and 2 our characters are able to traverse vast deserts that stretch on for hundreds of miles without needing water and food, so if you lived somewhere in California when this nuclear war happened and you just said "fuck it, I'm heading east" it's probably easier said than done. Even urban areas are going to be decaying and the highways will probably be littered with abandoned cars, so traversing those areas will probably be difficult as well.
 
Not really. There are still going to be large areas that are self-suffecient and unaffected by the nuclear attack. The worst-off areas are going to be large cities and towns, which will effectively be under martial law if they are not hit directly.

How large scale of an attack are we talking about here is the question.

For one to have a true "Fallout 1-2 apocalypse", so much nuclear material would have to be detonated that it's suggestible that the atmosphere itself would not be able to maintain its currency.


The thing about a nuclear apocalypse, is that it is far too quick to have any major cultural changing elements to it. Even if 90% of the United States was whipped out during a nuclear attack, the other 10% would be even more "American" than anything that came before it. The same goes for other cultures, because you have effectively rallied the underlying ideology that bound that society together, and gave it an antithesis, something to react to.


For a complete social breakdown of society, it would have to be a long term and totally penetrating apocalypse. It would have to go after not only material forms, but also the ideology and the knowledge and cultural bank of that said society.


I suggest that, if we decided to launch a nuclear attack against Afghanistan and Iraq after 2001, that both countries, and the entire region itself might be in a better position that it is currently, with even less casualties.


However, I am not advocating the use of nuclear weapons, due to the fact that we all know that tensions with other countries would increase, the idea of nuclear exchange is too terrifying and horrible to imagine, ect.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If it were real conditions after a nuclear catastrophe then expect -20'C temperatures for months (In some places years), also think about the overwhelming back-ground radiation levels produced by nuclear fallout. Society would be so f***** since the majority of people would be manically depressed, a lot of survivors family's would be dead and the edge on suicide would increase.

Also people would think about killing each-other all the time because of the scarce resources and competition, it's all based on will and forcing yourself to continue. I think reproduction is the most critical part about this since our prime instinct is to reproduce, and if the death rate is higher than birth rate... You have a problem and it's called extinction. If you don't stay mobile resources will just disappear gradually and you'll slowly lose the race against time with survival.
 
I totally dig Threads, old British movie depicting fictional thermonuclear war. Those guys caught everything very accurately - nuclear winter, broken society falling apart, diseases, slow degeneration of our knowledge and intellect due to missing education system..

rowanherb10 said:
I think reproduction is the most critical part about this since our prime instinct is to reproduce, and if the death rate is higher than birth rate... You have a problem and it's called extinction. If you don't stay mobile resources will just disappear gradually and you'll slowly lose the race against time with survival.
Click to expand...
Yup, mobility is very important for a lone survivor, but that's just a temporary solution. Soon or later all the pre-apo resources and food reserves will be depleted or depreciated and we'll need to restart agriculture at that point, which means forming small self-sufficient communities.

So that's my answer - as long as I'm in decent health and there are other survivors willing to cooperate, I'll move forward trying to help somehow.
 
In a way we'll become more intellectual because we'll be forced to find way's to survive in a sensitive/infertile land, political ideologies and moral standards would have no place in the nomadic world since the only way to survive is using pure logic here's an example: Your group of survivor's discovers that there is a smaller group of individuals (3 miles away), you find the group has no means to defend its self since there's no evidence of weaponry; you do however have firepower. Your group is starving and dehydrated and if needs are not met you will die. What will you do?
*I hope i wasn't to specific* I leave the answer to you. *Also i hope i'm not being a twat by asking...*
 
Well, those who have studied even a limited nuclear war have argued that we can expect serious climate change resulting even from a limited nuclear war, on another continent. So if the war is small- a few nuclear strike on a limited area, perhaps one could see little global change. But it doesn't seem to take a lot to start causing serious systemic challenges. A major if limited nuclear war between Pakistan and India would have serious consequences climatically. I would think a major nuclear war between Israel and Iran, would even be more dramatic, and of course Russia vs China could have huge systemic consequences. In none of these cases would the "the West" be directly impacted (except perhaps through ancillary fallout impacts on South Korean and Japan which might include in the developed, democratic West).

We live in a globalized world- and that's not just economically globalized (the financial consequences of any of the possible wars mentioned above would be significant on the global economy) by environmentally globalized. Increases in Ozone depletion, climate change conditions would, depending on the size of the war, have systemic consequences.

If we are talking about a Fallout type war, than I think there are two possibilities. Perhaps I am one of those lucky ones who has found shelter in a former mine turned fallout shelter, where there is 1 man and 10 women and our goal is to repopulate the human race. If that's the case, than I say, "Turn on the blender, grab some limes, mix some drinks, and let the party roll." If I am on the surface... well, I live next to a military base so I am probably going to put on the shades, a heavy sunscreen and expect one hell of a burn coming.

If you are living in the US, you might want to think about the following maps for nuclear targets, prevailing winds and places were you have the "best chance" to survive- http://modernsurvivalblog.com/nuclear/us-nuclear-target-map/

I should also add that much of our "apocalyptic" thinking suggests a world of violence and chaos driven by two elements (1) lawlessness and disorder and (2) scarcity. In short, this is a world that looks a bit like the poorest developing countries- Somalia for much of the last 20 years. But this might not make a lot of sense.

Let's assume however, that scarcity is less a problem- depopulation has left lots of resources abandoned, food supplies in department stores, land for agriculture, solar panels, energy resources. So the scarcity hypothesis might not fit- except for one thing- people. One needs people to survive because humans are social creatures. I would assume in a nuclear war- a lot of people suddenly dead and a lot of infrastructure devestation. But if the war is more limited nuclear but much more biological or chemical- so we have a loss of human life but not infrastructure- we may have a different level of scarcity. SO what about disorder? Well the "lawlessness" problem suggests a Hobbesian world of man at war with man- and life is "nasty, brutish and short." Except, Hobbes points out that man overcomes this through government. Given sparse populations and the need for cooperation, I think the lawlessness problem would be overcome. There is more to be gain through cooperation and trust than distrust and competition.
 
Last edited:
Welsh you're correct, i believe that there is no true anarchism and that it's impossible for people to live without a leader. The biggest or most equipped guy in the group is always the leader, take the french revolution as an example; people overtook their leaders, then were forced to take up a horrific leader after the consequences. *The french revolution was necessary, and it wasn't an nuclear catastrophe...so eh* :twitch: *There's a lot of the word "Leader" in this*

By any chance did you get that india/pakistan nuclear conflict from Nuclear Darkness? here's some radiation.
 
The biggest gripe I have with people on this topic, is the assumption that people will act lawlessly and like animals once society collapses. I'm sure some will, and if pushed, people will do what it takes to survive.

However, as a whole, people are social creatures "As stated by welsh" who value themselves in relation to other people. Even when 2 countries go to war with each other, it has been set up in a social and cultural construct to subjectively shoehorn the proposition.

No country invades another country for oil, they invade countries due to ideology, that is fueled by the oil.

Food becomes more plentiful when there are more people around, due to surplus being gathered. These people, however, require social roles that make them gather food. That is why places like Africa and India are fucked. It is not the material environment they live in "Which doesn't help with its scarcity", it is the social norm of inequality and domination that causes this food shortage.



The worse case scenario that we can go towards, is Europe during the dark ages, between 400 AD and 1100 AD. That period itself was not so "Dark" as people make it seem, but it did have its horrors. That period itself was an apocalypse. The people themselves, were living in the ruins of the former Roman Empire. There were bathhouses, temples, sewers, aquifers, middle class wealth, that all degraded but was in some ways maintained by the people of Europe.

Feudal food-based economies would dominate for a period, and education would be far far more complex than it was in the middle-ages. Those people didn't have a clue that the earth was round, ect. We would atleast have the idea and information within the landscape we exist in. The only way that would go away is if a certain society destroyed that information on purpose, and that society would be dominated by the more advanced society that embraced its advanced nature.


You also have to understand that the most powerful and influential ideology that would be present during this time period would be to change the world back to how it was before the apocalypse.

No, it would not be an easy "I can lay in bed today, browse facebook, and play with myself." paradigm like we currently live in, but it won't be ridiculous either.


I think in some ways, socializing and relating to other people would be easier because of the necessity of doing so. The idea of having children, in the typical modern western sense, would more than likely be elevated to more preferable since the "Single independent post-modern sexual person" paradigm requires the infrastructure to go about that lifestyle.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A lot of people forget about religion and how important that is in a world of cold, with religion large groups of people reside together and have something to work towards. They all believe in the same thing all using the same law/code, this is a simplistic civilization that works. But it does have some limitations. Oh, and do you think cannibalism would occur due to food shortage's?
 
Last edited:
Yes, but it would be shunned obviously.


Some freaky sex can occur out in the desert though.



Ohh god im pussy whipped.
 
Sorry. Not into pre-ops.




Hahaha. Just kidding. Of course you know, that in reality
HNNG STICK IT IN MY POOPER
 
The situation is grim.

If I somehow survived by some miracle, and the radiation or lack of supplies didn't kill me, I'd probably off myself from sheer mental breakdown and depression.

I don't think I'd handle the end of Human civilization and by extension the entire species all too well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top